Civil Writ Petition No. 22030 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22030 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.12.2010 Union of India and others ..Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and another ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl.Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, “the Tribunal”) holding that the original applicant-respondent could not have been retired provisionally nor his pension could have been released provisionally because on the date of superannuation, there was no case pending against him and accordingly, the Tribunal has directed deleting the words “provisional” from the orders concerning pension as well as superannuation. The Tribunal has taken notice of the fact that the Estate Officer of the petitioner has passed an order on 21.3.2007 directing recovery of licence fee and has also debarred the original applicant-respondent from allotment of staff quarter for the entire Civil Writ Petition No. 22030 of 2010 2 period of his service. However, the original applicant-respondent had superannuated on 30.4.2007. The order of the Estate Officer was challenged by the original applicant-respondent in an appeal before the learned District Judge, who had quashed the same. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 320 of 2009 challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge while acting as an appellate authority against the order of the Estate Officer. However, there was no stay granted in respect of the order passed by the learned District Judge. Accordingly, it has been concluded by the Tribunal that no case was pending against the original applicant- respondent warranting the grant of provisional pension or provisional retirement . We have heard learned counsel. We find no illegality in the order dated 26.8.2010 (P-3) passed by the learned Tribunal. The original applicant-respondent will be entitled to all benefits which flow to an employee on superannuation, especially when there is no case pending, i.e., no recovery to be effected against him nor any disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) 10.12.2010 JUDGE VK