Supreme Court of India
SHRI D.P. PATIL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 7 April 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 3 S.C.R. 676 · 1997 INSC 378
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
By Order dated August 20, 1996, we allowed the appeal of the respondent-Union of India and set aside the order of the Tribunal granting the benefit of pension to the applicant. The applicant has filed the present applications to recall the order. It is stated therein that since he was not well, could not appear on 13.8.1996 when the appeal was initially listed and intimation to that effect was given by him. The matter was thereafter listed on 20.8.1996 but he was not informed of such adjournment. Therefore, he could not be present on that date and the matter was disposed of ex parte. When the petitioner choses to appear in person, the Court is not expected to give an intimation to the parties of the date of adjournment. Once intimation is given, it is the duty of the party to make note of the subsequent dates and make himself available and appear when the case is called out. However, we took care to satisfy ourselves of the grievance of the applicant by calling upon the respondents to explain us the position.
pp. 676–677, margin G
The controversy is no longer res integra. The entitlement to the benefit of the pension was considered by this Court in Krishna Kumar v. Union of India & Ors, AIR (1990) SC 1782 - JT (1990) 3 SC 173. Following that judgment, this Court had set aside the order of the Tribunal. It is seen that the claim of the petitioner is that he did not have knowledge of the extension of the la,;t date for giving the option. It is his case that he retired in November 30, 1975 and he did not have any opportunity of knowing the extended date. That is falsified by the record. For the first time, it was extended upto January 1, 1973. It was further extended upto July 23, 1974; thereafter, upto June 25, 1975, June, 30, 1976, January 3, 1977, July 12, 1977, April 17, 1978, December 7, 1978 and the last of the extensions was till December 31, 1978. While he was in service, he had the opportunity to register the option on rhree occasions, namely on January 1, 1973, July 23, 1974 and June 1975. He did not exercise the option at that time. The option was as regards principle of gratuity. He thought that, that would be a better principle advantageous to him. He withdrew the retiral benefits. Later, when the pension scheme was sought to be given to several persons, he came forward at a belated stage saying that he was not in know of extension till 1991. When others were given benefit by the Tribunal, he came to file the petition. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is hard to believe that he had no notice of exercising the option for the pensionary benefit. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by this Court for recalling the order.
p. 677, margin C
The interlocutory application is, accordingly dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Petition dismissed.
p. 677, margin G