Judgment:
(PER HON'BLE SHRI HRIDAY NARAIN, MEMBER (ADMN.)
The present OA has been filed against non extending the benefit of promotion to the applicant to the grades of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 from the dates his juniors were promoted to the said grades. The facts as stated in the OA are as under:-
2. The applicant, while working as Assistant Station Master at Shankarapalli Railway Station in Secunderabad Division of South Central Railway, was issued with a major penalty charge Memorandum dated 31.10.1981 and he was kept under suspension from 10.4.1981 to 23.8.1990. The impugned actions of the Respondents against the applicant in relation to the said suspension and the disciplinary proceedings have been examined by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench culminating in treating the penalty finally imposed on the applicant as a minor penalty, resulting in regularisation of suspension period. During the course of the said disciplinary proceedings, i.e., after initial imposition of the penalty of reduction of pay in the same time scale of pay by one stage, without cumulative effect, for a period of one year treating the period of suspension as suspension on the applicant, the applicant was transferred from Secunderabad Division to Vijayawada Division along with the post vide Order No.CP/535/P11/ASMs dated 23.8.1990 on administrative grounds in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 (Rs.1200-2040) (Rs.4000-7000). The regularisation of suspension period was the subject matter of O.A.No.1467/2001 and the Tribunal, by its Order dated 3.7.2003, directed that the applicant shall be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension from 10.4.1981 to 23.8.1990 treating the period as on duty. It was also directed therein that the applicant was entitled for other consequential benefits.
3. The 3rd respondent had implemented the Orders of the Tribunal vide Memo dated 24.10.2003 by allowing the pay fixation and drawal of increments. The 3rd respondent, vide Memorandum dated 28.9.2005 and 22.6.2006 treated the period of suspension as on duty and promoted the applicant to the scale of Rs.455-700 (Rs.1400-2300/Rs.5000-8000) on proforma basis with effect from 1.8.1982 and on actual basis with effect from 1.8.1983 i.e., the date of promotion of his junior, by mentioning that the applicant was eligible for consequential benefits as per rules. The said Memos were issued after the applicant retired from service in Vijayawada Division.
4. Consequent on issue of the Memos dated 23.2.2006 and 22.6.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent had issued the impugned pay fixation Memorandum dated 19.10.2006 fixing the pay of the applicant in grade Rs.1400-2300/Rs.5000-8000 which were equivalent to the grade Rs.455-700.
5. The applicant was transferred on administrative grounds from Secunderabad Division to Vijayawada Division along with the post and joined Vijayawada Division on 1.8.1990 in grade Rs.455-700 (Rs.1400-2300).
6. The applicant, while working as Station Master in South Central Railway, retired from service on 31.5.2000 on attaining the age of superannuation.
7. The 5th respondent issued the Pension Payment Order on 31.5.2000 fixing the basic pension of the applicant as Rs.2053/- with effect from 1.6.2000. The said pension was revised on 10.2.2004 as Rs.3325/- with effect from 1.6.2000 consequent on revision of last pay and qualifying service by treating the suspension period as duty. Further, in terms of letter dated 30-.11.2006, the 5th respondent had revised the pension of the applicant from Rs.3325/- to Rs.3475/- with effect from 11.2.2004 as a sequel to revision of last pay/qualifying service. The applicant has submitted that the above fixation, which needs to be further revised w.e.f. 1.6.2000 after affording due promotions to the applicant to grade Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 with reference to his position in grade Rs.455-700 as on 1.8.1982, has not been done by the 4th and 5th respondents.
8. Since the seniority of the applicant was not fixed in grade Rs.455-700/1400-2300 in Vijayawada Division while the said grade/seniority was allowed in Secunderabad Division, the applicant made representation dated 1.11.2006 to the 2nd respondent requesting to re-fix his seniority and pay in Vijayawada Division. The applicant has submitted that there was no response to the said representation. He filed O.A.No.337/2007 seeking a direction to fix his pay in the higher grades after extending the benefit of promotion to the grades of Rs.5500/9000 RS(RP) and Rs.6500-10500, and accordingly allow pensionary benefits and to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on all the arrears. The Tribunal disposed of the said OA vide Order dated 8.2.2008, inter alia, with a direction to the applicant to submit a representation.
