Court dismissed writ petition challenging Central Administrative Tribunal declining to consider pay of deputed post for pension calculation, citing delay and merits against petitioner.
No relief granted as Tribunal order upholds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1979 OF 2003
Raghunath D. Pradhan Petitioner.
Vs. The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents.
Ms. Nandini Menon for the petitioner. Mr. D.A. Dubey for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Khanjode i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for respondent No.4.
CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J.& DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
21st December, 2004.
P.C. :
The Central Administrative Tribunal was, in our view, justified
in dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner, both on the ground of delay and on merits. In so far as the merits are concerned, the Petitioner retired from the Department of Civil Aviation on 30th April, 1974. He was on deputation with the International Airports Authority of India from 15th August, 1972. The Petitioner was granted a proforma promotion to the post of Director and it is common ground that his substantive rank in his
2
parent department was that of a Senior Aerodrome Officer. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was correct in holding that since the Petitioner had not drawn emoluments in the pay of Director or Deputy Director, in his parent department, the pay in those posts could not be considered for the purpose of determining his pension. That apart, the cause of action arose in 1976. The Tribunal has noted that the Petitioner did not question his pay fixation at the relevant time and continued to draw the pension accordingly for over 25 years. The claim made before the Tribunal was hence hopelessly belated. We, in the circumstances, do not find any reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226, there being no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,
J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal order was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution despite lack of delay.
Whether the tribunal correctly held that pay fixation in deputed post could not determine pension in parent department.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raghunath D. Pradhan
The Union of India
Dalveer Bhandari
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
