Delhi High Court
Chairman, Central Board Of Direct ... vs Shiva Nandan Prasad & Anr. on 19 July, 2016
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Dated: 19th July, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 392/2015 and C.M.No.645/2015
CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, & ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate.
versus
SHIVA NANDAN PRASAD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.K.Gupta, Advocate for R-1.
Mr.Ajay Kalra for Mr.Sanjeev Narula,
CGSC for UOI/R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 11 th March, 2014
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in M.A.No.2655/2012 in a
disposed of O.A.No.2888/2010. The petitioners are aggrieved by paragraph-
5 of this order, which is reproduced below, by which directions were issued
to the respondents (petitioners herein) to ensure that all consequential
benefits arising out of the order dated 18th November, 2013 [order under
Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] be extended to the applicant
(respondent No.1 herein) at the earliest but in any case within a period of one
month.
"5. In view of the above position, we are of the considered view that
the respondents have substantially complied with the aforesaid order
of this Tribunal dated 28.6.2011. But the Applicant is also entitled
for the consequential benefits. Therefore, the objections raised by
the learned counsel for the respondents are irrelevant. Accordingly,
the respondents are directed to ensure that all the consequential
benefits arising out of their aforesaid order dated 18.11.2013 shall
be extended to the applicant at the earliest but in any case within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this Order."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal
has exceeded its jurisdiction while entertaining an M.A. after the disposal of
the O.A. on 26th August, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the learned Tribunal did not take into account the fact that after
the charge sheet issued against the respondent No.1, subject matter of
O.A.No.2888/2010, having been quashed on technical grounds; further two
charge sheets have been issued against the respondent No.1, which the
petitioners claim are in continuation of the first charge sheet. It is contended
that the first charge sheet was quashed only on the ground that the first
charge sheet was issued against the respondent No.1 without getting
approval of the competent Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Finance
Minister.
3. This legal position, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, stands
confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.
B.V.Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal inasmuch as
once the charge sheet had been quashed, the sealed cover had to be opened
and the legal consequences were bound to be followed. He further submits
that as on the date of the passing of the order dated 11th March, 2014, there
was no charge sheet in existence and hence the consequential benefits should
have been awarded to the respondent No.1.
5. At this stage, we are also informed that a separate O.A. has been filed
by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal being O.A.No.4471/2015 wherein a
prayer has been made for release of pensionary benefits.
6. We dispose of this writ petition with a clarification to paragraph-5 of
the order dated 11th March, 2014. We clarify that the department would
release all consequential benefits to the respondent No.1 in accordance with
law and should the respondent have any legal objections they would pass a
speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this
order to enable the respondents to take recourse to the legal remedies as
available to them in law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case as to whether the respondent is liable to
receive the consequential benefits or the petitioners are empowered to
withhold the same.
G.S.SISTANI
(JUDGE)
I.S.MEHTA
(JUDGE)
JULY 19, 2016
„dc‟
