JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Judgment and order dated 28th November, 2014 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad circuit bench at Nainital in Original Application No. 983 of 2013 Raj Kumar vs. Union of India and others.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Respondent joined his service on 18.04.1979 as Painter in 57(1) Supply Platoon Army Supply Corps. He alongwith some others was declared surplus as Painter. Thereafter, he was transferred to Military Engineering Services on 28.04.1992 and was posted as Painter. On 15.10.1984, a circular was issued, whereby a policy decision was taken by the Government of India for up-gradation of certain posts i.e. from semi skilled to skilled worker, high skilled worker grade-II and high skilled worker grade-I. On 31.10.2000, a decision was taken to give skilled grade to the respondent; but, his up-gradation was to the highly skilled grade-II and his claim for highly skilled grade-I was not considered. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed Original Application No. 922 of 2004 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad challenging the orders dated 31.10.2000, 12.04.2001 and 22.03.2002. The Central Administrative Tribunal decided the said Original Application on 28.10.2009 in the following manner: “We allow the Original Application, quash and set aside the order dated 31.10.2000, 12.04.2001 and 22.03.2002 passed by the respondents (Annexure No.1, 2 and 3 to Compilation No.1) and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for grant of similar benefits of up-gradation to the applicant from the date his junior Sri Kailash Chandra has been granted, without consequential benefits.” Respondent did not challenge the judgment dated 28.10.2009, by which consequential benefits were denied. But, the petitioners first filed Review Application No. 73 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. Simultaneously, they also approached the Allahabad High Court by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66197 of 2010. The Review Application filed by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad was dismissed. Similarly, Writ Petition filed by the petitioners in the Allahabad High Court was also dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction vide judgment and order dated 01.02.2012. Writ Petition No. 66197 of 2010. The Review Application filed by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad was dismissed. Similarly, Writ Petition filed by the petitioners in the Allahabad High Court was also dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction vide judgment and order dated 01.02.2012. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 78 of 2012 before this Court. This Court dismissed the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 24.07.2012. Thereafter, the respondent filed Contempt Petition No. 74 of 2012. In the Contempt Petition following order was passed. “4. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders and we are of the considered opinion that the respondents have complied with the order but they have not made actual payment. Therefore, as requested by Shri Himanshu Singh, we grant one month time to the respondents to communicate the decision and make actual payment to the applicant, if already not paid, to the applicant. 5. In view of the above, contempt proceedings is dropped. Notice to the respondents is discharged.” The respondent was given a cheque dated 09.09.2013 amounting to Rs. 1,33,650/-. But, his request for payment of Rs. 4,48,055/- was not acceded to. An order was passed by respondent no. 3 on 26.04.2013 withholding the payment of Rs. 4,48,055/-. This order has not been annexed by either of the parties and is not before us. Then, he filed another Original Application No. 983 of 2013 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad circuit bench at Nainital for following relief: “i. Issue a suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to forthwith pay to the applicant the amount of Rs. 4,48,055/- as mentioned in para 1 of order dated 26.04.2013 (Annexure-A-1 to compilation No.1) along with interest at the rate of 25% per annum thereon.” The said Original Application was allowed on 28.11.2014. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad circuit bench at Nainital in Original Application No. 983 of 2013 Raj Kumar vs. Union of India and others. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per policy/procedure, a separate sanction of charge expenditure is required with regard to the cases of arrears/financial implication awarded by the learned Tribunal before releasing the payment. