Telangana High Court
Union Of India vs A. Nageshwar Rao on 11 June, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.12531 of 2019
ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.1106 of 2017, dated 29.11.2018.
2. Heard learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for petitioners and Sri Boya Gurudas, learned counsel appearing for respondent.
3. It has been contended by the petitioners that the respondent worked as Postal Assistant and that he retired compulsorily w.e.f. 03.06.1992 consequent upon initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. It is further contended that respondent, in all, has rendered 27 years of service with the Department; and that his claim for VI Central Pay AKS,J & LNA,J W.P.No.12531 of 2019 2 Commission benefits was examined and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 20.10.2016.
4. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the respondent had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Branch at Hyderabad (for short, 'CAT') by filing O.A.No.1106 of 2017 and the CAT, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners, was pleased to allow the said O.A. vide Order, dated 29.11.2018 and directed the petitioners to sanction similar benefits to the respondent as it was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.640 of 2014 & Batch, dated 31.07.2015, which was confirmed by the High Court of Kerala in OP(CAT) No.108 of 2016, dated 26.05.2016.
5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for petitioners had contended that respondent was compulsorily retired on 03.06.1992 consequent to disciplinary proceedings and after nearly 25 years, the respondent had approached the CAT and as such, the CAT ought to have dismissed the O.A., AKS,J & LNA,J W.P.No.12531 of 2019 3 on the ground of delay and latches and therefore, prayed to pass appropriate orders in the writ petition by setting aside the order of the CAT in O.A.No.1106 of 2017, dated 29.11.2018.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent had contended that consequent upon the recommendations of VI Central Pay Commission, the respondent is entitled for revision of his pension in accordance with the said Pay Commission and the said issue was already adjudicated by the Ernakulam Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.640 of 2014, dated 31.07.2015, and the same was also confirmed by the High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No.108 of 2016, dated 26.05.2016. Therefore, the CAT was justified in allowing the O.A.No.1106 of 2017 in favour of the respondent. He further contended that this Court has not suspended the impugned order of the CAT and therefore, interfering with the orders of the CAT at this point of time may not be feasible AKS,J & LNA,J W.P.No.12531 of 2019 4 and therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.640 of 2014 & Batch dated 31.07.2015, which was confirmed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by judgment dated 26.05.2016 in OP(CAT) No.108 of 2016. Therefore, the CAT was justified in allowing O.A.No.1106 of 2017, dated 29.11.2018 in favour of the respondent by following judgment of Ernakulam Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 31.07.2015.
8. Perusal of the record further discloses that respondent was aged about 72 years in the year, 2017 i.e., when O.A. was filed and now, we are in the year 2024, the respondent must be aged about 79 years. This Court has also not suspended AKS,J & LNA,J W.P.No.12531 of 2019 5 the operation of the impugned order of the CAT, which would mean that orders of the CAT must have worked out itself on its own. Therefore, at this point of time, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the CAT in O.A.No.1106 of 2017, dated 29.11.2018 and therefore, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY ,J Date: 11.06.2024 KKM