9. The applicant had submitted representation dated 2.4.2008 mentioning the Office Order NO.B.P.524/VI/OAs/Retired ASMs, dated 5.12.1997 wherein the relief prayed for by the applicant in O.A.No.337/2007 was already granted to certain other similarly situated employees whose cases were similar to the applicant herein. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 28.5.2008, the 4th respondent rejected the claim of the applicant stating that the three cases figured in the Office Memorandum dated 5.12.97 are not similar to that of the applicant as the three employees in whose case benefits were extended though were taken up with major penalty proceedings, the said proceedings were dropped, whereas the applicant was inflicted with a minor penalty. Hence the present OA has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:-
“To call for the records pertaining to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Vijayawada Memorandum No.B/P.524/VI/1/OA/01/KPC daed 19.10.2006 and the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Vijayawada Memorandum No.B/P.524/VI/1/OA No.337/07/KPC dated 28.5.2008 and to declare the actions of the respondents in not extending the benefit of promotion to the applicant to the grades Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and contrary to the direction of this Tribunal in O.A.NO.1467/2001 and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution and consequently direct the respondents to provide promotion to the applicant in the grades Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 from the date the juniors to the applicant were promoted, fix the pay of the applicant, accordingly allow pensionary benefits, pay arrears of pay and pensionary benefits and to pay interest of 18% per annum on all the arrears and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
10. The applicant has argued that the action of the 4th respondent in not extending the consequential benefits by affording promotions in the higher grades viz., Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 to the applicant on par with his juniors in Vijayawada division, considering his date of entry into the grade Rs.455-700 as 1.8.1982, is in violation of the Tribunal's direction in O.A.NO.1467/2001.
11. The applicant has further argued that the Respondents 4 and 5, having implemented the order of the Tribunal, ought to have extended all the benefits, which are consequential in nature and accordingly the 5th respondent, by fixing his pay in the grade of Rs.6500-10500 ought to have revised the Pension Payment Order for allowing the due pension.
12. It is argued that the action of the respondents in misconceiving the rules while the applicant was in service and not correctly implementing the orders of the Tribunal leading to the denial of benefits on par with the juniors to the applicant and attributing such delay to the applicant to deny the legitimate benefits, is illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. The applicant has submitted that the 4th Respondent ought to have assigned the seniority of the applicant from the date of his entry into the grade of Rs.455-700 (Rs.1400-2300/Rs.5000-8000) in Secunderabad Division with effect from 1.8.1982 and should have placed him above all the Station Masters who were promoted to the said grade in Vijayawada Division after 1.8.1982, for extending the benefit of promotion to higher grades of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 to the applicant and accordingly fix the pay for revising the pensionary benefits that were already settled before the implementation of the Tribunal's order in O.A.No.1467/2001.
14. The applicant has further submitted that the 4th respondent had not assigned the seniority to the applicant in grade Rs.455-700 even though the applicant had been promoted to the said grade by the 2nd respondent with effect from 1.8.1982. However, as seen from the seniority lists dated 24.2.1996 and 2.2.2000 published by the 4th respondent for grade Rs.1600-2660 (Rs.5500-9000) and Rs.6500-10500, juniors to the applicant were promoted to those grades with effect from 1.3.1993 and 22.5.1997 respectively.
15. The applicant has submitted that the 3rd respondent had issued promotion orders on proforma/actual basis to the grade Rs.Rs.455-700 (Rs.1400-2300/Rs.5000-8000) vide Memos dated 28.9.2005 and 23.2.2006 wherein the fact of allowing consequential benefits in view of the Tribunal's order dated 3.7.2003 has been admitted, necessitating the 4th respondent to issue impugned Memo dated 19.10.2006. However, the 4th respondent had not shown the pay fixation admissible to the applicant in grade Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 after considering his promotion to those grades on par with his juniors in terms of Railway Board's instructions conveyed in RBE No.126/97.
16. The contention of the respondents that the three cases figured in the Office Memorandum dated 5.12.97 are not similar to that of the applicant as the three employees in whose case benefits were extended though were taken up with major penalty proceedings, the said proceedings were dropped, whereas the applicant was inflicted with a minor penalty, is not tenable. The applicant has submitted that the 4th respondent made it clear in unequivocal terms that proforma promotions on par with the juniors of the said three employees were granted as they were completely exonerated from the major penalty charges levelled against them, and distinguished the case of the applicant by citing para 213 of IREM, Vol.I on the ground that the Railway servant can be promoted to fill in any post whether selection or non-selection post, only if he is considered fit to perform the duties attached to the post. It is submitted that the contention of the 4th respondent is that without subjecting the applicant either for suitability/selection considering the case of the applicant for promotion to higher grades is against the rules and in the case of a retired employee, no provision will permit for suitability/selection, is not correct for the reason that once an employee is inflicted with a minor penalty in a major penalty proceeding, his claim for promotion is legal as he is automatically entitled for assignment of position in the selection panel on par with his juniors. It is submitted that the three cases cited by the applicant which have been referred to by the 4th respondent in the impugned letter are exactly similar to the case of the applicant.
17. The applicant has further argued that it is an admitted fact that by virtue of a direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.ANo.1301 of 1995, proforma promotion was extended to one Shri P.P.Chandrasekharan and by virtue of the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.Nos.1174 of 1997 and 1180 of 1997, the representations submitted by Shri Raghava Chetty and Shri Kamaraju were disposed of by the respondents, duly considering their cases also on the lines of Shri P.P.Chandrasekharan and accordingly promotions were granted to the higher grades on par with their juniors. The applicant has submitted that the said three employees were extended with the benefits of promotions to the higher grades after their retirement only without subjecting them for either suitability/selection and the said three employees were also issued with major penalty proceedings on the allegations similar to the one levelled against the applicant herein. However, the Disciplinary Authorities were different in all these cases.
18. The applicant has argued that while the cases of the above said three employees resulted in exoneration of the charges, the case of the present applicant ended up in infliction of a minor penalty. It is submitted that whether there was exoneration or infliction of minor penalty, all the four employees including the present applicant stands under the extant rules on the same footing for the benefit of promotion to the higher grade. The applicant states that the respondents are not correct in showing discrimination to the applicant on the sole ground that he was inflicted with a minor penalty, which penalty was of no significance to reckon with for denying the benefit of proforma promotion on par with juniors. In all the said three case also, the benefit of promotion was extended on proforma basis based on the directions of the Tribunal, whereas in the case of the applicant the respondents are taking a different stand in spite of the Tribunal's direction to examine his case in the light of the office Order dated 5.12.1997.
19. The applicant has further argued that the respondents are estopped from taking a stand that the applicant, who retired from service, cannot be subjected for either suitability/selection after retirement as the applicant was denied the benefit of promotion at the relevant point of time during his service on misconception of rule forcing the applicant to file OA 1467 of 2001 and again not implementing the order of the Tribunal fully. It is submitted that the respondents representing the Secunderabad Division of South Central Railway ie.., the 3rd respondent implemented the decision of the Tribunal to the extent of their responsibility and paid the pay and allowances covering the suspension period and allowed the benefit of promotion to grade Rs.455-700 with effect from 1.8.1982 whereas the respondents representing Vijayawada Division of South Central Railway viz., 4th respondent, have resisted its implementation on illogical grounds by not extending further promotion to grade Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 on par with the juniors to the applicant, which were consequential to the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. The effect of promotion to grade Rs.5000-8000 given by the 4th respondent with effect from 4.3.1996 was subsumed by the action of the 3rd respondent in revising the promotion to grade Rs.455-700/5000-8000 with effect from 1.8.1982/1.8.1983 while implementing the orders of the Tribunal in OA 1467 of 2001. While, in fact, the date of promotion to grade Rs.455-700/5000-8000 was advanced, the action of the 4th respondent in denying promotion to higher grades of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 is devoid of logic and reason.
