IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.2342, 4152 AND 4371 OF 2004 Writ Petition No.2342 of 2004 Between: The Accountant General (A&E), Hyderabad and two others. … Petitioners And P.V.Ramana … Respondent Writ Petition No.4152 of 2004 Between: The Union of India, represented by its Secretary to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions (Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare), New Delhi and three others. … Petitioners And V.Subbanarasaiah. … Respondent Writ Petition No.4371 of 2004 Between: The Senior Superintendent, RMS Y Division, Vijayawada and another … Petitioners And P.Satyanarayana. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.2342, 4152 AND 4371 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) By filing these three writ petitions, the petitioners obtained rule nisi from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari would not be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 449 of 2003 dated 03.09.2003, O.A.No.1280 of 2003 dated 14.11.2003 and in O.A.No.1498 of 2002 dated 29.07.2003 and to quash the same. The respondents/applicants before the Tribunal filed the above O.As, who retired from service on 16.06.1994, 31.05.1994 and 01.05.1994 to declare the cut off date of 01.04.1995 fixed in Office Memo No.7/1/95-P&PW(F) dated 14.07.1995 as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to grant the benefits envisaged in the said memo to all the applicants who have retired from service during the period from 01.07.1993 to 31.03.1995, applying the Full Bench decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in Shri Babu Rao Shankar Dhuri and others v. Union of India[1]. The Tribunal by order dated 03.09.2003 disposed of O.A.No.449 of 2003 directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the applicant in the light of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.07.2003 in R.A.No.11 of 2003 in O.A.No.14 of 2002 and batch within a period of two months. In case the applicant is not entitled to the said benefit, the same shall be communicated to the applicant within the stipulated period. O.A.No.1280 of 2003 was allowed on 14.11.2003, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Office Memo dated 14.07.1995 by merger of 97% of D.A. and to pay the difference of gratuity payable to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order. O.A.No.1498 of 2002 was also allowed on 29.07.2003 by a common order directing the respondents to extend the benefit of the Full Bench judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in case of Shri Babu Rao Shankar Dhuri and others v. Union of India [1] (2001(3) ATJ 436) in calculating the gratuity of the applicants taking into account, the 97% of D.A. which they were being paid prior to their superannuation and refix their gratuity taking the 97% D.A., as Dearness Pay for retirement gratuity and to pay the difference of gratuity, declaring that non extension of the benefit of the said judgment to the applicants is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. By the above office memo dated 14.07.1995 whereby dearness allowance linked to the All India Consumer Price Index 1201.66 (as on 01.07.1993), was treated as reckonable part of dearness allowance for the purpose of calculating the death-cum-retirement gratuity under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, the said benefit was actually made available to the employees who retired or died on or after 01.04.1995 i.e., the cut off date suggested by the Fifth Central Pay Commission in its Interim Report. Several employees who retired prior to the said date moved various tribunals constituted under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act. Their claims in respect of some cases were rejected and in some other cases were allowed by the Tribunal, extending the benefit to the persons who retired or died prior to the said date. When the matter is carried in appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal and others[2] upheld the cut of date holding that the cut of date has been fixed as 01.04.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints, rejecting the contention that fixing of the cut-off date was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis and accordingly set aside the various judgments purported to grant the revised death-cum- retirement gratuity to government employees who died or retired before the prescribed cut-off date of 01.04.1995. Following the same, the present writ petitions deserve to be allowed setting aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned orders in O.A.Nos.449 of 2003, 1498 of 2002 and 1280 of 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. No order as to costs. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) ___________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 16.11.2009. Lmv [1] (2001(3) ATJ 436) [2] {2004 (6) Supreme Court Cases 754}