Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Raminder Kaur vs M/O Defence on 17 January, 2019
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
1
(OA No. 060/00675/2018)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION N0. 060/00675/2018 &
M.A. No. 060/00855/2018
Chandigarh, this the 17th day of January, 2019
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) &
HON'BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A)
...
1. Raminder Kaur d/o late Sh. Gurdial Singh, A/c No. 8335164,
age 46 years, Senior Translator, Hindi Cell, office of Principal
Controller of Defence Accounts (Western Command), Sector 9,
Chandigarh-160009 (Group-B).
2. Manbhar Jyoti d/o Sh. Om Parkash Sharma A/c No.
8334556, age 42 years, Junior Translator, Hindi Cell, office of
Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Western Command)
Sector 9, Chandigarh-160009 (Group-B).
....APPLICANTs
( By Advocate: Shri Rohit Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Controller of General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar
Road, Palam, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi-110010.
3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Western Command),
Sector 9, Chandigarh 160009.
....RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate: Shri Ram Lal Gupta)
ORDER (oral)
SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants whereby they have assailed order dated 12.5.2016 (Annexure A-1) rejecting their claim of grant of pay scale of Rs. 2
(OA No. 060/00675/2018) 6500-10500 at par with Hindi Translators of Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India & Others vs Rajesh Kumar Gond, SLP © No. 17419 of 2009 decided on 25.7.2013. The applicants have also relied on various orders passed by different Benches of this Tribunal based upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gond (supra).
2. Alongwith the O.A., the applicants have also filed M.A. No. 060/00855/2018 seeking condonation of delay of 382 days in filing the instant O.A.
3. This Tribunal, on first instance, issued notice in application for condonation of delay, to which the respondents have filed a reply to the M.A. They have also filed reply to O.A. as well.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the respondents on the M.A. for condonation of delay.
5. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that the impugned view taken by the respondents denying the benefit for grant of pay scale at par with CSOLS arising out of judgment passed by the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. 402 of 2006 and O.A. NO. 912 of 2004 on the plea that the same cannot be extended to the applicants as they were not party to the proceedings to that case is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that once an order has been passed by a Court of Law in favour of persons like applicants, then the persons similarly 3 (OA No. 060/00675/2018) situated cannot be forced to approach the Court of law by filing separate petitions for the same cause of action for getting same very relief. He also drew our attention to order passed by Patna Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 699 of 2013- Dr. Sulakshmi Kumar vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 26.5.2015 (Annexure A-5) and Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. NO. 330/01547 of 2015- Bhagwan Dass & Another vs UOI & Ors. decided on 4.11.2015 (Annexure A-6), which were allowed based upon judicial pronouncements holding that the Junior Hindi Translators working in the field offices are also entitled for similar pay scale as was available to their counterparts in the CSOLS. Therefore, he submitted that once the issue has been decided then without forcing the other similarly placed employees to approach court of law for same very relief, the respondents ought to have granted the same benefit. He argued that there is no delay in filing the accompanying O.A., and in any case, it is a recurring cause of action.
6. Per contra, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents has raised a plea of limitation. To substantiate his plea, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014(arising out of SLP (c) No. 18639 of 2012) decided on 17.10.2014 stating that those who have not approached the Court of law, cannot be granted benefit at par with others who approached the Court in time. Therefore, he prayed that the M.A. for condonation of delay be dismissed.
4
(OA No. 060/00675/2018)
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and perused the pleadings available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gond (supra) recorded a categorical finding that the Junior Hindi Translators working in the Director General of Commercial Intelligence and Statics under the Commerce Ministry are at pay parity with the Junior Translators who were working in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service. Their Lordships recorded a categorical finding, which is reproduced hereunder:-
"The respondents in this appeal was working as Junior Hindi Translator in the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise-I, Kolkata. He claimed parity of pay with the Junior Translators who were working in the Central Secretariat. In his case also, what we find is that there is no functional distinction as far as the work of these translators is concerned. Therefore, we do not take a different view. The civil appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Interim orders will stand vacated."
9. The Patna Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dr. Sulakshmi Kumari & Ors. vs UOI & Ors. in O.A. NO. 699/2013 decided on 26.5.2015 has considered the same issue based upon the judgment of Apex Court, wherein it has been recorded as under:
" In conclusion, we hold that identical matter has been finally decided by the Apex Court level, and as a reasonable employer, the respondents ought to have themselves extended the benefit to the applicants, as also similarly placed employees, without forcing them to approach courts individually. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to extend the same and similar benefits of the judgments/orders dated 17.10.2008 and 9.11.2006 passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and Kolkata Bench respectively, and grant all consequential benefits, including arrears and revision of pay etc. Since the matter reached finality by virtue of Hon'ble Apex Court's order dated 25.07.2013, we also direct the 5 (OA No. 060/00675/2018) respondent to pay simple interest @ 8% from that date to the date of payment."
10. The perusal of the above extracted paras of the orders makes it clear that the respondents cannot force the employees to approach the Court of law for the benefit, which has already been granted to the similarly situated persons. Therefore, the O.A. was allowed by granting the benefit that too with interest @ 8% from the due date to the date of its payment. The similar benefit was allowed by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 330/01547 of 2015 - Bhagwan Das & Another vs UOI & Ors. decided on 4.11.2015 and it has been held that identical matter has been finally decided by the Apex Court level, and as a reasonable employer, the respondents ought to have themselves extended the benefit to the applicants, as also similarly placed employees without forcing them to approach Courts individually.
11. Therefore, once it has been held by the competent court of law that the applicants, who are Hindi Translators, working in the field offices, are entitled for the same benefit as available to the Hindi Translators working in CSOLS, then the claim of the applicants cannot be rejected on the plea that they were not party to the proceedings. The plea of the learned counsel for respondents that the judgment is inpersonam, we are afraid cannot not be accepted as order passed based upon the Apex Court judgment by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal makes it clear that the cadre of Hindi Translator working in the field offices are entitled to the same pay scale as available to their counterparts in CSOLS. 6
(OA No. 060/00675/2018) Therefore, the plea of the learned counsel for respondents that judgment is inpersonam cannot be accepted.
12. In the light of above, the M.A. as well O.A. are allowed and the delay in filing the O.A. is condoned. The O.A. is allowed and the applicants are held entitled for the grant benefits. However, we would restrict the arrears prior to 18 months from the date of filing of the O.A. No costs.
(P.GOPINATH) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 17.01.2019
`SK'
7
(OA No. 060/00675/2018)