Judgment 1. Between the technicality of the law and equity the Tribunal could not imbalance one incumbent i.e., V. D. Sharma who received relief for pro-rata pension and deny the same relief to G. P. Sah. Both were Government of India employees. Both had their status as quasi-permanent being made into permanent and both had their services transferred to UCIL. 2. The contention before the court is that technically the two cases are different. The technicality is that V.D. Sharma applied for pro-rata pension While he was in service whereas the other incumbent G. P. Shah was watching the case of V.D. Sharma and having found his colleague successful in the litigation similarly applied for the same relief, though after retirement. These are the issues. 3. Any relief which was granted to G. P. Sah was on his claim dated 16 December, 1999, the judgment of the Tribunal was permitted to become final. It was not challenged. Further, this in itself should have been the end of the matter. Subsequently, finding that he was not receiving similar relief which his other colleague V. D. Sharma had been granted after litigating successfully, a contempt application was brought before the Tribunal. The original case arose out of O. A. No. 81 of 1998 with the judgment of the Tribunal dated 16.12.1999. The contempt application was numbered as C.C.P.A. No. 39 of 2000. In this contempt application the Tribunal noticed the facts and was not impressed by the defence and again reiterated thus: "On the other hand, it is clear to us that in rejecting the claim of the applicant fa pro-rata pension, though giving the reasons in detail, the respondents were trying to deny the applicant what should have been his rightful claim in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal. It was clearly observed in the order of the Tribunal that there was close similarity between the case of V. D. Sharma and that of the applicant so far as the facts of their past services under the Government and their absorptions in the UCIL services were concerned and on that basis direction was given to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant afresh for sanction of pro-rata pension in the light of the observations in the order, the principle laid down in V. D. Sharmas case and in accordance with law." 4. The observation of the Tribunal in the contempt case in paragraph 9 is The respondents shall grant prorata pension to the applicant for the services he rendered to the Government before his absorption in UCIL provided he returns the amounts of contributory provident fund he has already received alongwith interests. The applicant shall be paid the retirement benefits within three months from the date he returns the contributory provident fund he has already received. The respondents shall also pay him interests calculated @ 12% on his pro-rata pension, the interests accruing from the date he returns the pro-rata pension. In case the respondents do not comply with this order within time, the applicant shall be at liberty to file contempt application again. No costs." 5. This court does not see any reason why it should interfere with the order of the Tribunal on a reasoned order whether on the claim or on the contempt application. 6. The court does not find any illegality in the orders of the Tribunal so that it may consider quashing them. 7. Dismissed.