20. It is argued that the applicant's transfer from Secunderabad Division to Vijayawada Division on 1.9.1990 along with the post was on administrative grounds and the respondents were duty bound to comply with the orders dated 3.7.2003 of the Tribunal in OA 1467 of 2001, which was complied with by the 3rd respondent by placing the applicant in grade Rs.455-700 with effect from 1.8.1982. This action of the 3rd respondent obviously mean that on the date of joining of the applicant in Vijayawada Division on 1.9.1990, the grade of the applicant should be reckoned as Rs.455-700/1400-2300 for all purposes. Hence, notwithstanding the fact the applicant had retired from service on 31.5.2000, the 4th respondent ought to have reckoned the seniority of the applicant in grade Rs.1400-2300/5000-8000 from the date of his joining in Vijayawada Division as retirement is not a bar to revise the seniority and allow consequential benefits of promotion/revision of retirement benefits. The applicant has argued that such inactions which are administrative errors shall not come in the way of the applicant for his legitimate benefits to which he is entitled.
21. It is further argued that the applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 10.4.1981 till 23.8.1990. A penalty of reduction of pay in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of six months treating the period of suspension as duty was passed on 19.4.1991 and the revisionary authority confirmed the said penalty on 25.6.1991. Apart from the illegality of not treating the suspension period as duty which was later on set right by the Tribunal, the respondents have resorted to further illegality of not providing promotion to grades Rs.5500-9000 with effect from 1.3.1993 and to Rs.6500-10500 with effect from 1997. It is submitted that the penalty which was already undergone by the applicant was not a bar for the promotions which the applicant was entitled subsequent to the completion of the penalty on 24.2.1991. As per the extant instructions of the Railway Board in RBE No.13/93 read with the provisions of RBE No.126/97, since the respondents are duty bound to extend the benefits to the applicant, for the lapse on their part, the applicant cannot be penalised. Thus, the applicant states that the respondents have deliberately ignored the Order passed by the Tribunal in OA 1467 of 2001 containing the direction that the applicant is entitled for all consequential benefits. It is argued that the provision at Para 213 of IREM is not relevant to the case of the applicant and the respondents have committed a gross mistake and patent illegality which cannot be allowed to be benefited out of their own mistake. Hence, the applicant has argued that he is entitled for promotions to the higher grades on par with his juniors, as was given in the case of similarly situated employees.
22. The respondents have filed reply statement stating that the present OA is not maintainable as the applicant, after his retirement, had already filed OA Nos.1467 of 2001 and 337 of 2007 before the Tribunal on the same cause of action which is directly and substantially in issue in the present OA i.e., the question of treatment of suspension period with consequential benefits and the matter was heard and finally decided by the Tribunal and the same was implemented by the Railway administration as per rules in force. Hence, the present OA is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
23. The respondents have submitted that the applicant, while working on Secunderabad Division, was placed under suspension from 10.4.1981 to 23.8.1990, for having participated in Control Phone Boycott agitation on 10.4.1981. Under DAR Rules, he was issued with a major penalty charge memo dated 31.10.1981 and on concluding DAR proceedings, he was initially imposed with the penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 27.9.1982. On filing OA 130 of 1986 by the applicant before this Tribunal, the removal orders were set aside on 5.2.1990 only on the ground that a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was not supplied to him. Later, he was supplied with the Enquiry Officer's report and was imposed with a penalty of pay reduction by one stage. On considering the appeal, the penalty of pay reduction by one stage in scale Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 24.8.1990 for a period of one year (NR) imposed by the disciplinary authority, has been reduced to that of six months (non-cumulative) by treating the suspension period as suspension only by the appellate authority.
24. The respondents have further submitted that the applicant, on revoking from suspension was transferred from Secunderabad Division to Vijayawada Division on 23.8.1990 on administrative grounds along with the post as Assistant Station Master in scale Rs.1200-2040/4500-7000 and accordingly he joined in Vijayawada Division on 1.9.1990. On joining the Vijayawada Division, the applicant was promoted as Assistant Station Master in scale Rs.1400-2300/5000-8000 on this division with effect from 4.3.1996, according to the seniority of ASMs in grade Rs.1200-2040/4500-7000. Later, he retired from service on 31.5.2000 on superannuation on Vijayawada Division.
