CWP No.5674 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5674 of 2010 Decided on : 30.03.2010 Union of India & others ... Petitioners versus B.N.Kohli & another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present : Mr. K.K.Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1.To be referred to the reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner – Union of India has challenged order dated 16.05.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity the 'Tribunal') granting the benefit of one increment to the respondent who has retired in the year 1978. The benefit of aforesaid increment has been held admissible under the IV proviso to Rule 8 of the Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986. In that regard, the Tribunal has followed the view taken by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of B.R.Kulkarni & others versus Accountant General & others (Annexure P-5). The aforesaid order of the case has attained the finality. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment given by Hyderabad Bench in B.R.Kulkarni(supra) could not have been followed as it is a weak authority inasmuch as initially two members bench had different CWP No.5674 of 2010 -2- opinion and the matter was referred to the third member of the Hyderabad Tribunal. The third member had held in favour of the retirees. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter should have been referred to the larger bench of the Tribunal and therefore, it does not constitute any precedential value. However, he has not been able to show that the judgment of the Hyderabad Bench has been challenged before the High Court or before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Once the aforesaid judgment had attained finality, it was not open to the Tribunal to question that judgment. Therefore, we are of the view that the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. In a writ of certiorari, this Court can exercise jurisdiction if there is any jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record or there is violation of principles of natural justice. We find that no such factual situation is available warranting exercise of certiorari jurisdiction for quashing the order. As a consequence, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE March 30, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) sonia JUDGE