- (1.) By this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit Court at Ranchi) in O.A. No. 49/09 whereby the Tribunal disallowed the prayer of the petitioner for payment of arrears as well as current pension.
(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: In the year 1986, the petitioner was appointed as EDA in the Branch Post Office in the district of Giridih. According to the petitioner he became entitled and eligible for promotion to Group D cadre mail peon in the year 1990, but the promotion matter was kept pending by the respondents and did not conduct D.P.C. However, petitioner was promoted to Group D cadre by the D.P.C. held on 28.6.96. Petitioners case is that the promotion matter was kept in abeyance by the respondents as a result several persons who were junior to the petitioner were considered for promotion much earlier than the petitioner. Petitioner ultimately superannuated after completing 9 years 8 months as mail peon. Had the petitioner been promoted with effect from 1990, he would have completed more than 15 years of service in the cadre of mail peon. After superannuation, when the petitioner was not paid pension he moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal for proper relief. The Tribunal dismissed the application without assigning any reasons by the impugned order.
(3.) From perusal of the order, it appears that the Tribunal has not discussed the relevant policy of government and without fully appreciating the facts of the case dismissed the application. For better appreciation the order dated 9.9.2009 passed by the Tribunal is quoted herein below : Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking reliefs (i) payment of arrears of pension since March, 2006 and {ii} payment of current pension. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed as EDA in the Branch Post Office, Barmashia, District-Giridih in the year 1986. Thereafter, he was discharged from his duty. His further case is that the applicant was eligible for promotion to Group D cadre mail peon in the year 1990 itself, but he was given the said promotion with effect from 28.6.96, instead of the year 1990. The polity of the government was to compensate the loss suffered by the applicant for the reason that his promotion to which he was entitled in the year 1990 was kept in abeyance. This was done only to defeat his claim for pension as on account of the delayed promotion to Group D his service fell short of 8 months for promotion. Hence, the OA has been filed. No written statement has been filed though ample opportunity was given to the respondents to file the same. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents, however, is that the applicant was appointed as EDAs only and there is no provision of pension for EDAs. In view of the submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the case of the applicant to allow the reliefs as sought for. Accordingly, this OA is dismissed being devoid of any merit.;