Union Of India Thru' General ... vs Central Administrative Tribunal ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1678 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26552 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru' General Manager N.Rly.
 
Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Roy,A. Banerji,A.K.Gaur
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,A.A. Kazmi
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard Sri A.K.Gaur, Advocate assisted by Sri A.Banerji, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Sri A.A.Kazmi, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.2.

This petition is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 7th December 2001, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the original application and directed that the respondent no.2 shall be  provided proforma seniority as Assistant Signal and Telecommunication Engineer Group-B, along with successful candidates of 1977-78 selection, with the condition that he would not be entitled to monetary benefits, but his pension shall be fixed accordingly, and he shall not be paid arrears in that regard.

Counsel for the petitioner raised an objection that the judgment of the Tribunal proceeds upon facts not pleaded in the original application, and  is otherwise beyond the case set up and relief sought in the original application.

Counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that what has been recorded in paragraph-4 of the judgment is not on the basis of case pleaded in the original application, for the relief, and the Tribunal has completely failed to consider the case, as was set up by the petitioner, in counter affidavit. However, he supports the final order, which has been passed on the basis of the material, which was before the Tribunal.

In our opinion, the Tribunal has to examine the case of the party as pleaded, and it must confine its findings with reference to what has been stated in the original application, the counter affidavit filed, if any, and on the basis of record produced before it as also the rejoinder affidavit only and not beyond it.

In view of the case of both the parties that the finding recorded in pargraph-4 of the order of Tribunal is based on something, which was not the case pleaded by the original applicant, the order of the Tribunal cannot be legally sustained and is hereby set aside. The original application is restored to its original number. All objections raised on behalf of the petitioner including the plea of limitation are left open to be examined afresh.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

Let the Tribunal decide the original application preferably within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 7.8.2015

Ashish Pd.