1. Being aggrieved by the order made in O.A. No. 263 of 2014, dated 12.03.2015, by which, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, has directed the General Manager, Assistant General Manager and Accounts Officer, BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), Sreerangapalayam, Salem, respondents/writ petitioners, to disburse the monthly pension of the applicant/1st respondent, from 30.04.2011 and pay the entire retirement benefits, leave encashment, salary and arrears of salary to the applicant/1st respondent, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of passing of the order, the present writ petition has been filed. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition, from the materials on record and the impugned order are that the 1st respondent was working as a Telephone Operator, in BSNL, Kallakurichi, since 1972 and retired from service on 30.04.2011, after serving the department for more than 37 years of service. Wife of the 1st respondent has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in F.C.O.P. No. 154 of 2007 and claimed maintenance in I.A. No. 61 of 2008, before the Family Court, Salem. Based on the endorsement made by the 1st respondent to the effect that he was ready to live with his wife, I.A. No. 61 of 2008, has been allowed, vide order, dated 10.11.2011, directing the 1st respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Thereafter, she has filed O.S. No. 11 of 2010, to restrain the 1st respondent from receiving the retiral benefits, in the event of voluntary retirement or retirement on superannuation. In the suit, she has also filed I.A. No. 15 of 2010, against the writ petitioners, not to disburse the salary and other benefits, till the disposal of F.C.O.P. No. 154 of 2007, before the Family Court. In I.A. No. 15 of 2010, ex-parte injunction order has been granted on 10.11.2010, against which, the 1st respondent has filed I.A. No. 33 of 2012, to set aside the order passed in I.A. No. 15 of 2010. The same has been allowed on 28.03.2012.

2. Contending inter alia that there is no interim order, against the writ petitioners/ defendants in the suit and no appeal has been filed against the order made in I.A. No. 33 of 2012, dated 28.03.2012, representations have been made by the respondent to the writ petitioners, to disburse pension and other retiral benefits. Before the Tribunal, the writ petitioners have filed a reply, stating that wife of the 1st respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No. 11 of 2010 and sought for an injunction, has to disburse the retiral benefits. Order passed in I.A. No. 33 of 2012, dated 28.03.2012, has been admitted by the writ petitioners, but still, pendency of the suit, has been cited as the reason, for not disbursing the retirement benefits. The writ petitioners have further contended that proposals along with the opinion of the panel counsel, was forwarded to the Principal Controller of Communication Accounts, DOTCELL, Chennai.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that there was no intention to withhold the retirement benefits, including pension. Since the suit is pending, settlement of the same, is delayed. According to the writ petitioners, no sooner, the Court cases are decided, a decision would be taken on the settlement of retiral benefits. After considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and placing reliance on the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in O.A. No. 858 of 1996, the Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated by the wife, against the writ petitioners, for an injunction in O.S. No. 11 of 2010, cannot be stated to be a judicial proceedings, in terms of Rules 9 and 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and accordingly, issued directions to disburse the retirement and other benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Assailing the correctness of the order, Mr. S. Udayakumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the Central Administrative Tr