http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1527 of 2007

PETITIONER: A.S. SASTRY

RESPONDENT: CHIEF COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/03/2007

BENCH: Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.8558 of 2006)

Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN,J.

       Leave granted.         Heard Mr.T.L.V.Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant and  Gp.Capt.Karn Singh Bhatti, learned counsel for the respondents.         We have perused the order impugned in this appeal.           According to the appellant, he is retired from service on 30.11.2005.   He is facing a departmental inquiry and the same is pending for a very long  time without being finally disposed of.  He has also challenged the charges  framed against him and the said case is also pending before the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Hyderbad.  Before the High Court, he also made a  prayer for expeditious disposal of the matter pending before the Central  Administrative Tribunal. The High Court directed the Central Administrative  Tribunal to consider the request made by the appellant and dispose of the  matter at an early date.  Thereafter, an application was filed before the  Tribunal to expedite hearing which was disposed of on 20.03.2006 stating  that there were large number of matters pending prior to the OA filed by the  appellant and, at that stage, it was not inclined to grant early hearing in the  matter and that the applicant may renew his request for early hearing after  three months.  This order was passed by the Tribunal on 20.03.2006. The  reasoning given by the Tribunal for not taking up the matter at an early date  is not acceptable to us.  The appellant has already superannuated on  30.11.2005. We, therefore, direct the Central Administrative Tribunal,  Hyderabad to take up OA No.788/2005 on priority basis and dispose of the  same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order  from this Court.           The High Court also while disposing of the Writ Petition directed the  respondent herein to pay the pension during the pendency of inquiry.  It is  stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said direction has  not been complied with.  We, therefore, direct the respondent to  immediately arrange to pay the entire arrears of pension after retirement  and continue to pay the same.         Learned counsel for the appellant states that even though a request  has already been made to travel abroad, i.e., to U.S.A. to see the members  of his family but the same was not accepted during the pendency of the  proceedings.  If the matter is not disposed of within two months as  directed by us now, the appellant may also make an application to the  Tribunal seeking permission to travel abroad and if such an application is  filed, the same          shall be disposed of on merits and in accordance with  law.         The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.                       No costs.