IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 1552 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- AGAINST ORDER IN OA.479/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------------ 1. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION, BSNL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, KOLLAM SSA, KOLLAM. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TELEGRAPH, SASTHAMKOTTA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC, BSNL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOWRIKUTTY AMMA, D/O LATE GOPALAN NAIR, RETD. TELECOM MECHANIC, RESIDING AT 'UTHRAM', ANAYADI P.O., SOORNAD NORTH, KOLLAM, PIN - 690 522. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPTESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R2 SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ FOR R1 SRI.P.A.KUMARAN FOR R1 SRI.SURAJ.S FOR R1 SMT.VINEETHA B. FOR R1 SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR FOR R1 SRI.ANISH JAIN FOR R1 SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL FOR R1 SMT.SARITHA NANDANAN FOR R1 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(CAT) NO.1552/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF O.A.NO.479/2009 FILED BY R1 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM DATED 09/07/2009. P2 : COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 13/08/2009. P3 : COPY OF RE-JOINDER DATED 11/11/2009 FILED BY R1. P4 : COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.12011/1/85-ESTT DATED 10/03/1986 ALONG WITH A MEMO DATED 08/12 SUBMITTED BY R1. P5 : COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 15/12/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. P6 : COPY OF ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.NO.479/2009 DATED 27/01/2011. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... OP(CAT) No.1552 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This OP(CAT) is filed by the BSNL challenging the order issued by the CAT directing payment of minimum pension to the 1st respondent. 2. We have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the BSNL and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 3. The 1st respondent was employed as Casual Mazdoor by the BSNL from 1981 onwards. From 01/08/1993 to 01/08/1994 she was employed as Full Time Mazdoor and was made to work 5 hours in one Exchange and 3 hours in another Exchange on every day. By virtue of the one year full time work as Mazdoor the 1st respondent was given temporary status on 01/08/1994 and she was made a permanent staff on 01/04/1996. She retired from service on 31/01/2005 with a regular service of 8 years and 10 months, and with a OP(CAT) No.1552/2011 2 temporary service of 20 months, 50% of which was counted for pension. While the minimum service for eligibility for pension is 10 years, the 1st respondent had only 9 years and 8 months' service and consequently, she was found ineligible for minimum pension. In the petition filed before the CAT, the 1st respondent relied on Ext.P4 order issued by the Government, which provides for counting of 50% service as a contingent employee also for the purpose of pension. The 1st respondent's counsel submitted that the 1st respondent's service from August, 1993 to August, 1994 was as full time contingent and if 50% i.e. 6 months is reckoned she will have more than 10 years service entitling her for pension. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the BSNL referred to the conditions in Ext.P4 and submitted that the respondent's service cannot be considered for pension because she was not posted as a contingent employee in a sanctioned post and there were no vacancy. We do not know if there is no sanctioned post or vacancy why she was employed as a contingent in the Telephone Exchanges. The fact that she was OP(CAT) No.1552/2011 3 engaged in two Telephone Exchanges on shift basis itself indicates that her employment was required by the BSNL in the Telephone Exchanges. In any case, we do not find there is any necessity for us to consider the applicability of Ext.P4 to the 1st respondent because Rule 88 confers powers on the Government to relax the rigor of the Pension Rules to prevent injustice to anybody. This is a case where a lady who has been working in the BSNL in various capacities from 1981 to 2005 is declined pension for shortage of service by 4 months. In our view, what the Tribunal has done i.e. directing the petitioners to give pension, could be justified under Rule 88 of the CCS Pension Rules. Consequently, this OP(CAT) fails and is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg The words “ie. directing the petitioners to give pension,” OP(CAT) No.1552/2011 4 occurring in the last sentence of paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 27.7.2011 in O.P.(C.A.T.) No.1552/2011 are struck off as per order dated 10.12.2012 in R.P. No.973/2012 in O.P. (C.A.T.)No.1552/2011. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)