THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.35421 of 2014 Between:
The Indian Federation of Port and Dock Workers Rep. by its General Secretary K. Prabhakar PETITIONER AND 1. Ministry of Transport Department, rep. by its Secretary to Government of India, New Delhi, and another.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in ignoring the guidelines of the Ministry vide letter dated 5.04.1999 and not to introduce any new methodology to the pensioners, which is creating anomalies between the petitioners and in-service employees and the employees retired after 01.01.2012, and fixing of minimum pension, which will affect the rights of the pensioners, which is illegal and arbitrary.
It is submitted by the petitioner that basing on the orders of the IV pay Commission, consolidation of pension was introduced for the Central Government Employees, which was extended to the port and dock pensioners in the past along with the wage revision. It is further submitted that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17.12.1982, there cannot be two classes of pensioners and basing on the said judgment consolidation of pension of past pensioners has to be done to bring equity and fairness, and eliminate the discrimination between pre retirees i.e., 01.01.2012 and post retirees i.e., 01.01.2012. Therefore the contention of the petitioner is that new methodology can not be introduced ignoring the guidelines of the Ministry dated 5.04.1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has made a representation dated 01.11.2014 to the 1st respondent in this regard, so far no decision has been taken by the 1st respondent. Hence the present writ petition.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 01.11.2014 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law governing the field of fixation of pension, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that in the event of the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is at liberty to question the said order in a separate writ petition.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
R. KANTHA RAO, J.
1st December, 2014 Js.