M.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PANICKER v. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE, ACCOUNTS (PENSION), DRAUPADI
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 11 Jan 2024
- Bench
- A MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The discharge certificate clearly shows that he has 10 years and 5 months of service. The petitioner’s first appointment date, pay scale and total service was also recorded in the discharge certificate. The acknowledgment of continuous service in the discharge certificate clearly shows that…
Judgment
the relief. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned CGC.
There is no dispute to the fact that the discharge certificate is genuine. The discharge certificate states that the petitioner has more than 10 OP (CAT) NO. 27 OF 2023 4 years and 5 months of service, i.e., the qualifying service claimed for minimum pension. The problem in this case is that the respondent is neither able to admit the claim nor able to contradict the claim for want of records. The respondent destroyed the entire records in the year 2016.
According to the learned CGC, it is not discernible from the discharge certificate that whether he was a regular employee or adhoc employee eligible for minimum pension. It is also submitted that, it is not discernible from the discharge certificate that whether the petitioner has any breaking service.
The discharge certificate clearly shows that he has 10 years and 5 months of service. The petitioner’s first appointment date, pay scale and total service was also recorded in the discharge certificate. The acknowledgment of continuous service in the discharge certificate clearly shows that the petitioner was regularly engaged in service till his service was OP (CAT) NO. 27 OF 2023 5 terminated. It may be true that there is no other supporting document or other service record kept by the respondent as they have destroyed all the documents. When records do not speak against any dis-entitlement, the Court should be lean to accept such claims for pension. There are materials on record, which would clearly establish the case of a qualifying service to draw minimum pension. The Court should allow the petition for minimum pension rather than dismissing his claim for want of other records. It may be true that the entire claim for arrears of pension cannot be granted in such matter.
In that sense, the long period cannot be put to advantage of those who approached the Tribunal for minimum pension belatedly. In such circumstances, the relief that can be granted to such employee can be restricted prior to 3 years on filing the original application. The original application was filed in March 2019. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. However, the petitioner’s claim for pension OP (CAT) NO. 27 OF 2023 6 shall be restricted for a period of three years prior to filing the original application before the Tribunal. Needful shall be done to clear the arrears within a period of three months. The impugned order is set aside and the original petition is allowed. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE RK OP (CAT) NO. 27 OF 2023 7 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 27/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 Annexure A2 Annexure A3 Annexure A4 Annexure A5 Annexure A6 Annexure A7 Annexure A8 Annexure R1 Annexure R2 Annexure R3 Annexure R4 Annexure MA 1 Annexure A-1 Annexure A-2 Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP CERTIFICATE TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 30.4.1985 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.01163/LB/85 DT:3.5.1985 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ON 17.12.2017 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DT: 5.6.2018 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT:4.6.2018 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 0926/ PENCELL/ GENL/2018 DT:24.10.2018 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.38/37/08-P&PW(A) DT:6.4.2016 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD, KOLKATA LETTER NO.048/MOD/JUL/2018 /HVF/PER/GRV DT:05.10.2018 TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT LETTER NO.0926/PENCELL /GENL/201824.10.2018 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT LETTER NO.0926/ PENCELL/ PSU/CP DT:10.06.2019 TRUE COPY OF THE HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LIMITED LETTER NO.HNL/HR&ED/ESTATE/1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN QPCAT 41 /2021 DATED 1/10/2021 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 0926/PENCELL/06/82/MPCP DATED 16/12/2021 ISSUED BY 2ND APPLICANT/RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO. 164/2019 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH OP (CAT) NO. 27 OF 2023 8 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 Exhibit P10 Exhibit P11 Exhibit P12 Exhibit P13 Exhibit P14 Exhibit P15 Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT TO REJOINDER TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT TO ADDITIONAL REJOINDER TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT:9.4.2021 IN OA.NO.164/2019 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT:1.10.2021 IN OP(CAT) NO.41/2021 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.804/2021 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPLICANT WAS FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON 19.11.2021 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT:14.3.2022 FILED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT /RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 9.7.2022 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT:18.10.2022 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT:6.1.2023 IN OA NO.164/2019
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.