HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P. No:7520 of 2001 Dated: 2.9.2010 Between: K.G.K. Sastry .. Petitioner And 1. Union of India, rep., by its Scientific Advisor to Raksha Manthri and Director General, Research and Development, B Wing, Sena Bhavan,DHQ P.O., New Delhi and another. .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P. No:7520 of 2001 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada) The petitioner who was working as Scientist-D, Naval Science and Technology Laboratories (N.S.T.L.) Visakhapatnam, approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.No.705 of 2000 stating that he is entitled to be continued till he attains the age of 60 years as per the Office Memo No.7(3)/85/D (R & D), dated 24.12.1985 of the Director General, Research and Development, New Delhi. However, the said O.A. was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 26.6.2000. According to him, he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years on 30.9.1991, but however, in the light of the said office memo as stated supra, he shall be continued till he attains the age of 60 years. It appears that some applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Branch stating that they are entitled to be continued as per paragraph No.1 of the office memo dated 24.12.1985 and the proviso to the said memo is ultravires and the Tribunal at Bombay Branch has taken the view that the said proviso is ultra vires and accordingly, struck down the said proviso and the same was questioned by filing SLP before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court while concurring with the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Branch in Civil Appeal No.4488 of 1990, vide judgment dated 20th November, 1996 dismissed the said Civil Appeals and batch. Pursuant thereto, the persons who are similarly placed were allowed to continue upto the age of 60 years as per the office memo dated 24.12.1985. As the petitioner was to retire in the year 1991 i.e., on attaining the age of 58 years, he was retired. But, however, because of the subsequent developments, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Brnch and filed O.A.No.705 of 2000. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner similar applications were filed by various applicants seeking the said relief as stated supra under the office memo dated 24.12.1985 and though the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad allowed the said applications and extended the benefit to those applicants, but, denied the same to the petitioner on the sole ground that he approached the Tribunal after he retired from service. The same is questioned in this writ petition. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri A. Veera Swamy placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.672 of 2001, dated 13.1.2001 and strenuously contended that the petitioner therein also approached the Tribunal and filed the O.A. seeking the said benefit conferred under the said office memo and when the said Tribunal denied the benefit, the petitioner therein approached this Court and filed W.P.No.672 of 2001 and this Court came to his rescue and allowed the said writ petition extending the said benefit. According to him, the petitioner herein also approached the Tribunal within a span of four years i.e., from the date of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal ought not to have denied the said benefit. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Solicitor General, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner shall be given the said benefit when the similar placed persons are given the said benefit. It is not known as to why the petitioner alone should be left without getting the said benefit. May be it is a fact as contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the petitioner is aged 69 years, but that cannot be a ground to deny the said benefit. When once he approached the Tribunal within a span of four years as stated supra and the Tribunal has given the benefit to similarly placed persons, in our considered view the petitioner is also entitled to the said benefit, particularly, when this Court allowed W.P.No.672 of 2001 and extended the said benefit to those who could not get the benefit in the Central Administrative Tribunal. After all he is a retired employee aged 69 years and at this juncture, the question of reinstatement etc., would not arise and if at all he is entitled it is only to the consequential benefits such as pension etc. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.6.2000 in O.A.No.705 of 2000 is hereby set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to grant similar benefits, which had been granted to other similarly placed persons, to the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Date: 2nd September, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P. No:7520 of 2001 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada) 02.09.2010