Full Text
Date of Decision: 17th February 2020
PRAKASH VEER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Amitara Poddar, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
C.M. No.1289/2020 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.477/2020
1. The present petition is directed against order dated 01.05.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short).
2. Counsel for respondents enters appearance.
3. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of 2020:DHC:1124-DB this writ petition at the admission stage itself are, that the father of the petitioner died on 01.12.2004 having superannuated on 31.03.1995 after serving as Coach Attendant/Passenger Attendant Grade-I. The mother of the petitioner also died in 2011. The petitioner, who is the son of the deceased employee approached the Tribunal in the year 2017 seeking arrears of his deceased father's pay w.e.f. 1960 to 31.03.1995; and pension from 01.04.1995 to 01.12.2004; and mother's family pension from 01.12.2004 to 30.03.2011.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the All India Shramik & Coach Attendants Association had assailed order dated 24.11.1998 of the Tribunal by which the relief sought was that despite performing the duties of Passenger/Coach Attendant Grade-I, its members were being treated as Class-IV/Group-D employees. It is contended that writ petition was allowed on 07.02.2008; whereafter a contempt petition was filed which remained pending till 17.04.2017. He further relies on several orders passed in Contempt Case No.311/2009 for non-compliance of order dated 07.02.2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father would be entitled to the relief granted in the petition by the Association; and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the arrears claimed.
5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the present petition is barred by limitation. He further submits that neither the petitioner's deceased father had claimed any of the reliefs sought by the petitioner during his lifetime; nor such relief was claimed by the petitioner's deceased mother. He further submits that father of the petitioner was not part of the Association which had approached the Tribunal; and therefore was in any case not entitled to the relief claimed in the Association's petition.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions.
7. The O.A. filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Tribunal primarily on the ground that the claim of the petitioner cannot be verified in the absence of any service record of the petitioner's father, who retired as far back as on 31.03.1995, since in terms of circular dated 16.07.1962, the father's service record was maintained for 15 years and destroyed in 2010.
8. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner's father died in the year 2004; and during his lifetime had not claimed any relief which his son is now claiming; nor was such relief claimed by the father's widow and the petitioner has approached the Tribunal only in the year 2017, in our view the Tribunal has rightly opined that being a fence-sitter the deceased father could not have claimed benefit of the judgment in the Association's case. Reliance was also placed on State of Karnataka vs. S.M. Kotrayya (1996) 6 SCC 267.
9. In this view of the matter, the question of the petitioner claiming any relief does not arise. Accordingly we find no infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal; and also no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. G.S.SISTANI, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. FEBRUARY 17, 2020 Ne