IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 3130 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.889/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- V.MONY, S/O.KOCHU PILLAI, AGED 60 YEARS, RTD.GDSMD, BALARAMAPURAM, RESIDING AT MANIRAJ BHAVAN VENNIYOOR,VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 523. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.SURAJ.S SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SMT.VINEETHA B. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL SRI.ANISH JAIN SMT.SARITHA NANDANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SENIOR SUPERIINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION 695 014. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, KERALA CIRCLE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014. 3. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, NEW DELHI 110 001. GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.M.R.SABU. ADV.T.SANJAY FOR CENTRAL GOVT. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C.A.T) NO.3130/2011 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE O.A.NO.889/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE HON'BLE C.A.T. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.889/2009 OF THE HON'BLE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH DT.31.5.2011. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ O.P.(CAT).No.3130 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. W.P.(C) is filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal declining retrospectivity to the appointment given to the petitioner, who served the Postal Department as a GDS (MD), but retired without acquiring minimum period of service entitling for pension. The petitioner's case is that eventhough he was appointed vide Ext.P1 order with effect from 17.10.2000 he should have been appointed with effect from 1996, as according to the petitioner vacancy existed from 1996 onwards. The C.A.T. rejected the contention saying that the claim itself is belated and pension is for actual service and not for notional service. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the C.A.T. O.P.(CAT) is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/29/9