A. Aboobacker v. Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/27/2024 A. Aboobacker Vs.

The Union of Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and others Mr.Gopala Binnu Kumar Ms. Vinita Devi ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents June 21, 2024 [SR] Item No.9 The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal decided on the petitioner's claim for pro-rata pension on merits. Learned counsel for petitioner argues that it was premature for the Central Administrative Tribunal to do so, since no final order has been passed as yet and the petitioner had not challenged any purported final order.

At the juncture when the application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, it is submitted that the petitioner had claimed pro-rata pension upon which correspondence was going on and the application was pending for consideration before the authorities.

As such, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order of the Tribunal.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits in his usual fairness and on instructions that a decision has been taken by the respondents refusing to grant pro-rata pension to the petitioner. However, it is doubtful whether such order was ever communicated to the petitioner.

Thus, it transpires that in the absence of any communication of an order specifically refusing the petitioner's prayer for pro-rata

pension by a reasoned decision and in the absence of any challenge to such order, the Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction in deciding the claim of the petitioner on merits instead of considering whether to direct the authorities to take a final call on the matter. In such view of the matter, WP.CT/27/2024 is allowed, thereby setting aside the order of the Tribunal. However, it is made clear that the merits of the claim of the petitioner in respect of prorata pension have not been gone into and the above order has been passed in view of the stand by the respondent authority that a decision has already been taken to refuse the petitioner's prayer, giving rise to a fresh cause of action for the petitioner. The respondents shall formally communicate in writing to the petitioner, within a week from date, a reasoned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for pro-rata pension.

Upon such communication being made, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. It is further reiterated that if such challenge is preferred, the said forum shall not be influenced in any manner by any the observations made herein.

No order as to costs.

Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) ( Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )