UOI Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) This writ petition by the Union of India challenges the order dated 29- 10-2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') in OA No. 45/2004 regarding the claim of the respondent who was the applicant in the tribunal for merger of Rs. 140/- in the basic pay for the fixation as well as for the grant of retiral benefits. It is not in dispute that the respondent was granted special pay of Rs. 140/- and since by an order dated 2-5-01 the special pay had been withdrawn w.e.f. 30-3-01 and had not been made a part of the basic pay, while fixing it for the purpose of retiral benefits the respondent approached the CAT. By the impugned judgment dated 29- 10-04 the tribunal held that similar benefits as claimed by the respondent were granted to one S.S. Yadav by the order dated 22-11-03 and he was granted benefit of the special pay of Rs. 140/- for fixation of pay. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that that S.S.Yadav was junior to the petitioner and could not have been differently treated. It has also been held that subsequent advice of the DOPT could not be acted upon retrospectively.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bhardwaj has relied upon Rule 16 which reads as follows: