dofp2024_00807 — Compulsory retirement of the Applicant which was set aside by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal is challenged in the High Court by Respondent is yet to be disposed of. Hence, the Tribunal after hearing both sides and analyzing the case held that the finalization of his pension and other retiral benefits has to wait till the Writ Petition No. 7568/2019 filed by Respondents earlier challenging the order of the Tribunal is disposed of. Hence, the payer in the OA seeking sanction of pension to the Ap

Compulsory retirement of the Applicant which was set aside by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal is challenged in the High Court by Respondent is yet to be disposed of. Hence, the Tribunal after hearing both sides and analyzing the case held that the finalization of his pension and other retiral benefits has to wait till the Writ Petition No. 7568/2019 filed by Respondents earlier challenging the order of the Tribunal is disposed of. Hence, the payer in the OA seeking sanction of pension to the Applicant was not allowed — The applicant's petition seeking sanction of pension is dismissed due to pending litigation challenging an earlier order of compulsory retirement. This case involves a driver under Commissioner of Ce... — Facts: Applicant, a driver under Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Mumbai has filed this OA. Applicant was compulsorily retired which was set aside by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal. But the Respondents filed a Writ Petition No. 6368/2013 against the order of the Tribunal which was disallowed. Hence, the Respondents challenged the High Court order in Apex Court which was also disallowed by Apex Court. Thereafter, Applicant who was compulsorily retired was taken back on duty in 2018. Applicant filed a Writ Petition No. 11391/2013 against the order of the Tribunal denying back-wages which was sent back to Tribunal to redetermine the issue of payment of back-wages. High Court directed the Respondents by order, dated 23-7-2020 to deposit the back-wages under the impugned order along with calculations which shall be subject to further High Court orders. Applicant retired from service on 31-8-2019 and his pension is kept back due to pendency of the Writ Petition No. 7568/2019. Both sides contended to maintain their position. Tribunal heard both sides. The following conclusion emerged by the Tribunal on hearing both sides. They are:- On compulsory retirement from service by order, dated 8-1-2008, Applicant was paid pension, gratuity, leave encashment and commuted pension amount. On reinstatement in 2018 as per order of the Tribunal, dated 9-8-2018, Applicant received his pension as well as salary till his retirement in August, 2019. As the Applicant did not return his PPO served on him, Tribunal had informed the Respondents not to pay him pension. Applicant continues to get his pension in addition to his salary. Even though the Tribunal directed the Respondents by order, dated 9-8-2018 to reinstate the Applicant from the date of his compulsory retirement i.e. 8-1-2008 and to pay him back-wages till he resumes duty, that was not done as Respondents challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing Writ Petition No. 7568/2019 in February, 2019 which is pending in High Court. Due to the pending case in High Court, the Respondents can finalize the amount of his pension only after the writ petition filed by the Respondents is disposed of to work out amount of his last pay drawn at the time of Applicant's retirement in August, 2019. Based on that amount of pay drawn, other retiral benefits due to him along with recovery of excess payment were received by the Applicant. Till then only provisional pension already sanctioned can be paid to the Applicant as provided in Rule 69(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. A case filed by the Applicant challenging his compulsory retirement and payment of back-wages to him from 2008 to 2018 has not attained finality”.