Dismissed

Union of India and 04 Others v. Hari Ram and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2018WRIA/9712/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition challenging a C.A.T. order directing payment of full retirement dues to an employee. The Court held the Tribunal correctly relied on its final precedent, Chandi Lal, as the facts were similar.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition assailing the C.A.T. order directing payment of retirement dues was dismissed for lack of merit.

Union of India and 04 Others Vs Hari Ram… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9712 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Union Of India And 04 Others Respondent :- Hari Ram And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Union of India assailing judgement and order dated 20.12.2017 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No. 1156 of 2012 (Hari Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors.) directing petitioner to pay entire retiral dues to applicant-respondent Hari Ram taking into account his entire service from the date he got temporary status following earlier judgements rendered by Tribunal in O.A. No. 917 of 2004 - Chandi Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 02.09.2005 and O.A. No. 1626 of 2005 Shyam Lal Shukla Vs. Union of India and Others decided on 28.07.2009.

¶7

It is not in dispute that against judgement passed by Tribunal in Chandi Lal (Supra), Union of India and its authorities filed Writ Petition No. 11297 of 2006, which was dismissed on 02.03.2007 and thereafter SLP (Civil) 2008 CC 3248 of 2008 filed before Supreme Court was also dismissed on 03.03.2008.

¶8

In these circumstances, Tribunal has followed its earlier judgement in Chandi Lal (Supra) since the same has attained finality and facts of present case are similar to that of Chandi Lal (Supra).

¶9

When confronted, learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute that facts of this case are similar to that of Chandi Lal (Supra) and in absence of any substantial difference between the facts of two cases, it cannot be said that Tribunal has erred in law in following earlier judgement rendered in Chandi Lal (Supra), which has attained finality upto Supreme Court.

¶10

We do not find any reason to take a different view in matter and it cannot be said that there is any manifest error in the judgement of Tribunal.

¶11

Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.4.2018 S.K.

Union of India and 04 Others v. Hari Ram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and 04 Others v. Hari Ram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Naresh Soni Vs Union of India and 03 Others

Atul Tiwari Vs State of U.P.and Others

Union of India Thru Its Secy and Ors. Vs Surendra Singh Yadav and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Thru Principal Secretary and Ors.

Union of India Thru Its Secy and Others Vs Nanhoo Singh and Another

Shri Prakash Namdev and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others