Madhya Pradesh High Court
P.N. Giri vs Union Of India on 5 February, 2016
Author: Sushil Kumar Palo
Bench: Sushil Kumar Palo
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. : 12899 OF 2015
P.N. Giri and Others
- V/s -
Union of India & Others
and
Writ Petition No. : 12910 OF 2015
Hari Shanker Gour
- V/s -
Union of India & Others
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Palo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Abhilash Dey, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J.K. Jain, learned Asst. Solicitor General for respondent No.1/Union of India.
Shri D.K. Gupta, counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDE R (05-02-2016) Challenging a common order passed on 24.7.2015, by Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos.370, 371 and 372 of 2013 these writ petitions have been filed. Claiming benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from their initial date of appointment and challenging the act of the departmental authorities in granting the said benefit prospectively from the date of absorption, the applications were filed under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985.
2Based on certain orders passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Karnataka High Court on certain observations made by the Supreme Court in certain matters, the Tribunal did not interfered and dismissed the applications, therefore, these petitions by the petitioner.
We find from the record that before the Tribunal it was the specific case of the petitioners herein that identical orders passed by the departmental authorities were subjected to challenge before the Guwahati Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.276/2013 dated 25.6.2013, so also by the Lukhnow Bench in O.A. No.176/2013 decided on 21.12.2015. Infact the order passed by the Lukhnow Bench was after the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal, at Jabalpur but before that the order passed on 25.6.2015 by Guwahati Bench was already pronounced it is said that before passing the impugned order this judgment of Guwahati Bench was not considered. That apart, by placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (2014)8 SCC 883, it is argued that the consequential benefit of restraining the respondents from effecting recovery of the benefit granted, even if wrongly, has not been considered by the Tribunal, we find that tribunal did not advert to consider all these aspects of the matter and only on the basis of the order passed by the Bangalore Bench decided the dispute, whereas the Guwahati Bench and Lukhnow Bench in the orders produced before us have gone into various aspects of the matter including the order passed by the Bangalore Bench and have taken a decision.
That apart, the question of restraining the respondents from effecting recovery of the monetary benefit already conferred in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) had also not been considered.
3In view of all these circumstances we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the tribunal for reconsideration.
Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dated 24.7.2015 and 05.04.2013 passed in O. A. Nos.370, 371 and 372 of 2013 are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in the light of observations made hereinabove.
With the aforesaid, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
ss