2019 (10) TMI 411 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - petitioner submits that in the impugned order there is reference to an O.M. which would apply to all officers and in view thereof the present writ petition has been filed - HELD THAT - Admittedly no order has been passed with respect to applicant No.2 association or in respect of its members in general - In the absence of any general direction having been passed and in the absence of counsel being able to show how the association is collectively aggrieved by the impugned order, no orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding retirement benefits and recovery of amount.

In the judgment, the High Court addressed the challenge to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding retirement benefits and the recovery of amounts. The petition was filed by an individual, Sh. A.K. Gautam, who had retired from service, seeking extension of retirement benefits and recovery of amounts. The Tribunal's order directed the release of retirement benefits within four weeks and the restoration of the recovered amount with interest if not done within eight weeks. However, the order did not include any direction regarding the association or its members in general. The Court noted that since no general direction was issued, and the association did not show collective grievance, no orders were required to be passed in the writ petition. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, stating that no orders were necessary in this regard.

The judgment highlights the importance of specific directions in legal orders and the need for collective grievance to be demonstrated for associations to seek relief. The decision underscores the principles of individual versus collective grievances in legal proceedings and the necessity of clear and comprehensive orders to address specific issues effectively.