Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Anna Antony vs M/O Defence on 11 January, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00100/2017
Wednesday, this the 11th day of January, 2023.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K.V. EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Anna Antony,
W/o. V.L.Antony (late)
Ex.MES/109282, Caneman (Retired)
Vettussery House, Cheranelloor
Vaduthala, Kochi - 682 023 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.R.Hariraj)
Versus
1. Engineer-in-Chief
Engineer-in-Chief's Branch
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg
D.H.Q (P.O)
New Delhi - 110 011
2. The Chief Engineer, Head Quarters
Southern Command
Pune - 411 001
3. The Commander Works Engineer (NW)
Military Engineer Services
Kataribagh, Naval Base (P.O)
Kochi - 682 004
4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)
Allahabad, Utterpradesh
Pin - 211 001
5. Union of India, represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Defence, South Block
New Delhi - 110 001 - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. N.Anilkumar, SPC)
The O.A having been heard on 11 th January, 2023, this Tribunal
delivered the following order on the same day:
2
O R D E R (Oral):-
Per: Mr. K.V. Eapen, Administrative Member The Original Application has been filed by the applicant, a Caneman in the Military Engineering Services (MES) seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue necessary directions to the 1 st respondent to consider and pass orders on merit on Annexure A-5 in accordance with law, in the light of rulings on the subject by the various Benches of this Hon'ble Tribunal, High Courts and Apex Court of India and implementation of the same by the respondents themselves and grant and disburse to the applicant all consequential benefits arising therefrom, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
(b) Issue necessary directions to the Respondents to grant and pay the 'skilled grade' to the applicant in the post of Caneman from her initial date of appointment, as granted and paid to her counter parts all over India pursuant to the final orders referred to and pay all consequential benefits arising therefrom, including difference in her retiral benefits, pension etc. treating all similarly situated alike without any discrimination.
(c) Issue necessary directions to the 4th respondent to refix the applicant's pension on refixation of her pay in skilled grade in the post of Caneman and consequential fixations of pay, by issuance of necessary addendum in this behalf within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal."
2. Effectively, the applicant is seeking a direction to the respondents to grant and pay the 'skilled grade' to her in the post of Caneman from her initial date of appointment, as granted and paid to her counter parts all over India pursuant to the final orders referred to by various Courts. It is also prayed to grant all consequential benefits arising therefrom including difference in her retiral benefits, pension, etc., like others who are similarly situated. 3 Initially, the respondents had filed a reply statement stating that the benefit granted in the relied upon cases of the applicant were only granted to those who have filed the cases and not to others. Later, they filed an additional reply statement in which they have submitted that the justification given by the applicant cannot be acceded to since a person blessed with 'sight' cannot compete for selection to skilled category as provided by service rules similar to the prescriptions in several other cadres as a disabled/blind Caneman would seriously prejudiced in this regard. In other words, the benefits of Skilled Grade was made applicable to blind Caneman only.
3. When the matter came up for hearing today, learned counsel for the applicant brings to our notice the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Union of India v. Sat Pal Tomar and Others reported in 2012 SCC Online P&H 5246, where the Hon'ble High Court had examined this very issue in the matter of Caneman. The Hon'ble High Court and had found that no discrimination can be made between the visually handicapped and non-handicapped Caneman working in the Department, for the purpose of grant of skilled grade. It was held that the proposed classification in the matter of grant of skilled grade has no nexus 4 with the object to be achieved. The Hon'ble High Court had observed that if both the categories of persons are working in the cadre, discharging the same duties and functions, then there is no reason to treat them differently for the purpose of grant of skilled grade to them. Further, this decision was relied upon in Union of India and Others v. Bansilal and Others CWP No. 10050-CAT of 2007 (O&M) dated 26.03.2014 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Another decision on the same lines was passed by the CAT Chandigarh Bench in Usha Rani v. Union of India and Others reported in 2015 SCC Online CAT 2044 granting the same relief.
4. In view of the above authorities, it was contended that the relief prayed for by the applicant should be granted by the 1 st respondent. The learned SPC for the respondents objected to these contentions and said that benefit of the skilled grade can be extended only to the blind Caneman.
5. After consideration of these contentions, we are also of the view that the relief should be extended to the applicant by the respondents. However, we note that the applicant had retired in 2006, whereas the O.A had been filed only in 2017. Hence, following the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of 5 India v. Tarsem Singh 2008 (8) SCC 648, we limit the payment of arrears to three years prior to the institution of the O.A. This should be quantified by the 1st respondent and paid to the applicant within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If however the arrears are not paid within the said four months, any late payment will attract interest @ 6% per annum.
6. The O.A is disposed of as above. No costs.
(Dated, 11th January, 2023)
K.V. EAPEN JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ax
6
List of Annexures
Annexure A1- True copy of the special Part - II order dated 6.10.2016 of the Garrison Engineer (I)(NW), Kochi-4 Annexure A2- True copy of the Pension Payment Order dispatched on 13.3.2006 Annexure A3- True copy of the Corrigendum PPO as amended dispatched on 5.4.2010 Annexure A4- True copy of the final order dated 21.12.2012 in O.A No.4370/2012 of the Hon'ble CAT, Delhi Bench Annexure A5- True copy of the representation dated 22.3.2016 to the respondents by registered post acknowledgement due Annexure A6- True copy of the final order dated 5.12.2016 in O.A 180/1012/2016 on the files of this Tribunal Annexure R1- True copy of GE (NW) Kochi vide their Letter No.1056/Anna Antony/36/E1R dated 17.1.2018 Annexure R2- True copy of Principal Bench of CAT, Delhi order dated 9.4.2008 *****