@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 who moved O.A. before the "Central Administrative Tribunal", Patna Bench, Patna as O.A. No. 51/1996, mislead the Tribunal and obtained the impugned order and in fact the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were granted full relief voluntarily by the employer and order was passed and communicated to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The Petitioner has placed on record the copy of that order which is dated 04.11.1996 (Annexure-6).
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the order dated 04.11.1996 was not placed before the Tribunal even at the time of deciding the O.A. on 25.01.2001, therefore, after partly allowing the O.A. of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, the Tribunal directed the writ Petitioner to consider the case of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for giving promotion retrospectively with effect from the date of promotion given to their juniors and they shall also be paid all consequential and financial benefits.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submitted that they have preferred writ petition only to show that the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 by misleading the Tribunal obtained the order even after getting full relief from the writ Petitioner.
5. We are constrained to observe that the present writ petition has been preferred by the writ Petitioner i.e. the Union of India to show us only that the claim of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 was duly accepted by the writ Petitioner i.e. the Union of India itself as back as on 04.11.1996 and they opposed the O.A. before the "Central Administrative Tribunal" merely on the ground that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have submitted application that they will withdraw the O.A. but they did not withdraw it and ultimately, the Tribunal has passed the order partly allowing the O.A. on 25.01.2001 giving not more than what, according to the writ Petitioner itself, the relief which they have already granted.
6. It is unfortunate that only to show some facts without seeking any relief and without challenging the claim of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 the writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and that too after failing in producing the promotion order dated 04.01.1996 before the Tribunal and opposing the claim of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 on merit and that too after insisting that the O.A. may be dismissed merely on the ground that the applicant-Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 gave in writing that they will withdraw the O.A.
7. This is nothing but a serious abuse of the process of the Court and particularly pressing the writ petition when the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were duly granted promotion, served on the post and have retired already, hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
