The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate wrrt, direction, order or orders declaring the order daled 211o712025 * + G t o + passedinMANo-186of2025inDiaryNo.7o4t2o25onthefileoftheHon'ble central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Telangana) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional consequently set aside the order dl'211O712''425 ' I.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition under sectaon 151 CPC praying that in the (;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cortrt may be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the arrears of revised pensiorr along with interest at the rate of 120/o per annum from the date on which the p,ension became due till the date of the actual payment, for the delay caused in issuance of the pension payment order and non-revision of pension- counset for the Petirioner : sRl Mo. NAWAZ HYDER ALl, |EARr.IEO COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI ARUVA RAGHURAM MAHADEV/ ,AdvoG[e-' counsel forthe Respondents : sRl KALVALA SANJEEV, LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following OROER rl. & ,} {h '1. a, .i' 6 ,l + 'i * ! + I I I t I t I +. I 6 I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KTJMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRITPETITIONNo.258120FzJ.?s ORDEIT (Per Hon ble Sri fustice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

21.07.2025, passed in M.A.No.186 of 20?5 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 AIi, leamed counsel representing Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, leamed Standing Counsel, appearing for the resPondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner *tat 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 2 AKS,J & VRKR,J W.P.No.25812 of2025 petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing the subject Diary No.7M of 2025 (O.A.) along with M.A.No.186 of 2025 seeking to condone the delay in filing the O.A. The Tribunal oide impugned order, dated 21.07.2025, dismissed the subjectM.l\.No.186 of Z\?j.

4. [,earned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the Tribunal has dismissed the subject M.A. withc'ut assigning any reason and consequently, the O.A. could not be numbered. Learned counsel further contended that Penslon rs a reclurmg cause of action and the Tribunal ought to have passed a detailed order in the condone delay application, insteact of mechanically dismissing the same recording that 'MA/185,/2025 filed for Condonation Delay in filing the OA is not allowt:d.' The Tribunal ought to have heard the case, as the subject n.ratter pertains to pension and that it is a recurring cause of action. l-earned counsel further contended that the respondents have adrruttedly not fixed the pension as per the Rules and also not as per th.e last pay drawn. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay and heard the matter on merits. The Tribunal was not justified in )J -='i t f l i I I I I t ! I i I I i i I I I l t I t I i Il I I 3 AIGJ & I/RI.(R,J W.P.No.258l2 of2025 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 21.07.20?5, 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 lndia v. Tarsem Singht.

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. I \ t (

5. This Court, having considered the submissioru made by the Ieamed 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, dated21,.07.2025, is liable to be set aside. ' (2oos) 8 scc 648 t I l t f I t, l.t t f{. k t 4 4 AIG,J & VRKR,J W.P.No.258l2 of2025

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated

21..07.2025, passed in M.A.No.18G of 2025 in Diary No.704 of 20?j (O.A.) by the Central Adminishative 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 pr:titioner, by duly taking into account the law laid down by the Ho;rourable 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. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY AIJSISTANT REGISTRAR e' SECTION OFFICER

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Communrcatrons Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Rrad, New Delhi - 110 001.

2. The Authorized Representative, Bharat Sanchar Niga I Limited (BSNL), Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane Janpath, New Delhi - 110001.

3. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam L.irnited (BSNL). Block No. 11, SDA Complex, Kusumpti Shimla, Himachal Pradesh - 171 009. 4. The Additional General Manager (CH AND SRN), therrat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), New Aghapura, Charkandir, Habeeb Nagar Main Rd, Aghapura, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 001

5. The Controller of Communication Action (CCA), Tetargana Telecom Circle, Hyderabad Department of Telephone Exchange Com cound Bholakpur, Hyderabad -500 080.

6. One CC to SRI ARUVA RAGHURAM MAHADEV, Advccate tOpUCI 7 One CC to SRI KALVAI.A SANJEEV, LEARNED STANDING CoUNSEL UTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, Advocatl' ,OPUCI CD Copies DEP W To SA BS i {!t I t l r&I L I I It"It I !. I ir+I I I 1r t ,|. # t & f + t *t I I + f + ! .-.r;;:"=:'' -.i TE{ri,,, \s \\\ \ rl' . <, /].\' i.-u u- i :,\,:;I r. l: .l;r.. g:.. LJ c,rij * ';|l/ HIGH GOURT DATED:01 10912025 ORDER WP.No.25812 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WIHOUT COSTS. ,r{ c,