Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Anand Prakash Pandey vs Defence Accounts Department on 16 April, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/00573/2022
This, the 16th day of April, 2024
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J),
HON'BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Anand Prakash Pandey, aged about 41 years, Son of Shri Lalta
Prasad Pandey, R/o- Chaudhary Enclave, Vrindavan Yojna, 6-C, Nilmatha
Road, Lucknow.
..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South
Block, New Delhi.
2. The Controller General of Defence Account, Ulan Batar Road, Palam,
Delhi Cantt. Delhi-10.
3. The Principal Controller of Defence Account, (Central Command),
Lucknow Cantt, Lucknow- 226002.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta .
ORDER
PER HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"1. To quash the impugned order dated 26.09.2022, contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this OA with all consequential benefits.
2. To grant the benefits of revised pay scale as ordered vide OM dated 14.07.2003 issued by Ministry of Finance and as per direction given by the Hon'ble Patna Bench, Hon'ble Allahabad Bench, Hon'ble Principal Bench as well as by this Hon'ble Tribunal, including arrears and revision of pay alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of due till the date of actual payment.
3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
4. Cost of the present case."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that similar matter has been disposed of by this Tribunal on 26.03.2021 in OA Page 1 of 2 No. 306 of 2016 ( Rajeev Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors.). Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No. A-11, page 49 to 55 of the paper-book.
Further argued that this OA may be disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in the aforesaid OA.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the aforesaid submissions.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that if facts are similar, this OA may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the OA No. 306 of 2016 ( Rajeev Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors.) on 26.03.2021.
5. In view of above, without entering into the merits of the case, we direct the Respondents / Competent Authority to decide the case of the applicant in terms of the order dated 26.03.2021 passed in OA No. 306 of 2016 ( Rajeev Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors.). The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to the applicant.
6. For avoidance of doubts, it is clarified that respondents / competent authority shall verify whether the facts of this OA and OA No. OA No. 306 of 2016- ( Rajeev Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors.), which has been decided vide order dated 26.03.2021 are similar or not.
OA is disposed of in above terms.
No order as to costs.
Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
Digitally signed by Jay Narayan
Jay Narayan Singh Singh
Date: 2024.04.18 15:23:30 +05'30'
Page 2 of 2