THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR W.P.No.5321 of 2011 ORDER This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the orders, dated 16.10.2007 and 15.07.2010 passed in O.A.No.765 of 2006 and M.A.No.298 of 2009 in CP No.54 of 2008 in O.A.No.765 of 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’) respectively. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, while working as Deputy Chief Controller in Secunderabad South Central Railway, retired from service on 31.07.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. He states that as on the date of retirement, LAP 522 days (not reckonable for encashment of leave) and 246 days reckonable for EOL, which is inclusive of 10 days LHAP accrued on 01.07.2006 and equal to five days LAP are at his credit. As it was mentioned in the retirement intimation letter, dated 27.07.2006, that he is entitled for 10 days leave, he submitted a representation to the second respondent on 10.08.2006 seeking clarification of the correct leave account for encashment of leave. In reply, the second respondent issued a letter, dated 21.09.2006, stating that the leave balance to his credit was 10 days. Challenging the said letter, he filed O.A.No.765 of 2006 before the Tribunal, which in turn disposed of the same on 16.10.2007 directing the second respondent to fix a date, intimate the same to the petitioner for showing the original record with muster rolls and give an opportunity of personal hearing to him and if it is found that he has more leave to his credit at the time of retirement, the respondents shall pay accordingly, as per rules. It also directed that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said order. Since the respondent had not fully complied with the said order, the petitioner filed CP No.54 of 2008 in O.A.No.765 of 2006 and the same was closed on 23.01.2009 by virtue of a letter, dated 15.01.2009, issued by the second respondent rejecting the case of the petitioner for encashment of leave salary more than what he had been paid through settlement dues at the time of his retirement. On the ground that the contents of the said letter do not indicate the compliance of the order passed in I.A.No.765 of 2006, he filed MA No.298 of 2009 seeking to reopen the contempt application by recalling the order, dated 23.01.2009, but the Tribunal dismissed the said MA holding that there was no justification for recalling the order, dated 23.01.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the letter, dated 15.01.2009, issued by the second respondent shows that in compliance of the order, dated 16.10.2007, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.765 of 2006, the muster rolls, Service Register and Leave Account had been shown to the petitioner and he was heard on 29.02.2008 and as per the records, he had 10 days LAP as on 31.07.2006 and the same was certified by the Associate Finance and as such, he is not eligible for any encashment of leave salary more than what he had been paid through settlement dues at the time of his retirement. Now, the petitioner states that the respondents have shown to him only one document i.e., Leave Chart, which is a manipulated one, without showing the original records along with muster rolls as directed by the Tribunal vide order, dated 16.10.2007. 5. Since the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2006 and the O.A. pertains to the year 2006 and as the Tribunal in the order, dated 16.10.2007, directed the second respondent to show him the original record with muster rolls, and as it is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents did not show him as per the directions issued by the Tribunal, without going into the merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to show the original relevant record along with muster rolls to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________​_______ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:07.03.2011 sj