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per policy/procedure, a separate sanction of charge expenditure is required with regard to the cases of arrears/financial implication awarded by the learned Tribunal before releasing the payment. Therefore, the sanction of charged expenditure is required to be accorded by the Ministry of Defence/Finance Budget before releasing the payment. Hence, in order to comply with the direction of higher authorities i.e. Ministry of Defence, the case was submitted alongwith relevant documents to higher authorities for obtaining the sanction of charged expenditure vide Letter No.5061/02/E5 dated 31.01.2013. In the meanwhile, a suppl. Bill dated 31.01.2013 amounting to Rs. 4,48,055/- was forwarded to Audit Authorities AO GE Roorkee for provisional payment to respondent vide letter No.1139/RK/03/EIC dated 21.02.2013. The AO, GE Roorkee returned the Bill vide letter No. A/80/GE/MES/RKE/ dated 25.02.2013 for obtaining legal opinion/clarification, as per para 13 & 14 of the order of the learned Tribunal dated 28.10.2009. Thereafter, the matter was referred to HQ CWE (Hills), Dehradun vide letter No. 1139/RK/06/Eic dated 27.02.2013. The CWE advised for first legal opinion vide Letter No.1042/RK/ Sat/Ei (con) dated 23.03.2013. Accordingly, the matter was referred to CGSC vide letter No.1152/RK/CP/Ei dated 01.04.2013 who gave his opinion vide letter No. 22 dated 08.05.2013 and in accordance with the legal opinion of CGSC, a fresh sy Bill amounting to Rs. 1,33,650/- was prepared and forwarded vide letter No.1139/RK/16/Eic dated 22.05.2013. Thereafter, AO GE, Roorkee forwarded the bill to CDA Army Meerut for approval of provisional payment vide letter No.A.80/GE/MESRKE dated 31.05.2013. Although once Bill amounting to Rs. 4,48,055/- was forwarded; but, that was subject to decision by the higher authorities and, in fact, the higher authorities, keeping in view the judgment dated 28.10.2009 wherein it is stated that the respondent is not entitled for consequential benefits and after obtaining legal opinion, had decided to pay a sum of Rs. 1,33,650/- to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was rightly paid a sum of Rs. 1,33,650/-. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/petitioners submitted that the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad became final in which direction was issued to consider the case of the applicant for grant of similar benefits of up-gradation to the respondent from the date his junior Sri Kailash Chandra had been granted, but without consequential benefits. He submitted that the petitioners calculated the payment of arrears from the date of judgment. He submitted that since there was direction for not giving consequential benefits, the benefits were calculated from the date of judgment and amount of Rs. 1,33,650/- was paid to the respondent. 5. We heard learned counsel Mr. Navneet Kaushik and, thereafter, the respondent Mr. Raj Kumar also. It is submitted that since the Original Application No. 922 of 2004 was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad on 28.10.2009, the petitioners should have granted all the benefits to him from the date same were granted to his junior, namely, Sri Kailash Chandra. It is submitted that it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 28.10.2009, inasmuch as, the same has attained finality because the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the High Court. The highest authority had approved the payment of Rs. 4,48,055/-. Therefore, same should have been released in favour of respondent. In case the petitioners had any doubt, in that event, it was open for them to approach the learned Tribunal seeking clarification of the order. It is submitted that, in fact, a sum of Rs. 4,48,055/- has been calculated by the Department which is to be paid to him and the respondent should be given same amount. It is also submitted that once Original Application No. 983 of 2013 filed by him has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, circuit bench at Nainital on 28.11.2014, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that before the Contempt Court, the counsel for the petitioners requested for granting him one month’s further time to make actual payment to the respondent. On his request, Contempt Court passed order and dropped contempt proceedings. Once in contempt proceedings petitioners took time to comply the order, the petitioners should have paid Rs. 4,48,055/- to the respondent. 6. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Union of India/ petitioners and Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent and also Mr. Raj Kumar, respondent, in person. We have also perused the judgment passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 7. The argument of the respondent that once the petitioners have allotted/calculated a sum of Rs. