1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3937/2004 Ali Mohd. v. BSNL, New Delhi & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 13 th February, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Arun Bhansali, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Mathur, for the respondents. .... After discharge from military service the petitioner was re-employed with the Department of Telecommunication as Office Assistant (TOA) w.e.f. 3.1.1981 at the pay of Rs.268/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.260-480. No annual grade increment was allowed to the petitioner for 17 years of services rendered by him with military, therefore, relying upon an office memorandum dated 8.2.1983, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the petitioner claimed for such increments by way of filing an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur by its judgment dated 28.10.1999 while accepting the original application preferred by the petitioner directed the respondents to fix pay of the petitioner in accordance with existing rules, circulars and office memorandum dated 8.11.1983 by granting 17 advance increments with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay. 2 The respondents assailed validity and propriety of the order dated 28.10.1999 before Division Bench of this Court by way of filing a writ petition that was also came to be rejected by judgment dated 29.5.2000. After disposal of the writ petition the Department of Telecommunication made fixation of the petitioner's pay under an order dated 17.7.2000 in accordance with the directions given by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur under the judgment dated 28.10.1999. The arrears of pay were also paid to the petitioner accordingly. The services of the petitioner were subsequently absorbed with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (a Government of India enterprises). The Divisional Engineer (Administration) in the office of the General Manager, Telecom, District Bikaner, by an order dated 24.3.2001 superseded the order dated 17.7.2000 and re- revised the pay of the petitioner by withdrawing all the increments allowed as a consequent to the directions given by Central Administrative Tribunal vide judgment dated 28.10.1999. Under a communication dated NIL (Anx.5) the petitioner was also directed to show cause as to why his pay should not be re-fixed as proposed in memorandum dated 24.3.2001. It is pertinent to note that re-fixation as given under the memorandum dated 24.3.2001 is nothing but withdrawal of fixation of pay made in accordance with the 3 directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur vide the judgment dated 28.10.1999 that acquired finality under the judgment of this Court dated 29.5.2000. The petitioner in response to the notice to show cause referred above conveyed to the Divisional Engineer (Administration), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Bikaner that re-fixation of his pay as proposed shall be nothing but a contempt of the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur under its judgment dated 28.10.1999. The respondents despite the explanation given by the petitioner re-fixed his pay as per memo dated 24.3.2001 and also recovered a sum of Rs.50,000/- against BCRG and Rs.10,000/- against commutation value of pension. Being aggrieved by re-fixation of pay and recovery of amounts as above, this petition for writ is preferred. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that fixation of the petitioner's pay was made in accordance with the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur under its judgment dated 28.10.1999, therefore, there was no occasion to withdraw the same and to effect the recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. In reply to the writ petition it is stated by the respondents that though case of the petitioner with regard to his fixation of pay was revised under 4 the order dated 17.7.2000 in accordance with the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur but when the case of the petitioner was referred to the higher authorities it was pointed out that the petitioner's pay is required to be fixed only in accordance with the office memorandum dated 25.11.1958 and not in accordance with the office memorandum dated 8.2.1983. Accordingly the revision of pay as made under the order dated 17.7.2000 was withdrawn and a recovery in a tune of Rs.60,000/- was ordered to be made from the terminal benefits of the petitioner. It is not denied by the respondents that fixation of the petitioner under the order dated 17.7.2000 was made in accordance with the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur . Heard counsel for the parties. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur while accepting the original application preferred by the petitioner vide its judgment dated 28.10.1999 directed the respondents to fix pay of the petitioner in accordance with the office memorandum dated 8.2.1983 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Telecommunication. By acting upon the same under the order dated 17.7.2000 fixation of the petitioner's pay was made and payment of arrears was given to him. The directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur under the judgment dated 28.10.1999 5 acquired finality on dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the Department of Telecommunication before Division Bench of this Court. In view of whatever stated above, there was no occasion for the respondents to withdrew the order dated 17.7.2000 by administrative fiat. As a matter of fact the withdrawal of fixation of the petitioner's pay made under the order dated 17.7.2000 and the recovery of the amount in a tune of Rs.60,000/- is nothing but flagrant violation of the directions given by a competent judicial fora. The respondents, if were not agreed to the directions given by the tribunal as affirmed by Division Bench of this Court, then they should have approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing a special leave petition, but it was not within their administrative domain to supersede an order that was issued in compliance of judicial orders, as such the withdrawal of the order dated 17.7.2000, re- fixation of the petitioner's pay as per Anx.5 and the recovery of the sum of Rs.60,000/- is illegal. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order dated 24.3.2001 (Anx.4), the order Anx.5 and the recovery of the sum of Rs.60,000/- under the order Anx.7 are quashed. The fixation of the pay of the petitioner as made under the order dated 17.7.2000 is restored. The respondents are directed to revise the pension of the petitioner and also all 6 other retiral benefits accordingly. The amount recovered from the retiral benefits of petitioner is also ordered to be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The respondents despite having knowledge of the judicial directions acted contrary to that and compelled the petitioner to file this petition for writ, therefore, are saddled with a cost of Rs.10,000/- i.e. required to be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.