25. The respondents have submitted that aggrieved by the appellate authority's order on remaining the suspension period as suspension only, the applicant, after retirement, had filed another OA No.1467 of 2001 which was allowed ordering that ‘the applicant shall be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension from 10.4.1981 to 23.8.1990 treating the period as on duty by deducting the subsistence allowance already paid by the respondents within a period of three months and the applicant is also entitled for other consequential benefits as per rules.”
26. The respondents have submitted that in compliance with the above orders, the applicant was paid full pay and allowances for the suspension period duly treating the period as on duty and allowed further consequential benefits of promotions to grade Rs.425-640 with effect from 11.5.1983 and Rs.455-700 with effect from 1.8.1983 on par with junior employees on Secunderabad Division. Also in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in OA 337 of 2007, the applicant's representation dated 2.4.2008 has been examined and the applicant was advised vide Office letter dated 28.5.2008.
27. The respondents have argued that the applicant cannot compare with other employees as the major penalty proceedings initiated against the staff in the Order dated 5.12.1997 were dropped only on exoneration from the charges levelled against them, whereas the applicant was charged with a major penalty charge sheet and finally inflicted with a minor penalty.
28. The respondents have further argued that the question of considering the applicant for further promotion to higher grades as Dy. Station Superintendent in scale Rs.1600-2660/5500-9000 and SS in grade Rs.6500-10500 would not rise, since as per extant rules in Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I, 1989 Edition, a Railway servant can be promoted to fill any post whether selection or non-selection post, only if he is considered fit to perform the duties attached to the post and without subjecting him for either suitability/selection, considering promotion to higher grades is against the rules. Since the applicant was already retired from service, no provision will permit for subjecting retired employees for suitability/selection.
29. The respondents have submitted that in compliance with the orders of the Tribunal in OA 1467 of 2001, the entire suspension period from 10.4.1981 to 23.8.1990 of the applicant has been treated as duty by the 3rd respondent vide memo dated 24.10.2003 and the applicant was paid the difference of pay and allowance for the said period of suspension by the 4th respondent. After superannuation on 31.5.2000 of the applicant, on treating the suspension period as duty, further consequential benefits as per rules such as promotions to grade Rs.425-640, Rs.455-700/1400-2300/5000-8000 on par with juniors on Secunderabad Division and revision of incremental fixation thereon till his superannuation have been extended from 1.8.1982 to 31.5.2000 by the 3rd and 4th respondents, as he was already found suitable and promoted to grade Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 4.3.96 on Vijayawada Division while in service. Promotion orders dated 28.9.2005 and 22.6.2006 of the 3rd respondent and further incremental revision orders dated 19.10.2006 of the 4th respondent were issued which are Annexures A-7, A-9 and A-1 to the OA. Difference of pay and all other allowances on actual basis consequent to the above revision has already been arranged to the applicant. Further, all consequential benefits as per rules, such as promotions to grade Rs.425-640, Rs.455-700/1400-2300/5000-8000 and revision of incremental fixation thereon have been extended vide memos dated 23.2.2006, 22.6.2006 and 19.10.2006, and the amounts were paid to the applicant.
30. It is submitted that the applicant was transferred on administrative grounds from Secunderabad Division to Vijayawada Division on 1.9.1990 along with the post in the pay scale of Rs.330-560/Rs.1200-2040 but not in the pay scale of Rs.455-700/1400-2300 as mentioned by the applicant. The Tribunal in OA 1467 of 2001 ordered only to pay the full pay and allowances after regularising the suspension period as duty and further made a categorical direction that ‘the applicant is entitled for other consequential benefits as per rules’. Accordingly, after treating the suspension period as duty, all the due amounts/benefits were extended to the applicant except further promotions to grade Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 since no suitability/selection could be held for a retired employee.
