113wp659.11.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.659 of 2011 (R.S.Bhakre .vs. Union of India and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 11/03/2011. Heard Mr.S.R.Narnaware, Adv. for the petitioners. This petition is directed against the order dt. 27.8.2010 passed in Original Application No.2143 of 2006 (& Others) by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. The question which was before the Tribunal was whether the three advance increments granted to the petitioner should be treated as part of the Basic pay or not. In paras 24 and 25 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed thus : 113wp659.11.odt 2 . “24. As hereinabove noted, the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A.No.714/1996 by which the challenge to the Railway Board's letter dated 08.05.1996 was turned down and the Tribunal's finding that a mistake was committed by the respondents in adding the advance/additional increments to the basic pay and also in calculating the Dearness Allowance was upheld. If the intention was to add the allowance to the pay, a specific order to that effect would have been made by the respondents. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court has noted with approval that Rule 1303 of the relevant statutory Railway Rules, which is pari materia to F.R. 17 and 19 specifically states that additional increments cannot be treated as pay. 25. In view of the above said discussion of law and fact, it is held that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of counting three advance increments in the basic pay. As such, the revision done by the respondents is legal and in order. However, keeping in view the fact that the applicant retired on 30.06.2005, the recovery in respect of period prior to the Railway Board's Notification dated 08.05.1996 is held to be invalid. If any recovery is made by the respondents for overpayment till the passing of the Railway Board's said order, the same shall be refunded to the applicant. Rest of the claim of the applicant is held to be not maintainable. “ 113wp659.11.odt 3 . The above referred observations made by the Tribunal clearly demonstrate that the issue was already concluded by the earlier decisions and therefore, the said observations, according to us, are just and proper and are sustainable in law. So far as the contentions of the petitioner pertaining to Rules 50 and 69 of Railway Services Pension Rules are concerned, they operate in a different area and are applicable to different sets of facts. In the instant case, as we have already observed hereinabove, the issue was whether the three advance increments should be treated as part of Basic pay; whereas Rules 50 and 69 are in respect of pension to be worked out as per these Rules. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais