Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sazia Parveen vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 24 January, 2019
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
(OA Na. 060/01528/9618) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 060/01528/2018 & M.A. NO. 060/1989/2018 Chandigarh, this the 24th day of January, 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) & HON' BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER {A}
1. Shazia Parveen W/o Noor Islam Anmed, O.T. (Operation Theatre}, Assistant ESIC Ram Darbar, Chandigarh (Post Group-C, aged 30 years),
4. Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Sewa Ram, O.T. Assistant ESIC Ram Darbar, Chandigarh, Post Group-C, aged 38 years, R/o # 647C, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.-160017 3, Seema Rani D/o Ajay Kumar, O.T. Assistant ESIC Ram Darbar, Chandigarh, Post Group-C, aged 30 years, R/o H.No.315, Vi, Mirpur Mubarikpur, Dera Bassi, Mohali 140110.
4. Sarita W/o Pawan Kumar, O.T. Assistant ESIC Ram Darbar, Chandigarh, Post Group-C, aged 30 years, R/o 646/C, Sector 46- A, Ciancigarh.
3. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Puran Chand, O.T. Assistant ESIC Ram Darbar, Chandigarh, Post Group-C, aged 33 years, R/o 10125, Sector 7B, Chandigarh.
6. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Baljor Singh, Plaster Assistant ESIC Ram Darbar, Chandigarh, Post Group-C, aged 36 years, R/o 1068, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh.
~ Jyoti d/o Sh. Ranbir Singh, Central Sterile Services Department Assistant (CSSD}/Post Group-C, ESIC Model Hospital, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh aged 34 years, r/o H. NO. 4354/4, Dashmesh Nagar, Zirakpur Pin Code 134117
8. Manjeet Singh s/o Sh. Dharambir Singh, Central Supply Roam (CSRjAssistant, Post Group-C, ESIC Model Hospital, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh, aged 31 years, R/o H. NO. 19° Badal Colony Zirakpur Pin 134017 . APPLICANTS ( By Advocate: Shri Anuj Balian} hQ (OA No, 060/01528/2018) VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Weifare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Director General Health Services (DGHS), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001,
3. Secretary Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Deihi-110001.
4, Director General E.S.I. Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002.
3. Medical Superintendent, E.S.1.C. Model Hospital, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh 16000, . RESPONDENTS {By Advocate: Shri k.K. Thakur) ORDER {oral} SANJEEV RAUSHIK, MEMBER {J} M.A. No. 60/1989/2018 is allowed, as prayed for and the applicants are permitted to file joint O.A. The applicants in the O.A. have assailed orders dated 7.9,2018{(Annexure P-3 & P-4) vide which the respondents have rejected their claim for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- as has been allowed to the other similarly situated persons.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that the prayer of the applicants for grant of higher Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- has been rejected vide impugned orders dated 7.9.2018 (Annexure P-3 & P-4) despite the fact that this issue has already been decided by this Court whereby similarly placed persons, who were denied the same benefit on the ground that they were not L Ne?
3(OA No. 060/01528/2018) party to the judgment under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, the benefit could not be granted to them was rejected and they were held entitled to the benefit. Learned counsel further submits that he will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to grant the applicants same benefit subject to final outcome of the Writ petition, pending in the Horvble High Court. He also informed that there is no stay against the orders passed by this Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel representing the respondents reiterated what has been stated in the impugned orders and he did not dispute the fact that the applicants are similarly situated persons like the applicants therein. But, since the matter is pending adjudication in the Hon'ble High Court, therefore the said benefit is being denied to them, or We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter and aré of the view that this O.A. can be disposed of at this stage by setting aside the impugned orders, because once the order of this Tribunal has not been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition filed at the hands of respondents, as the benefit has been extended to the applicants therein, on the same analogy similar benefit camnot be denied to the similarly situated persons like the applicants herein, The respondents can implement the order by taking affidavit/undertaking from the applicants that in case the order of this Tribunal is reversed by the Hon'ble High Court in the pending Writ Petition, they will be Hable to return the amounts disbursed to them while granting them the said benefit. As such, L (OA No. O60/01S28/2018) the impugned orders are set aside and the O.A. stands disposed of accordingly, in the above terms. No costs.
a a : oe ( (P.GOPINATH) (SANJSEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER [A] MEMBER (J) Dated: 24.01.2019 "SK?