Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Pardeep Jain And Others on 18 February, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Arun Palli
CWP No.1466-CAT of 2004 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1466-CAT of 2004
Date of Decision: 18.02.2014
Union of India and others
... Petitioners
Versus
Pardeep Jain and others
... Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present:Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the petitioners-UOI.
Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate,
for respondents No.1, 3, 5, 7, 14 to 16, 18 and 19.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
***** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) The private respondents before us from Nos.1 to 19 are employees of the Postal Department, who were discharging the duties of Postal Assistants in the Reserved Trained Pool. They sought parity of pay and allowances with regular Postal Assistants when they were discharging the same duties as of the Postal Assistants.
In support of the aforesaid plea, the private respondents before us, had relied before the CAT upon a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.262 of 1986 - Binder Rajan Kumar 2014.02.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.1466-CAT of 2004 [2] Ram and others v. Union of India and others, decided on 29.04.1987. Another judgment relied upon for the said relief is in O.A. No.472/HR/91 - Des Raj Brar and others v. Union of India and others, decided on 13.12.2000, specifically, in view of the fact that the private respondents having approached the CAT after a delay, the department was pleading the bar of limitation against them. In this case also a similar plea had been raised but the same was waived off in view of the fact that in other cases, which were assailed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the benefit of arrears had been given. [Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., 1990(1) SCC 113]. The relief in terms of the impugned order dated 31.10.2003 has been granted to the private respondents in fact on parity with the case of Des Raj Brar (supra).
We, thus, asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the Government authority can discriminate between employees in the same department identically situated where some will get benefit of larger part of the arrears while others will get lesser part of the arrears when waiving off the aspect of delay the arrears have been granted in full by the department itself accepting the judgment.
There is no satisfactory explanation to the aforesaid. It would be grave injustice to the private respondents, if they are treated differently in the aforesaid circumstances where the CWP No.1466-CAT of 2004 [3] department has accepted the judgment by paying full arrears to identically situated parties and not confined to period of three years prior to the filing of that O.A. In view of the aforesaid given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE February 18, 2014 Rajan