Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Balkrishna Sayaji Rokade vs Externel Affairs on 15 September, 2023
CENTRALADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAL, ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 512 of 2022 with MA No. See 'O32, Risers er, 3 ao ie: ES 'sSeptemh Hon'ble Justice Shri. MG, Sewlikar, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member {4}
- 1, Balkrishna Sayajl Rokade, Age 69 years, Deputy Passport OF feer etd) Regional Passport Office, Worll, Mumbai -400030. Rio, DYS3, Nand Dham, B.P Road Debisar(W), Mumbai - 400 OSS, 2, Mustaque Ahmed Sayed, Age 7 F2 years, Assistant Passport Offficer (Reid), Passport office, 8 B Road, Pune 411 616, R/o. No. $8, Zeeshan Housing BOmiely, > Mulaind Nage » Ahmiednag gar 414002.
Raa
3. Mangesh Kashiram Satam Age 7] years, Asst. Passport OF ficer, (Reid) Regional Passport Office Wo rl, Munvbai ~400 030 Rio A/205, Deep Rekha Aptt. Mithagar Road, Mulund, Mumbai ~400 O81.
4.Kotubuddin Gafoor Shah, age 70 years, Dy. Passport Officer (Retd), Passport Office, Serninary Hills, Nagpur, Rio. 8/12, B.LT. Block Sydonechm Compound, Behind H.P. Petro] Pump, Mur nba 400003.
* 4 5, Gajanan Atmaram Sane, Age 7 Ty. cars, Dy, Pass sport Officer Reid), Regisnal Passport Offies >, Worll, Mumbai-d00030. Ryo.
"
Pree Fad OA No. sia/2022 with MA No. ss8/ooas, 40008,
6. Baban Krishna Kamble, Age 72 years, Superintendent, (Retd), Regional Passport Office, Worli, Mumbai-400030. R/o. C/46, Jai Shivshankar Msg Soc., Shashiri N agar, Devi Chowk, Dombi- vi GV), Thane. .
7K. Vijaykumar, age 62 years, Regional Passport Officer (retd), Passport Office, Videsh Bhawan, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400031 Rio. 96 A. 24 Brindavan' society, Majiwada, Thane (West). De
8. Yashwant Vaudev Puranik, Age 72 years, Assistant Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Worl, Mumbai-400030. Rio. 3/5 Sahakar Nagar, Wadala, Mumbai-40003 1.
9. Suryakant Ankush Dicholkar, spouse of late Shweta Suryakant Dicholkar, age 74 years R/o. B/$06. Mulund Amit So- clety, MHADA, Mumbai-dogogt, 10, Smt. Priti Deordm Worlilar, Age 658 years, Superintendent, (Reid) Regional Passport Office, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Rio. Ci302, Raj Extzotica, Near C.C. Club, Mira Road CE) Thane, 400107 une Li. Smt. Nrunnissa Abdulla Kazi, ave 64 years, Superintendent (Retd) Regional Passport Office, Worll, Mumbai 400030, Ryo. A-304, Plot No. 1/1, Sector 2, Deonar Colony, Govandi, Mum-~ bai-400043,
2. Smt. Sugandha Sudhakar Deorukhar, Age 70 years, Assistant Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Worli, Mumbai- 400030. R/o, 2/29 Manas Bldg. Dattaram Lad Mar . Kala Chowki, Mumbai-400030.
Jawals Wadi, 280/C N.C. Kelkar Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai- OA. Nev sis f/eose with Ma No. aad /eoee
3. Smt. Anuradha Dattatraya Joshi, age 69 years, Assistant Paatport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Worll, Mumbai- 400030. RYo. B. No.8, Govind Niwas, Kale Hanuman Lane, Vi- rar, Virar Bast), Thane-40 1308, i4. Suresh Ramchandra Kurdhelsar, age 70 years, itices, Regional Passport Officer, Reaional ena OF 'orl, Mumbai-400030, R/o. 12/D-3, Bhagyashree Ltd. Gor 1, R.S.C.-22; Borivall CW), Mumbai-400091, "af 5 2 eh SSR % pe ts tn jen pe, pase pe y weve
- ig po:
43
ya a i ee cares as ee 'g ee y ae 2g boas ie 1S. Sevt. Pushpalata Jayaram. Mane, age 70 years, Assistant Passport: Officer, Regional Pa sapart Offiée, Work, Murmbai- 400030, Ryo. 703. Sai Krupa CE 1S, Plot Na. 100, Sector 27, Ne- rullE }, Navi Mumbal-doo7ds,
16. Dharmaraj] Baliraa Mahajan, Age 69 years, Dy. Passport Of Geer Retd), Regional Passport Office, Work Mambai-4000 3, Rin. DAS, Shree Datta Prasad Society, Road No. 1, Paranipe, *B' Scheme, Vie Parle (East), Mumbaics7 f Uy. Ashok Ramchandra Pawar, age 67 years. Dy. Passport Of eer (Retd.) Os Regional Passport ice, Worll, Mumbai-400030,_ Ryo. 15, Shresram Kesar Bide, Mulund (Bast) Mum bai-400081,
18. Neeta Narendra . Mahale, age 70 years, Asstt, Passport OF Nicer, Passport Office, Thane. Ro, Room No, 8, 1" Floor, Kadri Mansion, LJ. Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400016.
18, Janardhan Ka shinath Desai, Age 69 years, Dy. Passport OF fiewr, (Retd), Regional Passport Office, Worll, Mumbai-400030, RYo, 106, Atharva CHS Ltd., Aurthur Road, N.M. Joshi Mary, Mumbai-400011, 20, FL. DF Souza, age TO vears, Assist. Passport Officers (Retd), Passport Offices, Surat. R/Q. 2845, Nalanda Evershine Nagar, OS. No. 5128/2008 with MA No. s58/eoos, AS Malad (West), Mumbai-400064.
: ist x fs j 21, Smt. Suniti Balkrishna Sawant, ape 09 years, Asst. Passport Officer (Retd.),.. Regional Passport Office, Worli, Mumbai- 400030, R/o. 1401, NID. V-IL, 'A' Wing. Raheja Estate, Kulupwadi, Borivli (East) Mumbai-400066. #2. Smt. Manisha Murlidhar Doiphode, age 67 years, Dy. Pags- port Olficer (Retd), Passport office, 8.B, Office, Pune-41106, R/o, 1404-B-7, Tulip Vardhaman Garddn, Thane Bhwandi Road, Thane (W)-400608, . - |
-Applicant (Mr VA. Nagrani, Advocate) VERSUS i. Union of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi-1 10001.
The Joint Secretary (2S.P) and Chief Passport Officer, 2, Ministry of External Affirs, CPV. Division, Patiala House Annex, Tilak Mary, New Delhi-1 10001. |
3. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Videsh Bhavan, Plot No. 45-G, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051.
. ~Respondents (Mr BUR. Shetty, Advocate) thc No. Rie/2oee with BLA No, ss8 ones. Per: Hon'ble Justi g¢ Shei. MGs. Sewlikar, Momber (1D sel for the applicants is allowed, id The applicants have filed this OA seeking following reliefs:
"ia. Dis Hon ble Tribunal nov graciously de pleased ta call Jor the recards of the case frout the Respondents ana afer examine the yame, PUES, hand set aside the ander dated £6.16. au i as being dikerininaiory with all con- sequemial henelits.
& This Nor 'le gelounal mo fuirther be pleased to direct rhe Fespondents, io extend i he Slnnilar benefit in sain te Application It 2610 whergdy revisi, Applicants therein font Rs $ Pom the diate "of thelr promotion end ag yt the ¢ mre "-- alongwith ihe interest @ 8 pa. with all consequential benfits, e. Costs af the application de awarded to the Applicants.
d dny onter and father sue asf s + Har 'ale Tribunal deems fi ta ihe nature end clrcunistances of the case be passed.
ig. Pacts leading to this OA in nutshell are that the applicants are retired employees of Central Passport Ore ganization, Ministry of External Affairs, They retired as Superintendent/Asst. Passport OWicernDy. Passport OMicer/Regional Passport Officer, Their details are provided in tabulated form in Annes or G.A. No. g1a/20a2 with MA No. ss8/snee.
1.3. It is their case that while working on the post of Superintendent | in the pay scale of Rs. - 35 00-9000/, 5" Central Pay Commission (58 CPC) recommended to upgrade 30 posts of Superintendents of passport organization from the pay scale of Rs, SS0Q-9000/ to. Ks. S30).
10500/-, out af which 50% were to be for direct recruits and 50°% were to be upgraded in the -feeder cadre. These recormmendations were neither unplemented by the Central Government nor they were rejected. The 6" Central Fay y Cor nission (6° CPC) recommended upgradation of entire grade of Suy perintendenis to a higher grade of Rs, 7450-11 500/-(corresponding pay band of Rs, 9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4600/-). The cause for the grievance of the applicants. occurred when the 6° Pay Commission report was accepted by the Central Government and revised their pay scale to Rs, 7450-11500/- (corresponding pay Band Rs. 9300-34800. with Grade Pay of Rs, 4600/-) but without initially fies on xeir pay in the seale of Rs. 6500- LOS00/-.
La A similarly situated employee of the Central Passport Organizat "won, named Mr. PV. Mathew had approached Emakulam Bench of this Tribunal by filling OA No, 149/26 10, being aggrieved by the non-fixation of his pay in the upgraded pay scale of Rs. 6500- & OAOWNe. sie e0ee with MA No. sa8/anee. 10500 in the past of Superintendent and for granting incremental weightage in the revised pay scale structure. On considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal allowed the said OA by order dated 12% a December, 2011 holding that upgradation from scale of Rs. 4500- NJ500/- to the scale of Rs. 7450-11 500/- would imply prior uparadation to Ra. 5500-90004. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation Aled by Mr. PV. Mathew alresh in Hight of the directions given in the order dated 12" December, ¥ 1.3. Ageriewed by the order dated 12° December, 201] In QA No. 149/2010, Union of India & Ors. preferred O.P. (CAT) No. 2635/2015 a before the High Court of Rerala, who dismissed the said petition and confirmed the decision of the Tribunal in OA No. 149/2010 by making inllowing observations:
¢ sya
3. Now reverting te clause (8) tn the preceding parigre apt of dnnexure A? in, Ex P i. ican be seen that wader the Men existing eran ons, direct recruitment in Central Pass sport Oo ex was OnLy fo posts of Lawer Diusion Clerk and Stenoer: ip shor Grade JL, Alf offer post is ithe Aierarchy in COs were being Aled wp, larcely by promotion, 'This 5a viously cuty at the root af ihe contents of paraerapa Jaf me impugned order that S0% was meant for direst recruits and 3083 was nieant fe be i the upgraded jeeder cadre, Such classification between the direct recrult's and Ke Bae, oy cadre as sought to be made ay the F Central OP (CAT) No, 2633 af OA No, §ra/so2e with MA No, 558/a022, 013 Conunission could not he given effect to, because ad eR HG guestlos of ame dingct recruitment npoininient fo thar calepary was ony bp promovion.
Therefare @, S085 of the exisnieg posty of Sunerouendents referred to ie paragraph No. Gi} in Annexure-A? of Ext Pl, approved hy the Finance Affxister for upgrading fhe poy seule of Re 6 300-10 500 we Bk £40 2997 applied to those persons who are in the cegory of Supertitendents withou nference la whether they are direct PECHUEY or APRORNEES BPORIOROM cooks coc nonce apes Me 1.6. Union of India & Ors. preferred Special Leave Petition No. 9086/2014 in the Supreme Court challengin g the order of Kerala High x Court. The said SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court. é: E L.?. Thereatter, on 30° December, 2013, respondents passed the order in following terms:
ao x oie ea ~ in pursuance uf CAT Ernakulam Bench jidcemen dated £2° De scember 2011 i OL4 No. 1492010 the 2 PME scale of Shri PY Age thew Assixtant Passport Officer is uperaded in pre-revis sed scale af Rs. 5500-9000 ta Ry. GS00-FO500 wef QF-11-1999 Le the date fram which SAP, Adafhhew Way POUROER as Se ner infendent.
