IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22-07-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN W.P.Nos.29713, 29979, 30369 and 29722 OF 2004 and WPMP.NOs.36092, 36403, 36826 and 36102 of 2004 The Union of India, rep. by the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Madurai Division, Madurai, Madurai District. .. Petitioner in all WPs Vs. 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104. ..1st Respondent in all the WPs 2. A. Teekaram .. Respondent No.2 in WP.No.29713/04 3. Z. Nazirudeen .. Respondent No.2 in WP.No.29722/04 4. S. Jayasingh .. Respondent No.2 in WP.No.29979/04 5. R. Woolridge .. Respondent No.2 in WP.No.30369/04 Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the first respondent in O.A.Nos.1105, 1106, 1107 & 1103 of 2003, respectively including the order dated 29.6.2004 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.G. Suresh Kumar in all WPs For Respondent-2 : No Appearance in WP.29713/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent-2 in WPs.29722,29979, : Mr.P. Rajendran and 30369/2004 - - - COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.K. MISRA, J) Heard Mr.V.G. Suresh Kumar, for the petitioner and Mr.P. Rajendran, for Respondent No.2. 2. These writ petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in O.A.Nos.1105, 1106, 1107 & 1103 of 2003 respectively, dated 29.6.2004, whereunder the Tribunal has allowed the Original Applications. 3. The question involved in these writ petitions is as to how the period during which the present contesting respondents (who were applicants before the Tribunal) had worked, has to be treated. 4. The contention of the Department is that 50% of such period should be treated as on duty for the purpose of calculating pension; whereas, the Tribunal, relying upon an earlier order of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1052 to 1054 of 2000 dated 19.7.2001 has concluded, as a matter of fact, that the entire period should be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating pension. Incidentally such order dated 19.7.2001 in O.A.Nos.1052 to 1054 of 2000 was challenged by the Union of India by filing W.P.Nos.24948 to 24950 of 2001 and those three writ petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench by judgment dated 17.1.2002. 5. Since the present order of the Tribunal is based on such earlier order of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1052 to 1054 of 2000, we hardly see any scope to interfere in the matter. Incidentally it may be pointed out that the earlier order in O.A.Nos.1052 to 1054 of 2000 as confirmed by the High Court in W.P.Nos.24948 to 24950 of 2001, has been implemented by the present writ petitioner, as apparent from the Memorandum No.U/P 535/VI dated 9.4.2003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In such view of the matter, we do not think it would be appropriate to take any different view in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The order of the Tribunal shall now be implemented within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar dpk To 1.The Divisional Railway Manager, Union of India, Southern Railway, Madurai Division, Madurai District. 2.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai -104. +1cc to Mr.V.J.Suresh Kumar, Advocate Sr 39562 SS (CO) km/6.8. WP.NOs.29713, 29722, 29979 and 30369 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/