UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHANKER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Bikaner and two others are the petitioners before us.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying for setting aside the order dated 18. 11. 97 and for a direction to the respondents therein to pay the amount of DCRG along with interests at the rate of 18% per annum. According to the respondent herein, he retired on superannuation from the post of khalasi with effect from 31. 10. 92 and that the Railway Department issued pension payment order in November, 1992. However, DCRG has not been sanctioned for reasons best known to the Department, hence he filed the above original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) AT the time of hearing, it is argued by the learned counsel for the Railways, Mr. S. S. Purohit that the Central Administrative Tribunal, while deciding the application, has ignored the important fact of concealment of the true facts by respondent No. 1 while filing his Original Application in respect of submitting his claim before the Pension Adalat in respect of getting the DCRG and the reply filed by the Railway Administration before the Pension Adalat. It is further submitted by Mr. Purohit that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from passing an order without considering the Rules and in violation of the Rules.