- (1.) WITH the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been considered finally at this stage itself. The claim made by the applicant (the respondent herein), for payment of allowance on being sent on deputation with BSNL, has been considered and decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT') in its impugned short order dated 22.07.2011 that reads, in its entirety, as under:- "Heard all counsels and perused the records. 2- The DOT officials who are on deputation with the BSNL are entitled to Rs. 2,000.00 per month as ad hoc payment and further to that the applicant, who was kept under suspension for involvement in a criminal case, but vide order dated 31.5.2006, the Ministry of Communication revoked his suspension, and he was allowed to rejoin duty on 19.6.2006 vide paragraph 4 of the reply filed by the respondents. Thereafter, vide Annex. A/5 dated 16.06.2008, his request for ad hoc payment was also favourably considered and granted to him. Strangely it seems that without any specific order in this respect it was withdrawn and when this inadequacy came in knowledge, applicant had approached claiming the same to be paid to him till the date of his retirement i.e. 30.06.2008. 3- After hearing all the parties, we find that since he was not absorbed in the BSNL and continued in the DOT till his retirement, he is entitled to the ad hoc payment of Rs. 2000.00 as otherwise he would have been entitled to that better pay scale of industrial pay scales in the BSNL. Therefore, we declare that applicant is entitled to such payment from the date of his deputation onwards, as mentioned in Annex. A/5, and should continue to receive it till 30.06.2008, which is the date of his retirement. Since this amount was wrongly withdrawn, interest @ 10% p.a. be also paid to him. The concerned authority shall compute this amount payable to him and pay the same to him within two months next. 4- No order as to costs."
(2.) WHILE taking up this matter for hearing, we find it difficult to even co-relate the submissions sought to be made by the learned counsel for the parties with the observations as made by the CAT in its order aforesaid. Admitted position does it appear that the applicant had been sent on deputation in BSNL and retired therefrom. However, the opening lines of paragraph 3 of the impugned order are rather incompatible with the given position. Secondly, the CAT appears not to have dilated upon all the factual and legal aspects of the matter; and the impugned order, to say the very least, appears to be rather an assumptive order that cannot be sustained. Thus, we are left with no option but to set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2011 and to remand the matter with the request to the CAT to deal with the submissions sought to be made by the learned counsel for the parties and to decide the matter in accordance with law. We may, of course, take note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant-respondent that the petitioners are otherwise in the process of making payment to him towards the deputation allowance. Suffice is to observe in this regard that if at all the matter is settled between the parties and the cause does not survive while the matter is taken up for hearing after remand, it shall always be permissible for the parties to make appropriate request before the CAT. With the observations above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned order dated 22.07.2011 is set aside; and the matter stands remanded to the CAT with a request to deal with and decide the same in accordance with law. The parties through respective counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the CAT on 10.12.2012. It is made clear that disposal of this writ petition shall not be of any impediment in the parties settling out the matter without adjudication by the CAT.;