The Union Of India vs. M. Kumari
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Fixed Date by Court
Before:
Hon'ble Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Manoj Misra
Stage:
FRESH (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
Stay/Status quo [as per rop], IA Allowed [24009/2023,53050/2023]
Listed On:
17 Mar 2023
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 2146/2023
(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 04-02-2022 in IA No. 2/2021 in Writ Petition No. 4332/2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi)
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioners
VERSUS
M. KUMARI Respondent
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.24009/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.24010/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 53050/2023-APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF PETITION)
Date : 17-03-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
- For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhvi Divan, Ld. A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Akshit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Heard Ms. Madhvi Divan, the learned ASG appearing for the
petitioners.
The I.A. No. 53050 of 2023, which would enable the petitioners to challenge the main order of the High Court dated 23.02.2021 in Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2023.03.20 17:33:44 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
Writ Petition No. 4332 of 2021, stands allowed.
The learned ASG would refer to the OM No. F.No. 1/17/2011- P&PW(E) dated 24/25.06.2013 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare which says that the benefit of a pension can be granted only on the strength of the police report. Here the police report was filed on 15.11.2015 and therefore it is contended that the High Court as well as the Central Administrative Tribunal should not have ordered, firstly, the pension from the year 2000 onwards and thereafter, the family pension since the year 2007.
The above would indicate that the petitioners are contesting the payable of pension and family pension prior to 15.11.2015 i.e., the date of police report and not for the period subsequent to the police report.
In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to make payment to the first respondent, who is the wife of the missing employee, in terms of the stand taken by them in this Special Leave Petition. After the arrear amount is disbursed, the matter be listed on mentioning by the petitioners.
In the meantime, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad should not proceed with Contempt Petition No. 45 of 2021 in O.A. No. 757 of 2019.
(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
2