-1- D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8177/2010. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. C.A.T.& Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8177 of 2010. Union of India and Others V E R S U S The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur & Others Date of Judgment :::: 05/07/2010 Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Mr.Justice Raghuvendra S. Rathore Mr. S.S. Raghava, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, Counsel for the respondents *** PER COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have gone through the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 12th November, 2009 allowing O.A. filed by the respondents No.2 and 3. The learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the orders passed by the appellants, herein Annexure A-7 and A-9 in pursuance of the judgments of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur dated 12th of April 2005 and 11th of April, 2005 respectively in the case of similarly situated persons as the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, who were given the same benefits with retrospective effect in compliance of the directions issued by the learned Tribunal in its judgment allowing the earlier O.As. This fact was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of -2- D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8177/2010. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. C.A.T.& Ors. hearing before the learned Tribunal on 14th September, 2009 as we find from the order of the C.A.T. in Para No.3. The learned Tribunal afforded ample opportunity to the appellants to file any affidavit in counter to the aforesaid submissions disputing the fact that benefits were not given with retrospective effect as recorded in the order-sheet dated 14th September, 2009, but despite opportunities having been granted on 29.09.2009, 21.10.2009 and 04.11.2009 respectively no counter affidavit was filed before the learned Tribunal. Even before this Court nothing could be pointed out to dispute this fact except the fact that there were instructions issued by the Government vide Annexure R/1 dated 17.07.2002, which prohibits the giving of benefits with retrospective effect. The aforesaid instructions dated 17.07.2002 are prior in point of time to the passing of the judgments of the learned Tribunal dated 11th and 12th of April, 2005 respectively and in compliance of the aforesaid judgments Annexures A/7 and A/9 are orders issued by the Government, which have been relied upon by the respondents in the case of similarly situated persons giving retrospective benefits. It is not being disputed before us or before the learned Tribunal that the judgments of the learned Tribunal given in the aforesaid two cases were challenged in any forum and, hence, they have been complied without challenge to the same. -3- D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8177/2010. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. C.A.T.& Ors. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error by following the past precedent as was done while allowiing the O.As. vide judgments dated 11th and 12th April, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur and at the Principal Seat of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1157 of 2004. The appellants having themselves accepted and complied with similar directions can not discriminated in the case of the present respondents No.2 and 3. Moreover, the instructions can not override the judgment of the learned Tribunal. We find no error apparent on the face of record so as to call for any interference in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay application (1764/2010) also stands dismissed. (Raghuvendra S. Rathore),J. (Dalip Singh),J. Ashok/