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Union of India/ petitioners and Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent and also Mr. Raj Kumar, respondent, in person. We have also perused the judgment passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 7. The argument of the respondent that once the petitioners have allotted/calculated a sum of Rs. 4,48,055/- to be paid to him, the said amount could not be reduced, is not acceptable to us, inasmuch as, it is for the higher and competent authority to decide the total amount of arrears in the light of the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. In the case in hand, we find that the higher authorities, after obtaining legal opinion, reached to the conclusion that the amount of arrears can only be given to the respondent from the date of judgment. As far as another argument on behalf of the respondent regarding direction issued by the Contempt Court is concerned, we find that the Contempt Court, while dropping the proceedings, had simply granted one month’s time to the learned counsel for the petitioners to communicate the decision and make actual payment to the respondent, if already not paid. We also find that the Contempt Court had also observed that petitioners have complied with the order, but they have not made actual payment. 8. We find that the Tribunal dealt the matter in the following manner: “7. Heard the rival contentions of the parties, perused the documents on record. It is not disputed that the original application of the applicant was allowed and direction was given to grant him the benefit of upgradation from the date his junior Kailash Chand has been granted, but without consequential benefits. Though the order was not to grant consequential benefits but while granting the benefits of upgradation the date has to be reckoned with from 15.10.1984 the date when Shri Kailash Chandra was granted the benefit of upgradation. Calculating the benefit from the date of passing of judgment i.e. 28.10.2009 was never intended by the Hon’ble Tribunal while passing the order. Though the order was not to grant consequential benefits but while granting the benefits of upgradation the date has to be reckoned with from 15.10.1984 the date when Shri Kailash Chandra was granted the benefit of upgradation. Calculating the benefit from the date of passing of judgment i.e. 28.10.2009 was never intended by the Hon’ble Tribunal while passing the order. If it was so it would have been clearly indicated in the order instead, the order is very clear and the direction is to grant similar benefits of upgradation to the applicant from the date his junior Shri Kailash Chandra has been granted, hence no where the benefits of upgradation can be calculated from the date of passing of the order passed in OA No.922 of 2004 but has to be calculated from the date when Shri Kailash Chandra has been granted and accordingly the respondents themselves has promoted the applicant as Painter HS Grade II w.e.f. 15.10.1984 to Painter HS Grade-I w.e.f. 15.10.1985. Hence the respondents are directed to calculate all the benefits w.e.f. 15.10.1984 when the applicant was promoted as HS Grade-II and to pay him the rest amount after deducting the already paid amount of Rs. 1,33,650/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the original application is allowed with the above observations and directions. No Costs.” 9. In our view, the learned Tribunal is not correct in issuing direction to the petitioners to calculate all the benefits with effect from 15.10.1984 when the respondent was promoted as HS Grade-II and to pay him the rest amount after deducting the already paid amount of Rs. 1,33,650/-. Direction in Original Application No. 922 of 2004 was to consider the case of the applicant for grant of similar benefits of up-gradation to the respondent from the date his junior Sri Kailash Chandra was granted; but, without consequential benefits. Thus, it is clear that consequential benefits cannot be given to the respondent. The respondent neither challenged the said order nor moved any clarification application before the learned Tribunal and simply accepted the same. We also notice that the respondent has not challenged the order dated 26.04.2013 in his Original Application, though he has taken ground. The Tribunal has also ignored this fact. The respondent neither challenged the said order nor moved any clarification application before the learned Tribunal and simply accepted the same. We also notice that the respondent has not challenged the order dated 26.04.2013 in his Original Application, though he has taken ground. The Tribunal has also ignored this fact. In the order impugned, we find that the learned Tribunal has tried to clarify the order passed in Original Application No. 922 of 2004, which it could not do. The learned Tribunal is wrong in writing that it was never intended by the Tribunal that benefit should be given to the respondent from the date of passing of judgment i.e. 28.10.2009. We simply find that the learned Tribunal in its judgment and order dated 28.10.2009 had clearly directed to consider the case of the respondent for grant of similar benefits of up-gradation from the date his junior Sri Kailash Chandra was granted, but, without consequential benefits. This order was confirmed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 24.07.2012. Issuance of direction for calculating all benefits w.e.f. 15.10.1984 is contrary to the order passed in Original Application No. 922 of 2004. 