M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.) As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal and as such both of them can be said to be cross petitions, both these petitions are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 12.01.2016 passed in OA No. 451 of 2013 as well as impugned order dated 28.04.2016 passed in Review Application No. 29 of 2016, the original respondents - Union of India and another have preferred present Special Civil Application No. 21855 of 2016 under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 12.01.2016 passed in OA No. 451 of 2013 as well as impugned order dated 28.04.2016 passed in Review Application No. 29 of 2016 in so far as the learned Tribunal has confirmed the revised pension fixation, the original applicant has preferred present Special Civil Application No. 6075 of 2017.
(3.) The facts leading to the present Special Civil Applications in nutshell are as under: 3.1. That the original applicant was working with the Union of India under Heavy Water Plant, Fertilizernagar as Tradesman-F. That while working as Tradesman-F under Heavy Water Plant, Fertilizernagar, the original applicant took VRS on 2.8.2005. That his pension was fixed @ Rs.4878/- per month from 2.8.2005 to 11.12.2005 and thereafter @ Rs.2927/- per month from 12.12.2005 onwards. It appears that pursuant to the implementation of 6 CPC dated 09.08.2011 the pension was revised to Rs.11,026/-. It was observed and found by the Pay and Account Office that his pension was wrongly fixed @ Rs.11026/-, thereafter vide order dated 24.07.2013 (impugned before the learned Tribunal) his pension was revised downwardly from Rs.11,026/- to Rs.7350/-. That the department also passed an order to recover the amount of pension paid in excess by monthly installment of Rs.4000/-. 3.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of revision of pension from Rs.11026/- to Rs.7350/- per month and order of recovery of the excess amount of pension paid, the original applicant approached the learned Tribunal by way of OA No. 451 of 2013. Before the learned Tribunal, learned counsel for the original applicant heavily relied upon the decision in the case of State of Punjab and Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883 and submitted that as the applicant is a senior citizen and pension is only means of his livelihood, no recovery can be made from him in view of the said decision. That by impugned judgment and order dated 12.01.2016 following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), the learned Tribunal has quashed and set aside the order of recovery of the amount of pension paid in excess, however uphold the validity of the order dated 24.07.2013 revising the pension from Rs.11026/- to Rs.7350/- per month. That thereafter, department preferred Review Application before the learned Tribunal being Review Application No.29 of 2016 by submitting that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as the original applicant himself gave undertaking to the Bank that in case any excess payment is made to him he is ready to return any excess payment made to him. However, by impugned order dated 28.04.2016, the learned Tribunal has rejected the said Review Application by observing that according to undertaking given by original applicant to the bank that he is ready to return any excess payment made to him would not deprive the applicant in the OA of his legal rights. 3.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal passed in OA No. 451 of 2013 as well as RA No. 29 of 2016 in OA NO. 451 of 2013, original respondents-Union of India and Another preferred present Special Civil Application No.21855 of 2016 before this Court. That the Division Bench of this Court directed to issue notice in the present petition on the respondent original applicant in the month of June 2017. The respondent no.1 - original applicant appeared through his advocate in Special Civil Application No.21855 of 2016. Having been served with the copy of the petition of Special Civil Application No.21855 of 2016, it appears that as an afterthought, the original applicant preferred Special Civil Application No.6075 of 2017 challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in upholding the validity of the order dated 24.07.2013 revising the pension from Rs.11026/- to Rs.7350/- per month. Special Civil Application No. 21855 of 2016 ;