Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kishan Lal S/O Sh. Moti Lal vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 11 August, 2008
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.684/2008 MA No.624/2008 New Delhi this the 11th day of August 2008. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) 1. Kishan Lal S/o Sh. Moti Lal 2. Suresh Pal Singh S/o late Sh. Chander Sen 3. Morgan Sydney S/o late Shri S. Sydney 4. D.K. Gupta S/o late Sh. M.S. Gupta 5. Om Pal Singh S/o later Sh. Hoshyar Singh 6. Anil Kumar S/o late Shri Suraj Bhan 7. Bharat Singh S/o Sh. Mahar Chand Singh 8. Sher Singh S/o late Sh. Sohan Pal 9. Om Bir Singh S/o Sh. Rughan Singh 10. Karan Singh S/o Sh. Lashmi Chand 11. G.B. Bhatt S/o Sh. Trilok Chand Bhatt 12. J.S. Sirohi s/o late Sh. Dalel Singh 13. Brahm Singh S/o Sh. Eccha Ram 14. Satish Chand S/o late Tej Pal Singh 15. P.S. Malik S/o Sh. Dharma Bir Singh 16. Mahinder Kumar S/o Sh. Harkesh Singh 17. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Maharani Din 18. Baboo Singh S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop 19. Ram Prakash S/o Sh. Mahadev 20. Onkar S/o Sh. Ram Kala 21. Munshi Ram S/o Sh. Rati Ram 22. Shohan Singh S/o late Sh. Ram Singh 23. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Harbansh Lal. -Applicants (By Advocate Shri Yogesh Sharma) -Versus- 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. Directorate General of EME Civ-3, MGOs Branch, Army Head Quarters, DHQ PO New Delhi-11. 3. The Commandant, 510, Army Base Workshop, Meerut Cantt, Distt. Ghaziabad (UP). -Respondents (By Advocate Shri K.R. Sachdeva) O R D E R
Applicants, holding different posts in the Fire Department of Army Base Workshop Meerut Cantt. through this OA challenge order dated 6.12.2007, whereby their demand for grant of overtime allowance (OTA) by extending the benefit of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 15.2.2006 in WP No.1086/2000 with consequential benefits and arrears w.e.f. 1994, has been turned down.
2. Applicants are working as Leading Hand Firemen, Fire Engine Drivers and Firemen. They are required to perform extra duties beyond the 48 hours working in a week but have not been granted OTA. The same has been turned down on the ground that once they are in receipt of night allowance, OTA is not admissible. However, an award passed in the case of similarly situated at Jabalpur on raising an industrial dispute on adjudication by the Tribunal on 29.10.1999 accorded the Chowkidar and Fireman OTA since 1999. The aforesaid award was challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, where the judgment delivered on 15.2.2006 reiterated on affirmation the award. Being similarly circumstanced, applicants preferred a representation, which was rejected by an Establishment Officer without any competence, giving rise to the present OA.
3. Learned counsel of applicants would contend that being similarly circumstanced, applicants cannot be denied the benefits, which is in violation of the dicta of the constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S.K. Sharma v. Union of India, 1998 (1) SLJ SC 55. Merely because the applicants were not parties before the Jabalpur High Court, would not deprive them of the benefit, if they are similarly and identically situated.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel of respondents Shri K.R. Sachdeva states that joining together of the applicants in one application when they are holding different designations cannot be allowed. However, on merits it is stated that the judgment of the Jabalpur Bench (supra) is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the conditions of the employees at Jabalpur and the Government has yet to take a final decision for grant of OTA to the employees of the Fire Department in the Army Base Workshop at Meerut Cannt. However, it is stated that the matter is under consideration of hither authorities vide letter dated 13.3.2008.
5. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, in my considered view though applicants may be holding different posts, yet the cause of action is grant of OTA for performing duties beyond the specified working hours, having same cause of action, MA-624/2008 for joining together is maintainable. Accordingly, the objections of the respondents as to maintainability of MA stands overruled and the MA is allowed.
6. As regards extension of benefit of the judgment, in my considered view, merely because the night allowance has been made admissible, would not deprive applicants to get OTA, as the same has been ruled in favour of them by the Industrial Tribunal, finding of which has been affirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Moreover, merely because a person similarly circumstanced is not a party, is not a valid ground in law to deprive him of the same benefit on extension of the ratio.
7. However, as I find that the respondents are in seize of this issue and the matter has been referred to the higher authorities, though the applicants being similarly circumstanced, OA stands partly allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider grant of OTA to applicants, in the light of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court with consequences and arrears from 1994, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Shanker Raju) Member (J) San.