CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.14355 OF 2006 ***** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ***** 1. The Union of India, through the General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. 2. The F.A. and CAO, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, N.E. Railway, Samastipur. 4. The Divisional Accounts Officer, N.E. Railway, Samastipur. 5. The Manager, State Bank of India, Kalyani Market, Muzaffarpur. ..... Petitioners. Versus 1. Central Administrative Tribunal, through Registrar, Patna Bench, Patna. 2. Vishwanath Mahto, son of Late Thega Mahto, resident of Motijheel, Azazi Lane, Muzaffarpur, Retired Guard a Special under D.R.M., N.E. Railway, Samastipur. .... Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. V.M. K. Sinha & Mr. Debanjan Chowdhury, Advocates. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ***** S.K. Katriar & Kishore K. Mandal, JJ. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.12.2004 (Annesure-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No.714 of 2000, with M.A. 2 No.151 of 2001, and M.A. No.46 of 2001, whereby the original application and other interlocutory applications filed by respondent no.2 herein have been allowed. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. Respondent no.2 had joined the services of the Indian Railways way back on 27.6.1950, as an Assistant Guard. He superannuated from the services of the Railways with effect from 31.5.1985, while he was functioning as a Special Guard. He was granted his post-retirement benefits. After some time, the authorities realised that respondent no.2 and other similarly circumstanced employees were given monthly pension after erroneously taking into account the running allowance they had been receiving while in service which was impermissible in law. The authorities, therefore, issued circular dated 29.12.1999, whereby it was notified that the component of running allowance shall not be taken into account for the purpose of computation of monthly pension. The monthly pension of respondent no.2 was accordingly reduced leading to recovery of the differential amount with effect from 1.1.1996, vide order dated 12.7.2000. In other words, the authorities are computing the pensionary benefits after excluding the component of running allowance for the purpose of monthly pension. The same was challenged before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal as well as 3 the Delhi High Court. The matter was ultimately settled by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 14.12.2007, in Union of India Vs. S.R. Dhingra and others, whereby the stand taken by the Indian Railways was upheld. In other words, the Supreme Court held that the authorities had rightly excluded the component of running allowance for the purpose of computation of monthly pension. 3. Respondent no.2 herein challenged the action of the respondent authorities by preferring the aforesaid applications which have been allowed in the light of the judgment of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of S.R. Dhingra vs. Union of India. In other words, the Tribunal has allowed the original application and held that the authorities are not entitled to exclude the component of running allowance for the purpose of computation of monthly pension. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the Railways. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is relevant to state that the order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal was overruled by the Supreme Court by its aforesaid judgment dated 14.12.2007 in Union of India Vs. S.R. Dhingra (supra). The Supreme Court has upheld the circular of the Indian Railways and held that the Railways are justified in excluding the 4 component of running allowance for the purpose of computation of monthly pension. In other words, the very basis of the impugned order of Tribunal in the present case goes, the order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal having been superseded by that of the Supreme Court. In other words, the order of the Supreme Court will now govern the case. In all fairness, we must state that the order of the Tribunal was passed on 1.12.2004, and that of the Supreme Court was handed down on 14.12.2007. Obviously, therefore, the Tribunal had not the occasion to take into account the judgment of the Supreme Court. Paragraph 23 of the judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced hereinbelow: “23. We are of the opinion that the clarification of the Railway Board issued dated 29.12.1999 clarifying that the running allowance which was already taken into account for pension and other benefits at the time of retirement is not to be added to the pay of pre-1986 retirees revised on notional basis as on 1.1.1986 is valid. It appears that due to a clerical error the notional benefits of the respondents w.e.f. 1.1.1986 was wrongly fixed and such retired employees are getting excess pension. It is well-settled that a mistake does not confer any right to any party, and can be corrected.” 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The action of the petitioner with regard to payment of monthly pension of respondent no.2 at the reduced rate is hereby upheld. Respondent no.2 shall be paid pension at the reduced rate with effect from 12.7.2000.The authorities shall not recover the 5 differential amount of pension already paid to the petitioner up to 12.7.2000. There shall be no order as to costs. (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 16th day of April, 2010. S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR).