Sri C. Gopal vs The Union of India and Others

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A. No. 307/2007 (M.A. No. 267/2007) dated 27.4.2010 is called in question in this writ petition. Sri A.J. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the prayer of the petitioner in respect of fixing the basic pay element of running allowance at 40% (instead of 30% paid) is met by the respondents substantially, according to him, the difference of the monitory benefits in respect of CCA, HRA etc., are not satisfied by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the monitory reliefs such as difference of pay, pensionary benefits etc., are already provided to the petitioner, however, the difference of pay in respect of CCA, HRA etc., are not provided to him. In that V'' regard, the petitioner approached the tribunal in O.A. No. 307/2007 which came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner''s claim is already satisfied by the respondents.

Sri A.J. Srinivasan, learned counsel before this Court submits that the specific prayer is not made before the tribunal, clarifying as to under what head the monitory benefits are not provided to the petitioner as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah dated 25.7.1997 and the same has led to confusion. Thus, he prays that he may be permitted to file one more representation before the respondents specifying his claim. He further submits that in case, if the claim of the petitioner to be met is not satisfied by the respondents, he may be permitted to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, once again.

The said submission is accepted. If the petitioner has not really received the monitory benefits to which he is entitled to as per the order of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board vs. C.R. Rangadamaiah dated 25.7.1992, he should not be denied. Ultimately, it is for the respondents to verify the records once again and come to the conclusion. If the entire claim of the petitioner is already satisfied, there is no question of re-opening the matter. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, interest of justice would be met if one more opportunity is given to the petitioner to make a representation. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the concerned authority specifying as to under what head, he is entitled to the monitory benefits flowing from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.R. Rangadamaiah. If such a representation is made by the petitioner within three months from this date, the same shall/be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law and on merits and intimate the result thereof to the petitioner. In case if the petitioner is still not satisfied with the reply of the respondents, it is open for him to seek action as per law.