S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In this writ petition, the Union Government feels aggrieved by an order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter called “the CAT”) in O.A. No. 3613/2011. The CAT allowed the respondent/petitioner’s (hereafter called “the respondent” or (“Ms. Bhatia”) application and directed the regularization of two spells of alleged unauthorized absence and also directed the Union Government to revise the respondent’s pension with effect from 19.12.2009 with consequential benefits.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the case are that the respondent was a 1987 batch Class I Executive cadre officer in the Cabinet Secretariat [also known as the R&AW]. The events which led to her compulsory retirement with effect from 18.12.2009 have to be recapitulated. The respondent had alleged sexual harassment at the workplace sometime in 2007. This led to the constitution of two Committees. Although the reports of these Committees are not the direct subject matter of these proceedings, yet the reports of the Committee (dated 19.05.2008 and subsequent report of another Committee dated 30.09.2008) indicated that the allegations of sexual harassment could not be substantiated. On 08.12.2009, the Union Government, by invoking its powers under Rule 135(1)(a) of the Research & Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre & Service) Rules, 1975, compulsorily retired the respondent on the ground of her being exposed as an Intelligence Officer and thus becoming unemployable in the organization. The respondent in the present case challenged the order of compulsory retirement in O.A. 50/2010. After considering the arguments of the rival contentions, pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, the CAT quashed the said order of compulsory retirement and directed consequential relief to be granted to her. The Union Government, in turn, questioned the decision of the CAT before this Court in W.P.(C) 2735/2010. This Court, by an order dated 03.05.2010, issued notice to show cause to the respondent and in the meanwhile, stayed the order of the CAT, directing the respondent’s reinstatement. The Court, however, clarified that,

“…………..This, however, will not prejudice the right of the respondent to claim her compulsory retirement benefits in accordance with law after fulfilling the formalities as contemplated under the rules. In case, the respondent claims her retrial benefits, the same be released to her within one week after fulfilling formalities by her. The claim of such retiral benefits by her shall be without prejudice to her rights and contentions………………..”

3. On 10.05.2010, an order fixing the respondent’s provisional pension under Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“Pension Rules”), based upon her pay drawn as on 28.08.2008, with effect from 19.12.2009, was issued. This order stated that the provisional pension should be released, “from 19.12.2009 till her period of unauthorized absence is regularized.” The respondent contested the order of provisional pension to the extent that it treated a substantial period till the date of the order of compulsory retirement as period of unauthorized absence, by filing O.A. 1665/2010 before the CAT. In that proceeding, the respondent argued that the Union Government’s submission in W.P.(C) 2735/2010 (hereafter referred to as “the UOI’s 2010 petition”) about an alleged period of unauthorised absence between 29.08.2008 and 26.11.2009 was not justified. She referred to previous proceedings before the CAT which had dealt with the ongoing proceedings enquiring into the allegations of sexual harassment and certain orders made by the Tribunal and consequently by this Court. The respondent pointed-out that in those proceedings, i.e. O.A. 2687/2008, the Union Government had acknowledged that the respondent joined the office on 06.04.2009. She also contended that she was prevented from attending her office and relied upon an endorsement alleged to have been given by a Commande