31. It is further submitted that promotion on par with junior has been extended to the applicant to grade Rs.455-700/1400-2300/5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.8.1982/1.8.1983 since he has been already found suitable and promoted to grade Rs.1400-2300/5000-8000 with effect form 4.3.1996 on Vijayawada Division while he was in service. After extending the promotion to grade Rs.425-640/455-700/1400-2300 w.e.f. 1.8.1982 on Secunderabad Divison, though the applicant was eligible for assignment of seniority in grade Rs.5000-8000 from the date of joining in Vijayawada Division, the same could not be done since the applicant was retired from service on 31.5.2000 and the question of treatment of suspension period as duty has been decided only after the applicant retired from service. The respondents have argued that the OA deserved to be dismissed.
32. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the submissions made in the OA. It is submitted that the respondents have admitted that besides being paid full pay and allowances in the Secunderabad Division of South Central Railway, the applicant was afforded promotion to grade Rs.425-640 w.e.f. 11.5.1983 and to Rs.455-700 w.e.f. 1.8.1983 on par with junior employees on Secunderabad Division, since the applicant had worked in Secunderaad Division during the aforesaid period, whereas the respondents have not mentioned any reason as to why Vijayawada Division could not implement the said order in toto when the applicant came to Vijayawada Division on administrative grounds and this action on the part of the respondents had force the applicant to file OA 337 of 2007. The reasons put forth by the respondents in rejecting the request of the applicant for consequential promotion to higher grades are devoid of logic and reasons besides being illegal and arbitrary.
33. It is argued that the respondents are not correct in making an attempt to reopen the issues that have been already adjudicated by this Tribunal. It is submitted that since the applicant's promotions to the selection posts to be decided on notional basis on par with the benefit already extended to the similarly situated employees who too did not appear for any selection for getting promotion to the selection post, obviously the contentions of the respondents are liable to be rejected.
34. The applicant has argued that since he had already retired and adjudging his suitability would no longer be required as he would not hold any post after retirement. It is further argued that the applicant need not be subjected to suitability/selection for granting promotions to higher grade posts as he would not be performing the duties attached to those posts since retired, but merely would be placed to higher grade on par with his juniors.
35. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted during the course of arguments that the distinction between the three employees and the applicant, sought to be made by the respondents, was not correct because as per RBE No.13/93, a person visited with a minor penalty was on par with a person exonerated. He even submitted that the applicant should be given even arrears of pay on the two promotions which he was claiming now and for this proposition he relied on the Full Bench decision of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Devi Lal and others v. Union of India reported at ATJ 2002 (1) 485. The Respondents' counsel, on the other hand, relied upon the submissions made in the reply statement and submitted that there was no substance in the claims of the applicant.
36. We have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and the materials on record. The main argument of the applicant is that he should be given the benefit of RBE No.126/97 as was given to the three other employees. It is difficult to accept this argument. The reason for this is that the very subject of RBE No.126/97 is Promotions and consequential benefits to the employees exonerated of the charges after retirement on superannuation . From the very language of the circular, it is very clear that it is a circular granting certain concessions. It is well settled that the circulars granting concessions have to be interpreted strictly and there is no scope to extend their application by analogy or by logic. RBE No.126/97 proposes to extend the benefit of promotions only to those employees who are exonerated of the charges and such benefits are proposed to be extended to them even after retirement on superannuation. The applicant's case cannot be covered in this circular on the ground that as per RBE No.13/93, even employees with minor penalty were entitled for promotion. RBE No. 13/93 was intended to be applicable to employees in service and by logical thinking or subjective argument, the benefits of RBE No.126/97 could not be extended to the applicant on the basis of RBE No.13/93. The order of the Tribunal in OA 1467/2001 came much after the retirement of the applicant and, therefore, the applicant could not be considered for promotions for which suitability tests were necessary as per rules. The stand of the respondents in this regard is correct and is upheld. We are of the view that all the consequential benefits as per the order of this Tribunal in OA 1467/2001 dated 3.7.2003 have been given to the applicant and the reliefs prayed for in this OA cannot be granted.
37. The OA is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.