WP(C) Nos. 1617/2008 & 1626/2008 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1617/2008 Date of Pronouncement: May 27, 2011 The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. K.K.Rai, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate versus Shri S.Manoj Kumar & Ors. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Suman Doval, Advocate WITH WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1626/2008 The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. K.K.Rai, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate versus Shri Anup Kuksal & Ors. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Suman Doval, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. WP(C) Nos. 1617/2008 & 1626/2008 Page 2 of 4 ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The respondents had claimed quashing and setting aside of communication No. 30/M.G.E(ENTT.)/58-2005(II) dated 19.01.2007 and consequent order, as under: “(a) Call for the records of the case; (b) Quash and set aside the communication No. 30/M.G.E(ENTT.)/58-2005(II) dated 19/1/2007; (c) Consequently, pass an order to directing the Respondents to grant deputation special allowance to applicants from the date of joining the deputation post and continue to grant Headquarter Special Allowance to the applicants; (d) Direct the Respondent to grant arrears of deputation special allowance, with an interest @ 12 % per annum; (e) Pass any other/further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The Tribunal, by order dated 25.01.2008, allowed the application and had directed the petitioners to extend the respondents Deputation Allowance with arrears from the date PV Laxmi had been accorded the same and it was also directed that the special allowance would also be made admissible to the respondents and any discontinuance in the past would entail the arrears thereof. WP(C) Nos. 1617/2008 & 1626/2008 Page 3 of 4 3. This order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the petitioners. During the pendency of the present writ petition, a proposal was given by the learned counsel for the respondents on instructions from the respondents that the issues raised by the petitioners will not be contested by the respondents if the payments already made to the respondents are not recovered and the Deputation Allowance is paid to them from the date of their joining the office of the DGA, P&T, Delhi on deputation basis. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have now agreed to bring the disputes to an end in terms of communication dated 9.5.2011 addressed to the counsel for the petitioners, a copy of which is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, approbates the terms offered by the petitioners incorporated in the letter dated 9.5.2011, a copy of which has been given to him. He also contends that the terms incorporated in para 2 of the letter dated 9.5.2011 addressed to Shri Gaurang Kanth, Advocate, are acceptable to the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the parties, now pray that the petition be disposed in terms of the aforesaid letter of 9th May, 2011. 7. Consequently, and as agreed jointly, the order dated 25.01.2008 passed in O.A. No. 1304/2007 titled as Shri S. Manoj WP(C) Nos. 1617/2008 & 1626/2008 Page 4 of 4 Kumar & Ors. vs. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. and O.A. No.585/2007 titled as Shri Anup Kuksal & Ors. vs. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. stands modified to the extent mentioned in the aforesaid communication dated 9th May, 2011, a copy whereof is taken on record and is marked as Exhibit “X”. The same shall form part of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. It is also clarified that this concession given by petitioners to the respondents shall not be a precedent for any other employee or any person. 9. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs. CM APPL. NO. 3152/2008 in WP(C) No. 1617/2008 CM APPL. NO. 3163/2008 in WP(C) No. 1626/2008 10. In view of the orders passed in the main petition, this application does not survive and the same is disposed of as such. ANIL KUMAR, J. SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. MAY 27, 2011 rd