The High Court of Telangana dismissed writ petition challenging orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding pension fixation, holding that the matter is covered by a previous order dated 28-06-2019.
Nothing granted; petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEA. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICESHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PE TITION NO: 2221 OF2021
Between:
Z ffrJComplrott6r anaAuditor General of lndia I, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg New Delhi- 110124
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavitfiled therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to issue any writ or ordersor direction moreparticularly in the nature of writ of certiorari and call for records ino.A.No.021/00884/20150n the file of the central Administrative Tribunal,HyderabadBench, Hyderabadand declare the lmpugned orders in said O.A.No.021lOOB84l2O15dt. 2BtO1t2O16as illegal, unjust and contrary to law and materialon record and set aside the same'
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under section151 cPC prayingthatin the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto suspend the operation of ordersin o.A.No.021/00617t2015, dl.28to112016 on the file of Hon'ble Central AdministrativeTribunal, HyderabadBench, Hyderabad pending disposalof Writ Petition.
Counsel for thePetitioners:SRl.B. NARASIMHA SARMA
S.C. FOR CENTRALGOVERNMENT
Counsel for theRespondents: NONEAPPEARED
The Court madethe following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY & HON,BLE DT.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WP No.222l of 2O2l
ORDER::
Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the fact that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by order dated 2g-06-2019 passed in WP No.10062 of 2017 and batch.
In viev,, of the same, since the issue is covered by the above order, this writ petition is dismissed for the reasons alike and in terms <;f the order dated 28-06-2019 passecl in Wp No.10062 of 2Ol7 and batch. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as t_o costs
.-----_
SD/-K.ONESI
ASSISTANT GIS //TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTI OFFICER
1 One CC to Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, SC for Central Government tOpUCl (Alo^ng^wit! a copy of order in W.P.No.,10062 of 2017 and batch, dated 28.06.2019.)
2 Two CD Copies CHR
HIGH COURT
DATED:0210212021
ORDER
W.P.No.2221 of 2021
1 H F 14 I
Y
oo 12 rrB 2021
oz
* *
t .-.
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
3
L<br>I
HON'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGIryENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WRIT PETITION Nos. 10062 to272, L o620 112s5. 13t67 19309 19326 4O8OO and,452L4 of 2Ol7
COMM ON ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Raghuendra Sirryh Chauh.n)
The Union of India is aggrieved by the orders dated 28.01 .2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioners to re-fix the pension of the respondents-applicants and pay the arrears thereof within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has relied upon a Fu1l Bench Judgment in O.A. No. 0655 of 2010 and batch, decided by the Principal Bench on 01. 1 1.201 1. While quoting the reasoning given by the Full Bench, the iearned Tribunal has allowed the O.As., submitted by the respondents-applicants.
This Court has posed a query to thelearned counsel for the petitioners whether theFul1 Bench Judgment has been set aside or modified,either by
2
3
the DelhiHigh Court, or by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court? Tothis querY, the learned counsel has fairly conceded thatneither the High Court of Delhi' nor the Hon'ble SupremeCourt has set aside, or modified Therefore' the Judgmentdated O 1' 1 1'201 1' obviously, theJudgment dated Of il'2OIl has reached a finalitY.
Since the learnedTribunal has relied on a Full Bench Judgment, which hasreached finality, this Court does not find any illegality orperversity in the impugned orders.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petitions. They are, hereby, dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There sha1l be no order as to co sts
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ
Date:28.06.2019
DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
Pln/Tsr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue a writ of certiorari to set aside the impugned orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal as illegal and contrary to law.
Whether the issue in the writ petition is covered by the order dated 28-06-2019 passed in WP Nos. 10062 to 13167 of 2017 and batch.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
order dated 28-06-2019 in WP No.10062 of 2017 and batchFollowed¶27
Union of India
Z FfrJComplrott6n and Auditor General of lndia I
Government of lndiatr
Sri.P Balarama Nilurthy
Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench
A. Rajasheker Reddy
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