10. We find that on 10.02.2014, Dy. Director, Integrated HQ of MOD wrote to CE Central Command, Lucknow informing him that a sum of Rs. 4,48,055/- is allotted for making payment to the respondent. Same is reproduced hereinafter: “Tel: 23013647 Dte of Works (Budget)/E5 Engineer in Chief’s Branch Integrated HQ of MOD (Army) Kashmir House, New Delhi-11 A/02467/CH/(1835)/E-5 (Budget) 10 Feb 2014 Headquarters CE Central Command Lucknow-226002 C/o 56 APO, Pin-900450 CHARGED EXPENDITURE: ALLOTEMENT OF FUNDS IN R/O SHRI RAJ KUMAR, MCM (PAINTER): OA NO.922/2004 1. Reference CDA Merrut Cantt letter No. PAY/IV/Audit Report/CEBZ dated 12 Jun 2013 addressed to this HQ and copy to others. 2. A sum of Rs. 4,48,055/- (Rupees four lakhs forty eight thousand fifty five only) is hereby allotted as charged expenditure under Major Head 2076, DS-Army, Minor Head 111, Sub Head ‘C’, Code Head (99/465/00) for making the payment to Shri Raj Kumar, MCM (Painter) against OA No.922/ 2004 in full satisfaction of the Hon’ble CAT, Allahabad judgment dated 28 Oct 2009 during the F/Y 2013-14. 3. It may be ensured that a receipt (in duplicate) is obtained from claimant as per procedure to the effect that the total amount as paid to him is in full and final settlement of the claim. 3. It may be ensured that a receipt (in duplicate) is obtained from claimant as per procedure to the effect that the total amount as paid to him is in full and final settlement of the claim. The duplicate copy of the said receipt may be sent to this HQ for record. 4. This issues with the concurrence of Min of Def/Fin (Works-I) vide their No. 41/Fin/W-I/13 dated 28 Jan 2014. 5. The commitment for the above expenditure has been noted by GS FP-2 vide their No.182/Charged/Feb/2014 dated 05 Feb 2014. Sd/- (Smt. Janak Dhawan) Dy Director E5 (Budget) For E-in-C Copy to:- MOD/D (Works-II) MOD/D (Works-I) GS FP-2 CGDA DG ADS O/o CDA (Army), Merrut Cantt. – Two ink signed copies. HQ Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone. Pin – 900496, C/o 56 APO” 11. We also do notice that on 19.03.2014, Chief Engineer, Central Command wrote to Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone about allotment of Rs. 4,48,055/- for making payment to the respondent. Communication dated 19.03.2014 is as follows: “Tele Mil: 2702 REGD BY POST Headquarters Chief Engineer Central Command Pin-900450 905101/13/Ch Expdr/29/E5 19 Mar 2014 HQ Chief Engineer Bareilly Zone PIN-900496 CHARGED EXPENDITURE: ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS IN R/O SH RAJ KUMAR, MCM (PAINTER) : OA NO 922/2004 1. Out of the funds allotted to your Zone for the FY 2013-14 under Major Head 2076, DS-Army, Minor Head 111, Sub Head ‘C’ code head (99/465/00), the amount of Rs. 4,48,055/- (Rupees Four lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Fifty Five only) is hereby allotted for making payment to Shri Raj Kumar, MCM (Painter) against OA No 922/2004. 2. It may be ensured that a receipt (in duplicate) is obtained from claimant as per procedure to the effect that the total amount as paid to him is in full and final settlement of the claims. The duplicate copy of the said receipt may be sent to all concerned under intimation to this HQ. Auth : IHQ of MoD (Army), E-in-C’s Branch letter No. A/02467/CH/(1835)/E5 (Budget) dt 10 Feb 2014 (copy att) Sd/- (Alok Shukla) Lt Col Offg SO1 Budget For Offg Chief Engineer Encls : As Above Copy to:- CDA (Army) Merrut HQ CWE (Hills) Dehradun GE Roorkee” 12. Apparently, these were after filing of the O.A. No. 983 of 2013. Auth : IHQ of MoD (Army), E-in-C’s Branch letter No. A/02467/CH/(1835)/E5 (Budget) dt 10 Feb 2014 (copy att) Sd/- (Alok Shukla) Lt Col Offg SO1 Budget For Offg Chief Engineer Encls : As Above Copy to:- CDA (Army) Merrut HQ CWE (Hills) Dehradun GE Roorkee” 12. Apparently, these were after filing of the O.A. No. 983 of 2013. Secondly, the question to be decided is what would be the amount due in terms of the earlier order of the Tribunal which has excluded the consequential benefits. The petitioners considered the same and informed the respondent vide communication dated 26.04.2013 about withholding the amount of Rs. 4,48,055/-, which has not been challenged by the respondent. 13. In view of above discussion, the judgment and order dated 28th November, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad circuit bench at Nainital in Original Application No. 983 of 2013 Raj Kumar vs. Union of India and others deserves to be set aside. Same is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. 14. There will be no order as to costs.