Union Of India v. N Ramasamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.02.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and W.M.P.Nos.7438 & 7439 of 2025

1. Union of India Rep by The General Manager, Southern Railway Chennai-600 003.

2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Chennai division, Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003.

... Petitioners Vs.

1. N Ramaswamy, Retd. Plaform Inspector, No.22/18, Krishnamoorthy Street, West mambalam, Chennai- 033.

... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. No. 310/00412/2016 and Quash the impugned order dated 11.01.2024. For Petitioners : Mr.Prasad Vijayakumar

ORDER

(Order of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J,) This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No.310/00412/2016 and quash the impugned order dated 11.01.2024.

2. When the respondent herein had sought for re-computation of his basic pension with reference to PB 2 (Rs.9,300-Rs.34,800) plus Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- with the protected minimum of Rs.6,750/- with effect from 01.01.2006, the Central Administrative Tribunal, through its order passed in O.A.No.310/00412/2016 dated 11.01.2024, had placed reliance on an order passed in O.S.No.500 of 2013 dated 03.08.2022, which was in favour of similarly placed persons who had sought for re-computation of the basic pension. Incidentally, the order that was relied upon by the Tribunal was referred to at the instance of both the counsels before the Tribunal, and on their consent, such an order came to be passed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the documents.

4. We are unable to appreciate as to how the petitioners herein, having consented before the Tribunal to pass the impugned order, are now entitled to challenge the said order before this Court. If at all the respondents therein were of the view that the order in O.A.No.500 of 2013 would not be applicable to their case, they ought to have raised their objections before the Tribunal itself and it would not now be open for them to challenge the same by raising such grounds before this Court. As such, we do not find any reasons to entertain any of the grounds raised in the Writ Petition.

5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [M.S.R., J] [N.S., J] 27.02.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Anu M.S.RAMESH, J.

and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

Anu and W.M.P.Nos.7438 & 7439 of 2025 27.02.2025