IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4212 of 2007(S) ------------------------------------- [OA.NO.958/2003 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- T.P.ASSAN KOYA, S/O.T.P.MOIDEEN, RETIRED CATERING SUPERVISOR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, RESIDING AT NO.1753-D, P.K. & SONS, CHELAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 571. BY ADVS. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN, SRI. M.P. VARKEY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL NILAYAM, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-600 003. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014. BY SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST. S.G, SMT.A.RAJESWARI, SC, RAILWAYS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4212/2007-S: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 958/2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A. NO. 958/2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/09/2005 IN O.A. NO. 958/03. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 15/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/12/2005 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 15/2005 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 958/2003. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. V/VO/T/FR/83/99 (PL) DTD. 09/08/06 ISSUED BY THE R.4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.4212 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The writ petitioner challenged disciplinary proceedings. The Central Administrative Tribunal issued Ext.P3 final order finding that those disciplinary proceedings were vitiated in as much as the disciplinary authority did not follow Rule 10 of the Railway Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and also that the appellate authority and the revisional authority failed to follow the relevant rules. The case was accordingly remitted for de novo consideration by the disciplinary authority. In the mean while, the petitioner had became a pensioner. He, therefore, sought review of the final order. Taking all relevant facts and circumstances into account, the Tribunal issued Ext.P5 recalling its Ext.P3 order. The establishment was directed to issue retiral benefits in the light WPC.4212/07 2 of the directions in Ext.P5 order. In effect, the Tribunal had ordered restoration of the pay of the petitioner to what it was prior to 10 months of his retirement. Fixation of pay and pensionary benefits were ordered to be done on such basis notionally in the appropriate stage and grade. 2.The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the Tribunal having shown the grace of directing restoration of pay prior to 10 months of his retirement and ordering fixation of his pay and pensionary benefits, has acted unjustly in taking off the entitlement of the petitioner to arrears of pay till retirement. Advertence to paragraph 10 of the impugned Ext.P5 order categorically shows that the establishment was directed to restore the applicant's pay prior to 10 months of his retirement and fix his pay and pensionary benefits notionally in the appropriate stage and grade on the specific condition that he is not entitled to any arrear till his retirement. The said order was issued to ensure that the pensionary benefits could not be curtailed due to combination WPC.4212/07 3 of two penalties. The Tribunal never found the applicant to be wholly innocent of the charges but only held that in terms of the relevant rules as they stand at the relevant point of time, the applicant having already suffered a particular punishment before his retirement, would have to be necessarily protected from any further disciplinary proceedings. In the said view of the matter, the decision of the Tribunal that the applicant will not be entitled to any arrear of pay till retirement cannot be criticized as illegal or unjust. For the said reason, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the orders sought to be challenged. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.18/03.