IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 27197 of 1998 Between: A.V.Abraham S/o Anthaiah, R/o Gooti, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Raiway Manager (P), (B.G.), SC Railways, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad. 2 The Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, Officer of the DRM, SC Railways, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad. 3 The Chief Personal Officer, SC Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 4 The General Manager, SC Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 5 Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Bench at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus : (a) declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in deciding to pay 50% of the arrears of salary from 21-4-1982 to 2-8- 1987 and 11-2-1989 to 8-1-93 through proceedings No.SC/P/Conf./DAR/AVA/Dsl/Shed dt.21-7-1993 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and against the judgment of the Central Admnistrative Tribunal in O.A.No.891/89, dt.3-8-1992; (b) declaring the cosequential orders passed by the 1st Respondent on the petitioner's representation conﬁrming the earlier orders passed by him regarding payment of arrears of salary as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA NO.891/89, dt.3-8-1992; (c) declaring the inaction of the 3rd Respondentin not disposing of the petitioner's appeal date 28-3-1998 made in pursuance of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.326/95 dt. 25-2-1998 for paying arrears of petitioner's salary for the period from 21-4-1982 to 2-8-1987 and from 11-2-1989 to 8-1-1993 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and against the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.891/89, dt. 3-8-1992 and O.A.No.326/95 dt.25-2-1998; (d) consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to pay the entire arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from 21-4-1982 to 2-8-1987 and from 11- 2-1989 to 8-1-1993 in terms of the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.891/89 dt. 3-8-1992 and O.A.No.326/95 dt.25-2-98; (e) and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.GOURI SHANKAR SANGHI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. NO.27197 of 1998 ORDER : ( Per CVR, J) This writ petition is directed against an order made in O.A.No.326 of 1995 dated 25-2-1998 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. It appears, the petitioner was removed from service earlier and aggrieved by the same he ﬁled O.A.No.891 of 1989 and the said O.A. was allowed on 3-8-1992 and punishment of dismissal was quashed declaring that the petitioner was entitled to all consequential beneﬁts including arrears of pay. It was further directed that while computing the arrears of pay the orders passed in MA No.657 of 1989 dated 25-9-1990 also be taken into consideration. The Tribunal also made it clear that insofar as the period from 3-8-1987 to 10-2-1989 that is the date of ﬁling of the application, the same should not be counted for payment of such arrears as was decided in the O.A. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the orders made in the above O.A. the petitioner is entitled for claiming arrears of salary from 21-4-1982 to 8-1-1993, minus the period from 3-8-1987 to 10-2-1989. While that being the entitlement the respondents have passed order dated 23-9-1994, the relevant portion of the order reads as follows. “ Sub : Drawing of pay for the dismissal period. Ref : Your representation dated 25-6-1994 addressed to DRM (P) SC. _______ I have considered your representation referred to above a copy of which has been received along with your letter dated 25-6-1994. After due consideration of your representation along with the other relevant records, I have decided that : - 1. The intervening periods from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement i.e. from 21-4-1982 to 8-1-1993 is treated as “Non-duty “ for all purposes. 2. the pay and allowances for the periods from 21-4-1982 to 2-8-1987 and 11-2-1989 to 8-1-1993 are to be paid at the rate of 50% of the pay and allowance. ” Aggrieved thereby the petitioner ﬁled the O.A.No.326 of 1995, contending that once the orders in O.A.No.891 of 1989 dated 3-8-1992 passed by the Tribunal have attained ﬁnality, the authorities have no option except to pay the full arrears of salary from 21-4- 1982 to 2-8-1989 and 11-2-1989 to 8-1-1993, instead of that they have decided to pay only 50% of pay and allowance. The Tribunal however, did not go into the merits and directed the petitioner to ﬁle an appeal before the 3rd respondent against the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when once his rights have attained ﬁnality in the earlier O.A.No.891 of 1999 dated 3-8-1992 read with orders in MA No.657 of 1989 in O.A.No.891 of 1999 dated 25-9-1990, the question of denying the entitlement of 50% of arrears does not arise. The Tribunal instead of deciding the same, directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and to work out his remedies, therefore, it is contended, the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. Per contra, Sri Gowri Shanker Sanghi, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways submitted that as per the Railway Manual the person who is outside employment is only entitled for 50% of the arrears of salary and not more than that. This argument is available if the order made in O.A.No.891 of 1999 has not attained ﬁnality. Once the order attained ﬁnality and rights of the parties are decided, the petitioner is entitled for full salary and arrears for the period from 21-4-1982 to 2-8-1989 and 11-2-1989 to 8-1-1993. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not right in refusing to pass orders on merits and directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. In the result, the order made in O.A. is set aside and O.A. is allowed and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents shall implement this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ GM, J ______________ CVR, J Kk 16/7/2008