THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.26447 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) One Mr. T.Raju filed O.A.No.141 of 2006 praying for a direction to the petitioners (hereafter, the respondents) to grant invalid pension to him as per Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (the Rules, for brevity) with effect from 12.12.2001 when he retired on medical grounds and also for consequential benefits. By an order dated 04.08.2006, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereafter, the Tribunal), allowed the application directing the respondents to fix the invalid pension and also to pay the arrears due to Mr. T.Raju within a period of three (3) months thereafter. The order was not implemented. In the mean while, Mr. T.Raju died and his mother Smt. T.Laxmamma came on record as legal representative. She filed Contempt Petition being C.P.No.54 of 2011 for implementation of the orders of the Tribunal. On, 02.08.2011, while observing that the invalid pension is payable to the mother, the learned Tribunal adjourned the matter to 07.09.2011. Against the said proceedings/order, the respondents filed the instant Writ Petition. The Assistant Solicitor General for Government of India submits that the mother came before the Tribunal on 07.09.2011 and the learned Tribunal adjourned the matter by two (2) weeks to report compliance. He would submit that the respondents filed W.P.No.26010 of 2006 against O.A.No.141 of 2006; by order dated 03.01.2007 this Court granted interim stay; WPMP.No.25215 of 2009 filed for impleadment of the mother in the said Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and on 08.06.2010, the Writ Petition was dismissed as abated in view of the death of Mr. T.Raju; the respondents filed an application to set aside the ex parte order; and therefore, direction issued by the Tribunal is unsustainable. He would further contend that Mr. T.Raju is not eligible for invalid pension as per Rules 38 and 49 of the Rules. There is no dispute that the Writ Petition filed by the respondents against the order of the Tribunal dated 04.08.2007 was dismissed. Therefore, the order of stay, if any, passed by this Court does not operate as a bar on the Tribunal to entertain the Contempt Petition. Consequently, when once the order has become final, the respondents cannot be heard to say that the employee was not entitled for invalid pension. That is a matter to be gone into in the Writ Petition, if it is restored. Insofar as exercise of jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals’ Act, 1985, is concerned, we do not find any jurisdictional error. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 23rd September 2011 RRB