THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25812 OF 2025

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

21.07.2025, passed in M.A.No.186 of 2025 in Diary No.704 of 2025 (O.A.) by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Telangana) (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Heard Sri MD. Nawaz Hyder Ali, learned counsel representing Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a retired employee and her pension was fixed during the year 2013. However, the last pay drawn by her in the year 2013 was not taken into account while fixing her pension and the basic pay of the year 2010 was taken into account, while fixing the pension. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not fixing the pension as per the last pay drawn, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing the subject Diary No.704 of 2025 (O.A.) along with M.A.No.186 of 2025 seeking to vide condone the delay in filing the O.A. The Tribunal impugned order, dated 21.07.2025, dismissed the subject M.A.No.186 of 2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the Tribunal has dismissed the subject M.A. without assigning any reason and consequently, the O.A. could not be numbered. Learned counsel further contended that pension is a recurring cause of action and the Tribunal ought to have passed a detailed order in the condone delay application, instead of mechanically dismissing the same recording that ‘MA/186/2025 filed for Condonation Delay in filing the OA is not allowed.’ The Tribunal ought to have heard the case, as the subject matter pertains to pension and that it is a recurring cause of action. Learned counsel further contended that the respondents have admittedly not fixed the pension as per the Rules and also not as per the last pay drawn. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay and heard the matter on merits. The Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the condone delay application and consequently, the O.A. preferred by the petitioner could not be numbered and heard on merits. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 21.07.2025, and let the matter be remitted to the Tribunal to pass a comprehensive order on the condone delay application by duly taking into account the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh1

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that let the matter be remitted to the Tribunal, so as to enable the Tribunal to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a detailed order, in accordance with law.

6. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the impugned order is bereft of reasons. The Tribunal ought to have passed a detailed speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 21.07.2025, is liable to be set aside.

1 (2008) 8 SCC 648

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated 21.07.2025, passed in M.A.No.186 of 2025 in Diary No.704 of 2025 (O.A.) by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Telangana), is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to pass a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law, on the condone delay application preferred by the petitioner, by duly taking into account the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh’s case (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J __________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J Date: 01.09.2025.

MD