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
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
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
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
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
