IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8447 of 2011-E. Decided on: 12th December, 2011. 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. Chief Postmaster General, H.P. Circle, Shimla. 3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Una Division, Una, H.P. … Petitioners. Versus Mangat Ram son of Shri Shiv Ram Part Time Chowkidar, P.O. Chowki Maniar, Division Una. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASGI. For respondent : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The challenge is on Annexures P-3 and P-5, orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The issue pertains to the claim made by the respondent for conferment of temporary status and consequential benefits thereof. As per Annexure P-3, order dated 23.3.2011, the application filed by the respondent was disposed of as follows: “1. Notice. 2. Shri Deepak Agnihotri, Sr. CGSC, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He does not want to file a counter. 2 3. On consensual basis, this OA shall stand disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.5.2000 passed in OA No. 360/HP/1999 titled Moti Ram versus Union of India and others. 4. Disposed of accordingly.” 2. Since there was some confusion with regard to the payment of arrears, the petitioner herein moved a miscellaneous application, Annexure P-4 before the Tribunal. It was contended that in the case of several others, the arrears was limited to 18 months. But in the application itself it is stated that ……….due to lack of proper direction, it is difficult to pay the arrears to the applicant. That application was dismissed as per Annexure P-5, order. Operative portion of the said order, reads as follows: “7. In view of the fact that the O.A. came to be disposed of on consensual basis in terms of the order in O.A. No. 360-HP of 1999 dated 16.5.2000 wherein there was a clear-cut direction to “grant him all consequential benefits”, the respondent were obliged to grant all those benefits to the applicant (in the O.A.) herein which had been made available to the applicant in Moti Ram’s case (supra) without any directi8on for restricting the arrears. No modification or clarification is, accordingly, required to be given with regard to order dated 23.3.2011 which is self-explanatory.” 3. When the matter came up before this Court on 26.9.2011, we directed the Assistant Solicitor General of India to get clarification as to whether Moti Ram had attained finality. On instruction, it is submitted that the judgment had attained finality. On going through Annexure P-4, miscellaneous application, the petitioner had only doubt as to whether Moti Ram would apply or subsequent 3 directions of the Tribunal would apply. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submits that the subsequent orders were not brought before the Tribunal by either side. Be that as it may. The Tribunal passed only a consensual order to the effect that Moti Ram would apply and the consequential benefits should be granted. It needs no clarification to hold that the consequential benefits to be given are only in terms of the benefits granted in Moti Ram’s case. The order in fact required no clarification since the respondent is entitled to all the benefits, which were granted in Moti Ram’s case. That is all what is clarified by the Tribunal. We do not find hence any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 12th December, 2011. (Justice Dev Darshan Sud), (tr) Judge. 4