* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 12800-12802/2005
% Date of Decision: 23.03.2011
UOI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : None
versus
SATISH KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No
ANIL KUMAR, J.
No one is present on behalf of the petitioners.
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.11.2004 of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench granting the
relief to the respondent in terms of OM dated 01.03.2004 stipulating
that in case of pensioners retiring between 01.04.2004 to 31.01.2005
retiral benefits such as fixation of pension, commutation of pension
and DCRG, etc. be paid along with 12% interest for the delay, if any.
WP(C) 12800-12802/2005 Page 1 of 2
The respondent has superannuated on 31.03.2004 in place of
01.04.2004 as contemplated in OM dated 01.03.2004. The Tribunal
has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Banerjee v
Union of India; AIR 1990 SC 295. It has been held that
considering the facts and circumstances, the respondent is deemed
to have retired on 01.04.2004 and special dispensation as mentioned
in Para 3 of the said OM would apply to him.
Since no one is present on behalf of the parties, the writ
petition is dismissed in default. The interim order dated 18.09.2008
in CM No. 9595/2005 is vacated.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
MARCH 23, 2011
kks
WP(C) 12800-12802/2005 Page 2 of 2