Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Dhandapani vs M/O Finance on 13 February, 2024
lofa OA 14/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MADRAS BENCH
O.A No. 31 O/00114 of 2020
DATED THE (Spay OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT: .
THE HON'BLE SHRI MANISH GARG, MEMBER)
THE HON'BLE SHRI VARUN SINDHU KUL RAUMUDL MEMBER {A}
R. Dhandanani,
Superintendent of Central Excise (Retired),
Noss, Thirevallaver Salat.
Jothi Nagar, Rondur,
Cuddalore- 607 006. Applicant
oe { Advocaie: M/s. N. Viswanathan)
Versus.
Union of India, Rep. by the
Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Pxcise,
26/1, Uthamar Gandhi Read,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034)
bs)
The Additional Commissioner,
O¥o, The Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise,
Tamilnadu & Puducherry zone,
26/1, Uthamar Gandhi Road, :
-Nungambakkam, Chennal-600 034. _. Respondents
(Advocate: M/s. Rajnish Pathivil}
taf OA TG
ORDER
{Pronounced by Hon'ble Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member (A)) Pursuant to the notification, dated 29.01.2024, the matter was heard in detail, We have heard the learned counsels, Mr.N. Viswanathan for the applicant, and Mr. Mis, Rajnish Pathiyil for the respondents, and perused the records. 26 This OA has been filed by the applicant Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs "To call for the relevant records from respondent s herein, set aside the impugned order C. No. T39/690/2018-CF CCA &&. OF.11.2019 issued by the 2° respondent as well F. No. A- 23011/36/2013-Ad. ILA dated 18.10.2019 and direct them to grant ihe annual increment for the service rendered by the _ applicant from 01.07.2009 to 30. 06.2010 on notional basis and further direct the consequent revision ef the applicant's pensionsry benefits with effect from 0 LO? 7.2010 and pass sach other order or orders as deemed Ot and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
3. ie applicant in this OA Is aggrieved by ther efus sal of the respondents to consider his representation fer the grunt of one notional increment on his retirement on the 30° Jone, 2016. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Coart, the respondents were not extending similar benefits to. similarly placed persons. it is submitted that the respondents in the GLA. have refused to grant the notional increment to the
-epplicant herein stating that the judgement in the Avyamperumal case is in- personam and not inrem. Hence, this O.A.
4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the. Lib cae) ary QA TIS2020 applicant, by producing copies of the orders, dated 01.09.2020. of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No, 426 of 2010 and a recent decision, dated 13.01.2023, of the Frbunal in O.A: 371 of 2021, submits that the issue involved in the instant-cage is squarely covered by the above decisions of the Tribunal and has also drawn our. atiention to the operative portion of both the orders. Since operative portion in both the orders is almost similar, the operative portion of order in GLA. Now:
426/202) is extracted hereunder:-
wT. For the foregoing reasons, the OA is allowed directing that the applicant, who retired from. service. on 30.06.2014, shall be extended the increment payable on 1" July of ihe respective year. His pension shall also be revised, subject to fulfilment of other conditions, which are applicable.
The arrears that become due shall be paid without inferest. While extending such benefits, a clause shal! be incorporated to the effect that in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court takes a:
different view in the Civil Appeal arising out ef SLP No.4722/202 1, he shall be under obligation to refund the entire benefit without any demar. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months fram the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
3. - The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant would be satisfied if sinular direction is passed In this matter also, a, The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection.
Poo On perusal of the OA, it is seen that this issue is squarely covered by the decisions, dated 61.09.2021, of this Tribunal in OA 426/20202 and dated 13.01.2023, O.A. No. 371/ 2021 and it is appropriate to pass similar order in this matter as well
8. in view of the above, the OA is allowed directing that the applicant, who retired from service on 30.06.2010, shall be extended the increment payable en the 1? haly of the respective year. His pension shall also be revised, subject to erensesnreyy sof OA TIA2020 fallment of other conditions, which are applicable. The arrears that become due' shall be paid without interest. While extending such benefits, a clause shall be p £ incorporated to the effect that, in case the Hon'ble Supreme Court takes a different . view in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP Ne.4722/2021, he shall be under obligation to refund the entire benefit without any demur. The aforesaid exercise shall he completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of 2 Geceaddiigy: