AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—The Controller and Auditor General of India being aggrieved by the order dt. 5.7.2007 made in O.A. No. 296/06 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, preferred this Writ Petition wherein the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Petitioners herein to consider the case of Respondents-1 and 2 and to take decision within a period of 4 months.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Respondents 1 and 2 approached Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the orders dated 19-4-2005 and 28-9-2005 passed by the second Petitioner inter alia contending that they were initially appointed in the office of the Accountant General on 16-5-1977 and 10-5-1974 respectively. Subsequently, the first, Respondent got permanently absorbed in Aeronautical Department Agency, Bangalore on 22-5-1988. Subsequently, he resigned for his job in the Accountant General. The second Respondent was permanently absorbed in CFTRI on 30-10-1987, he also resigned for his earlier post. They made separate representations to the Petitioners for grant of Dearness relief due on commuted pension in respect of the Government Servant who had drawn lumpsum amount on their absorption in a public sector undertaking. The said representations were rejected by the Petitioners as per order dated 19-4-2005 and 28-9-2005.
The Respondents being aggrieved by the orders dated 19-4-2005 and 28-9-2005 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Branch, Bangalore challenging the same on various grounds contending that no reasons have been assigned for rejecting their representation and to extend the benefit of Official Memorandum dated 2-7-1999. The Central Administrative Tribunal after hearing the parties found that no reasons has been assigned for denying the benefit under the Official Memorandum dated 2-7-1999. Accordingly, by its order impugned dated 5-7-2007 quashed the orders dated 19-4-2005 and 28-9-2005 and directed the Petitioners herein to consider the claim of the Respondents for grant of Dearness relief on full pension in accordance with Rule 55-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, within a period of four months. The Petitioners herein being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal has filed this appeal.
Sri. M. Vasudeva Rao, advocate appearing for the Petitioners contended that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is contrary to law. As per Rules, they are not entitled for grant of Dearness relief on full pension as per the Official Memorandum dated 2-7-1999 and sought for setting aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by allowing this petition.
Sri. S. Sridhara, advocate appearing for the Respondents argued in support of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the parties and perused the orders impugned in the above writ petition.
The direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal is only to consider the case of the Respondents in accordance with the CCS (Pension) Rules. The Tribunal found that the second Petitioner has denied the benefit of Official Memorandum dated 2-7-1999 to the Respondents 1 and 2, without assigning reasons and without expressing any opinion on the merit, issued directions to the Petitioners herein to consider the case of the Respondents. It is open to the Petitioners to consider the same in accordance with the provisions of Rule 55-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, as clarified by the Government of India in Official Memorandum dated 2-7-1999 in accordance with law.
We find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the Petitioners herein to consider the case of Respondents land 2 and to take appropriate decision on the representations given by them in accordance with law.