Union Of India Rep By Its Secretary, v. G.V.S,S. Anand
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.19018 of 2016 Date:16.6.2016 Between:
Union of India, reptd., by its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi and another.
.....Petitioners And:
G.V.S.S.Anand, S/o Late G.P.Ramam and 13 others.
....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. B.Narayana Reddy Assistant Solicitor General Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following:
ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) Order, dated 04.9.2015, in O.A.No.412 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad is questioned by the Union of India
and another in the present Writ Petition.
The issue before the Tribunal was whether respondent Nos.1 to (for short 'the private respondents') are entitled to fixation of grade pay of Rs.4,200/- with effect from due date of their second MACP in the pay band of Rs.9,300-34,800 + 4,200 grade pay.
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal has allowed the said O.A. filed by the private respondents following the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A.No.1038/CH/10.
At the hearing, Mr. B.Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General, submitted that the abovementioned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench was confirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the S.L.P. filed against the said order was dismissed albeit on the ground of delay. In our opinion, in the interest of consistency, different benches shall follow uniformity, more so, when the judgment of one bench was confirmed by a High Court.
No specific plea has been raised before us for persuading us to draw a conclusion different from the one which was formed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
In the light of the above facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.23427 of 2016 filed by the petitioners for
interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY ______________________ JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD 16th June 2016 DR