IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2913 of 2011 4 4.7.2011 P.C. Priyadarshi, aged about 60 years S/0 Late Manoj Ranjan Prasad, Resident of Daldari Road, Danapur Cantt, Patna, Bihar) presently compulsorily retired from the post of District Savings Officer from National Savings/ NSI (Govt. of India …. Petitioner VERSUS 1. The Union of India through the Secretary to the G.O.I, M.O.F. (D.E.A.) New Delhi 2. The Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi 3. Director, National Savings Institute (Govt. of India) Seminar Hills, Nagpur through Regional Director, National Savings (Govt. of India), 234/ 4, Acharya J.C. Bose Road, Nizam Palace, Kolkata 700020 ….. Respondents -------- For the Petitioner : Mr P.C.Priyadarshi (In- Person) For the Union of India : Mr Md. Abu Haider, CGC --------- Heard the petitioner, who appears in-person and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition against judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12.5.2010 whereby OA No.284 of 2010 has been dismissed with a clear finding that the relief prayed for by the petitioner stands decided in an earlier OA No.481 of 2006. 3. Against the decision in OA No.481 of 2006 - 2 - admittedly the petitioner had preferred CWJC No.4087 of 2008 which was finally decided on 18.7.2008 vide Annexure-6. The writ petition was dismissed because the petitioner accepted the order dated 10.8.2005 and the order of compulsory retirement dated 17.10.2006 which entitled him to full pension and full gratuity as admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement. 4. Thereafter, in a contempt case initiated by the petitioner bearing MJC No.3046 of 2008 and Civil Review No.117 of 2009, a Division Bench noticed that the grievance raised by the petitioner was for implementation of recommendations of 6th Pay Revision Committee and that the authorities should have treated the suspension period as period spent on duty. These two aspects did not find mention in the order of the Writ Court and, therefore, they were not entertained under contempt jurisdiction. A liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise his grievances before the concerned authorities, who shall look into the matter and take a decision in accordance with law. - 3 - 5. In his subsequent representation the petitioner raised several issues as well as the aforesaid two issues and when they were not accepted by the authorities, he moved the Tribunal which has held that the same relief was prayed for in the earlier O.A. and, therefore, that order will govern the rights of the petitioner and he cannot maintain a further separate original application. 6. We are also of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No.481 of 2006 was not interfered with by the earlier order of the Division Bench contained in Annexure-6 and hence, that has attained finality and the Tribunal could not have reconsidered its earlier order. The liberty granted by this Court while disposing of the contempt matter and review application vide Annexure-5 was only to the petitioner to raise his grievances and the authorities were to take a decision in accordance with law. The earlier decision of the Tribunal in OA No.481 of 2006 having attained finality must be respected in law and hence, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. - 4 - 7. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with some calculation of his pension or gratuity then without raising the earlier issues which have attained finality one way or the other under orders of the Tribunal and this Court, he may challenge the calculation before the concerned authorities and if the authorities do not redress his grievance appropriately in accordance with law, he would be at liberty to seek his further remedy in accordance with law. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J. )