Delhi High Court
Vishwa Vibhuti vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 February, 2007
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal, A Suresh
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. This writ petition challenges the order dated 25th May 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1151/2004 and the Order dated 27th January 2005 dismissing the review petition being R.A. No. 169/2004 filed against the Order dated 25th May 2004. The petitioner filed the O.A. praying for the following reliefs:
a. To quash the order dated 26.5.2003 whereby the applicant was ordered to be compulsorily retired from the service with immediate effect with 30% cut in pension otherwise admissible on a permanent basis.
2. In the same application, in the prayer clause for interim relief the petitioner prayed as under:
During the pendency of the above noted application the respondents may be directed to pay the undisputed 70% pension benefits and other retirement benefits including Gratuity, P.F., Leave encashment etc. to the applicant without prejudice to his rights for which otherwise he is entitled to.
3. The CAT while issuing notice in the said O.A. passed the following order:
11.5.2004
O.A.1151/2004
Present: Shri Y. S. Chauhan, counsel for the applicant.
By virtue of the present application, the applicant seeks to assail the penalty of compulsory retirement with 30% cut in pension on permanent basis imposed on him. After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant, the matter is admitted.
Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 25.5.2004.
4. The case of the petitioner is that on 25th May 2004, his O.A. was listed only for directions and in support of this fact he has annexed the Cause-list of the same date, and on that date the Tribunal had in fact disposed of the entire O.A. merely on the basis of the interim relief in the following terms:
Shri Justice V.S. Aggarwal:
The only relief prayed in this OA is that vide order dated 26.5.2003, 30% cut has been imposed in the pension. The applicant prays that the balance pension amount should be paid to him.
2. On instructions, learned Counsel for respondents states that since the said payment is under consideration as per the impugned order, they are willing to pay the same to the applicant.
3. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pass necessary orders in this regard in accordance with law and rules preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. The petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal has disposed of his O.A. only on the basis of interim relief without adverting to the main relief claimed by the petitioner and the O.A. was not even listed for hearing on that day. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the review petition which was disposed of by the Tribunal by its impugned order dated 27th January 2005. The operative portion of the said order dated 27th January 2005 dismissing the review petition reads as under:
7. Perusal of the order clearly shows that when the matter came up for hearing on 25.5.2004, the only relief prayed at that time was that though there was 30% cut that had been imposed, the balance pension amount should be paid to the applicant. The respondents' learned Counsel, on instructions, had started that they were willing to pay the balance amount. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to pass necessary orders in this regard within two months.
8. When the facts are disputed at the Bar, we find no reason to deviate from the order passed by this Tribunal. Keeping in view the same, we find little ground to state that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. Review application must fail and is dismissed.
6. We are of the view that the Tribunal's order in the review petition does not disclose that the pleas of the petitioner raised in the review petition were adjudicated at all. The petitioner raised the grievance that his O.A. was disposed of merely on the basis of interim relief and the cause-list of the same date shows that the matter on that date was listed only for directions. The Tribunal, in our view, did not notice the main prayer and the prayer for interim relief, and the order in review application does not display that the averments made in the review application were adverted to and dealt with. Even in the order dismissing the O.A. dated 25th May 2004 as extracted above, it is evident that the Tribunal had apparently not dealt with the prayer in the OA but merely dealt with the interim relief only and lost sight of the main prayer, i.e., prayer (a) of the OA as extracted above. This error apparent when brought to the notice of the CAT clearly warranted a review. Instead a routine order which seems to have now become a norm in disposal of review petitions has been passed. This has resulted in an unnecessary resort to Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court leading to the present writ petition.
7. The Tribunal is indeed required to deal with the issues raised in the O.A. by passing a reasoned order having applied its mind to the averments raised in O.A. The review petitions are required to be disposed of by giving reasons. The only reason given by the CAT that there was no error apparent on the face of the record is ex facie unsustainable in light of the facts noticed above.
8. Accordingly, the orders dated 25th May 2004 in O.A. No. 1151/2004 and 27th January 2005 in R.A.169/2004 passed by the CAT cannot be sustained and are set aside. The parties are required to appear before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 1st March 2007. The respondent to file reply to the O.A. within four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereon, if any be filed within four weeks thereafter. The Tribunal is directed to disposed of the O.A. not later than 31st August 2007.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of along with CM 2169/2005.
