The Hard Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding pension revision by the Principal Accountant General and Comptroller and Auditor General, holding the matter covered by a prior common order.
Writ petition dismissed; miscellaneous applications, if any, dismissed.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A, RAJASHEKER REDDY AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION NO: 2181 OF 2021
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
Sri. Y.V.N Vara Prasada Rao, S/o. Late Y.L. Narasimham, Occ.Retired Senior Audit Officer, aged 71 years, R/o. H. No. 12-2-418122, Vishwas NagarColony, I\ilehdipatnam, Hyderabad - 500 028
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmay be pleasedto issue any writ or orders or direction moreparticularly ln the natureof Writ of Certiorari and call for records in O.A No. O2110088412015 on the file of theCentral Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabadand declare the lmpugned orders in said O.A No. 021/0088412015 dt.2810112016as illegal, unjust and contrary to law and material on record and set aside the same.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Court may be pleasedto suspend the operation of orders in O.A No. 02110088412015,dt. 28-01-2016 on the file of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, HyderabadBench, Hyderabad, pending disposalof Writ Petition in the interest ofjustice.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B. NARASIMHASARMA,
STANDING COUNSEL FOR C.G.
Counsel for the Respondent:---------
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
Writ Petition No.2181 of 2021
ORDER: lPer Sri Justice A. Raiasheker Reddv)
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer;
"to issue any writ or orders or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari and call for records in O.A.No.021/00gB4lZO1S on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and declare the impugned orders in said O.A.No.021/00884/20l S dated 28.0'l.20,16, as illegat, unjust and contrary to law and material on record and set aside the same jnd pass such other order or orders'
in W.P.No.'l 7768 of 2019 and batch, dated2l .08.2019, this Writ petition is
also dismissed.
miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed.
SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY//
SECTIO FICER
To,
(along with a copy of Order dated: 2110812019 in WP.No. 17768 of 2019 and batch)
Prk
\r-'rY
HIGH COURT
DATEDl.0410212021
ORDER
WP.No.2181ol 2021
1 r-,€ trtF
( o
s
o
23 FEB 2921 Z
,a
1.,
Dismissing theWP.
l
HCJ&Dr.SA.J w. P.No. I 7 7 6E af 2 0 Ig&bo tch
COMMON ORDER: (Pe! thc Hon'blc the chief Justtcc Sri Raghv.ndt.stnghChauhanl
All these writpetitionsariseout of the sameimpugned order, namely order dated16.11.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunai,HyderabadBench, Hyderabad,in the Original Applicationsfiled by the applicant-respondents'
The issue raisedbeforethe learned Tribunalby the applicant-respondentswas whether they would be entitled to have their pension, inaccordancewith the resolutiondated 29.08.2008 or not?The said issue has alreadybeen agitated and decided by thePrincipalBench of the learned Tribunalon 01.11.2011 in O.A.No.655of 2010 and batch The said decision of the PrincipalBenchwas subsequentlyupheld by the Apex Court. Therefore,whiledeciding the issue in the impugned order' the learned Tribunalhas relied upon the judgment passed by the learned PrincipalBench, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inUnionof India vs. K' Venugopalan Nair' in C.C.No(s).20O 1-2OO2l2Ol5,wherein the Apex Court had cleariy opined that "pre-20o6pensionerspen sionneed to be re-fixed with effect from 01.01.2006based on tle accepted recommendation of the 6th CPC notifiedthrough resolutiondated 29'08'2008' Therefore, thelearnedTribunalhad directedthe respondent- petitioners to revisethe pensionin accordancewith the resolution dated 29.08.2008.
Mr. B. NarasimhaSarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has alsoconceded that in similarappeals' namely W.P.No. i0062 of 2017and batch,filed against thesame impugned order,this Court, by order dated 28'06'2019' had upheld the impugnedorderpassedby the learned Tribunal'
HA&Dt.SA.J W.P.N,. I7768of 20 I Y&batch
3
Therefore, for thereasons statedabove,this Courtdoes not Iind any merit in thepresent writ petitions; they are hereby
dismissed. Thereshall be no orderas to costs'
The miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
RAGIIVENDRASINGH CHAUHAN, CJ
DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
21$ August, 20 19 JSU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding pension revision should be set aside.
Whether common order in W.P.No.17768 of 2019 applies to the present writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
O.A No. 021/0088412015 dt.28-10-2016Referred¶16
W.P.No.17768 of 2019 and batch, dated 21.08.2019Applied¶28
Union of India vs. K. Venugopalan NairReferred¶51
O.A No.655 of 2010 and batch
Union of India vs. K. Venugopalan NairReferred¶51
C.CNos.2001-2002/2015
W.P.No. 10062 of 2017 and batchReferred¶53
Union of India, Rep. by the Principal Accountant General (Audit) Telangana
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India
The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Y.V.N Vara Prasada Rao
A. Rajasheker Reddy
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
