m IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.t&f N0. ^&S3> OF 2008 ^i^ PETITIONERS ^ .-y ^y ^•y «? <• Union of India, rf Through General Manager, South East Central Railway, GM Office Bilaspur (CG) 2. Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer., South East Central Railway., Raipur, Divi.sion- Raipur (CG) 3. Sr. Divisiohal Finance Manager, South East Central Railway, ...ilaspur (CG) RESPONDENTS ^^^ Vs 1. 2. C.H. Venket Rao, S/o Shri. C.H. Abbai, Aged about 60 years, Ex- painter under CF/SECR/Bhilai, residing at C/o Kalpana Photo Studio, Bus Staud Road, Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg (CG) Central Administrafive Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench Circuit, sitting at Bilaspur (CG) !/ ^ ^;^l^li!Ii ^ k-7'^^ V/<^L PETITION UNDERARTICLE 33€:/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA [5-3 HJGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7053 of2008 Umon oflndia & Others. VERSUS C.H.Venkat Rao & Another. APR. Coram: PETtTION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Hon'ble Shri SatishK. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Shanna, JJ. Present: ShriAbhishek Sinha, standingcounsel for theR^illways. Shri B.P.Rao, counsel for the respondent No. 1. ORDER<ORAL) (Passed on 11th day ofOctpber, 2011) Per Satish K. Agnihotri. J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31st July, 2008 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Central Admmistrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur, in CircuitSittmg at Bilaspur, in O.A. No. 679/2007. 2. Shri Sinha, leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioners submit that the impugned order is contrary to the reliefsought by the respondent m the original application, being OA. No. 679/2007. The petitioners-authorities passed anorderon 28.11.2003/13.01.2004 whereby, flie punishment order ofremoval of tfae respondent No. I frorn service was modified to fhat of tfae ^ compulsory retirement. It was clearly ordered fhat tfae intervening period fi-omT)9,11.1993 to the date of cpmp^lsory retjrenient shall be treate^ ^s "qp \york, no pqy" qfld s}iall ppt quaUfy for peiisicfnajy feenefits. The said ; order was flev^- questione^ ;and fhe same has attained finality. The respondent-employee has filed the above stated original applicationSeeking reliefofa direction to the petitioners (respondeat fliereitt) for re-fixationof ongmal mmimum pension to Rs. 2150/- under V<^ Pay Commission Pay Scales -w.e.f. 24.01.1997, with arrears and all consequential beaefits, includiag commutation value on differeace ofamoynt ofRs. 860/- ( - ) Rs. 510/-i.e.Rs.350/-. . 3 . Shri Sinha furfher confends titiat the leamed Tnbunal, without considering fhe relief sought for by the respondent-employee,-had examined the order dated 28.11.2003/13.01.2004 (AnnexureP/2) which was aot the subject matter ofthe original applieation and held that the respondeat-employee would be entitled to arrears of pension from 01.10.2007 as the said applicaticm was prefetted only on 20.09.2007. It is further contended that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and examined the validity of the order dated 28.11.2003/13.01.2004 (Annexure P/2). Thus, the impugned order is bad ia law, unjust and iUegal. 4. On the other hand, Shri Rao, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondent- employee submits that indisputably, the order dated 28.11.2003/13.01.2004 (Annexure P/2) was not under chaUenge. The respondent has not chaUenged the coimnunication dated 08/29.08.2006 (Anaexure R/4), specifically, hpwever,the relief sought for in the original application was based on the said order. -^ / . - , 5; Having considered the rival subinissions ofleamed counsel for the parties and on perusal of the pleadmgs and documents appendedthereto, it is evident that the respondent-employee had preferred a representation for payment of pension in terms of tfie V Central Pay Scale Gopamission. Thereafter, the respondent-employee filed an origmal application •being O.A. No. 408/2006 (Ch. Venkat Rao v. Union of fadia & OtherS). la fhe said miginal application, the icspondent-employee sought fbr thelrelief of .1 - \\ " '•••; """^1 / 'lp^:f i't.wsv- ^ granting proper pension in terms ofthe V Central Pay Commission. The application was disposed of by order dated 29.06.2006 (AnnexureP/4) wherein the respondent-employer (petitioner herem) were directed to consider and decide fhe claim of the respondent-employee (applicant therem) wiflun three moaths ftom the date ofreceipt of a copy offhe order <t< dated 29.06.2006. It was stated in the order that the order dated 13.01.2004 had attained finality. The representation of the respondent-employee was decided by the Senior Divisional Finance Manager, South Eastem Central Railway, Bailaspuron 08/29.08.2006 (AnnexureR/4). Needless to mention that fhe communication deciding the representation of the respondent- employeewas not challengedand the same, it appears, became final. Thereaiter.t^e resjpfln(jlpnf-employee filed Ihe present original application being OA.No. 679/2007, wifhout qyestioning, the commumcation datg4 prder 4ated 28.11.2003/13.01.2004 (Annexiire P/^), seeking for t^e fbllbwing reliefs: "8.1 That, fhe Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to accept theapplication. 8.2 That, the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to decide the Applicant's grievance and to the Respondents for refixation of Origmal Mmimum Pension of the Applicant to Rs. 2150,00 under Vth Pay Commission Pay Scales w.e.f. 24.1.1997, with arrears aad all consequential benefits, includmg Commutation value on Difference amount of Rs. 860.00 (-)Rs. 510.00 =Rs. 350.00 8.3 That, the Honble Tnbunal be pleased to pass ••"" any other Order of Qrders deemed fitand proper ; and inthemterest ofjustice." ^ The Tribunal passed the impugned order in the application i.e. O.A. No. 679/2007 without consideriag the lefixatioa of mimmum pension of ttie respondent-employee, as prayed in the original application, and the [ii.inl ^ % Aemt ::i Tribunal has considered the order dated 28.11.2003/13.01.2004 (Annexure P/2). Thus, the Tribunal has gone beyond fhe pleadings without examining . the reliefsought for in the said application, but modified the order dated 28.11.2003/13.01.2004 (Annexure P/2) whichwas not the subject matter of the origmal application. The impugued order is coatrary to the pleading and facts on record before fhe Tribunal m the instant ap^lication. For the reason stated hereinabove, the impugnedorderdated 31.07.2008 (Armexure P/8) is quashed and as a consequence, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge +- Sd/- R.S.Sharma Judge