Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 514 (JHR)

Peter v. John VS Union of India

2017-03-16

H.C.MISHRA, S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are husband and wife and at the relevant time, they were the employees of the subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. They opted for the V.R.S. benefits floated by the Company and they were given the admissible V.R.S. benefits. Thereafter, the petitioners claimed pension and other benefits which were payable to Central Govt. Employees and when the claim was made, it was found that the petitioners were claiming the benefits of both, i.e., the employees of the Company as well as the Central Government employees, and accordingly, the orders giving V.R.S. benefits to the petitioners were recalled by the respondents. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners moved Hon'ble Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 10042 of 2002 (U), which was adjudicated by the Judgment dated 26.10.2009, a copy whereof has been brought on record as Annex. 8 to the writ application. The stand of the respondents before the Kerala High Court was that, at best the petitioners could claim benefits available either to the Central Government employees or to the Company employees and the petitioners could not claim the benefits available to both. The Judgment passed by the Kerala High Court shows that realizing this difficulty, the counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from the petitioners, submitted that petitioners shall be contended with the V.R.S benefits that were already received by them from the respondent Company, and they shall not be pursuing their claim for pension or any other benefits, which were admissible to the Central Govt. Employees. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in its Judgment dated 26.10.2009 passed in O.P. No. 10042 of 2002 (U), and on the basis of said submission the impugned withdrawal of the V.R.S. benefits were directed to stand recalled. It was also directed that if the petitioners had any other claim from the Company, it would be open for the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievances from the respondent Company. 4. In spite of the aforesaid Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, the petitioners again started making claim for the pension and other benefits as applicable to Central Govt. employees and they moved before the Respondent No. 2, the Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India, Dhanbad, for the same. 4. In spite of the aforesaid Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, the petitioners again started making claim for the pension and other benefits as applicable to Central Govt. employees and they moved before the Respondent No. 2, the Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India, Dhanbad, for the same. The claim of the petitioners was again rejected by order dated 17/20.03.2012, as contained in Annex. 9 to the writ application, stating that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court had already given the Judgment against the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners could not be given any further relief. 5. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, in O.A. No. 71 of 2013, which also, by the impugned order dated 15.10.2015, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners, being barred by res judicata, as the claims of the petitioners had already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are pursuing their fundamental right to get the pension and other benefits, and accordingly, the plea of res judicata shall not come in their way, even if their claim was rejected by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. 7. From the order passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, we find that it is not the case that the petitioners have been denied all the admissible benefits. The petitioners opted for the V.R.S. benefits as applicable to the employees of the respondent Company, and that was given to them. The petitioners again claimed the pensionary benefits as available to the Central Govt. employees, and before the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, upon the instructions of the petitioners, it was submitted that they are satisfied with the benefits of V.R.S already received by them and they were not pursuing their claim for pension or any other benefits as available to the Central Govt. employees, and the Judgment was accordingly, passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. 8. We do not see any reason to go behind the Judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, nor can we do that. 9. There is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed in limine.