"
This issues with the appreval af JS 4 REP) & LS. The applicants, thereafter, filed this OA contending that they are similarly situated with Mr PV. Mathew and, therefore, they are entitled to the same benefits which have been granied to him. They made represeniations to the respondents requesting to grant the same benefit © OA No. §$18/e0e0 with MA No. s58/eess, x which was granted to Mr BY, Mathew. Since their representations / were mot decided, they filed OA No. 4297/2018, in which this Tribunal by is order dated 19" June, 2018 directed the respondent no. 2 to consider and pass a reasoned and soealsr ng order on thar pending representations. The respondents rejected the representations by letter dated 03" August, 2018 on following grounds:
" Phe representation made by Sh BS. Robade anc Ors ar Requesting ihe x up-erodation o of ht wir ae Pay we granted fo Sf EE Mathew and other anys Haye ss of CPO has heen examined carefidly and if peg informed to them ghar the same benefits pesy ser be "gteded io them, as the beneflts of np-gradation of pay af Sh. PE Aderhew and Seni, Rosanna Johe end Ors. Soot 3500-9600 te 6300- {300 fram the date of their promotions i@ the post af Superintendent was only provided in compliance oF tre Orders passed By the various benches of Hou tle fares ihe Order pasred ie fe OF np. {89° OG and the ¢ COPIRIDN order in OA No, S28 838 & 939 of 2 Old and 336 af 2075 haw passed the bes nefits any fhe ¢ applicants af fhoxe cases ad therefore, 3 be same cannot be extended ta the other emplovees of CFO."
& LS. The representations were. rsiected on the ground that the directions given in OA No. 149/2010 were applicable only to the & P applicants arrayed in that case, This order is impugned in this OA. Qe, 'The respondents filed their reply contending that this OA is hopeless sly barred by limitation as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sere of Utiar Pradesh and Others Vs. 0 OA. No. gia feoeo with MA New BEB /eoe, Arvind Kumar Srivasiave and O¢h ers, (2018) f Supreme Court Cases 347, The cause of action in the present case is not a continuing cause of action, They contended that under the 5% CPC pay scales, the pay scale for the post in question was of Rs. 5$00-9000/- and that the may commission had recommended a higher pay seale of Ra, 6500-10500... These were only recommendations and the Goverment had not accepted the recommendations . Unless recommendations are accepted, they cannot be implemented, Non-implementation of the recommendations of 3° CPC for grant of Rs. 6500-10500% have not been challenged in this OA. Therefore, unless the rule, on the basis of which. the order is passed, is challenged, this OA js not maintainable, . Therefore, the demand of the applicants is clear rly im violation of the settled legal principles.
24. The respondents further contended that the jus: jgment rendered by the Emakuian Bench ofthis Tribunal and x npheld by the Kerla High Court is not a judement in rem bat in persanam and, therefore, the applicants will to have to answer the question of limitation. Even MA for condonation of delay is also not filed, The s® Cpc did not recommend enblock upgradation of the post of Superintendent to the level of Rs. 6500-10500/-. The 5° CPC had recommended this pay Bs tha No. sisfeoes with MA Na, ssS/enes. scale only for 50% posts to be filled up based on direct recruitment through UPSC. The 5° CPC had spec cifically recommended that the remaining 30% past 'through promotion would continue to be in the payseale of Rs. SS00-0000% and redesignated as. Administrative Olfcer, Grade -IL. Therefore, the very fret of higher pay scale of Rs. §500- $8580 was contingent upon putting in place recruitment mechanism of direct recruliment through UPSC. Therefore, the | applicants are not entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 The Department of Expenditure did not recommend enblock upgradation of the posts of Superintendent in the pay scale af Rs, 6500-10500/-. Only 50% of the posts were to be upgraded and that was subject ta putting in place a mechanism by the ministry for direct recruitment to that post ™ through UPSC. The applicants ave the fenceé-sitter:
Z and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits given in the case of RK Mathew (supra). The respondents, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of OA, a2 We have heard Mn VA. Nagrant, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. R.R. Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents.
2.3. Mr. V.A. Nagrani, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants ars covered by the judgment in the case of PE PP eek, fort DA No. §ia/o000 with MA No. s56/aoe9. Mathew (supra). From.the observations made in the case of BIZ } 8) Mathew (supra), upheld by the Kerala High Court and the Apex Court, itis clear that the observations are in rem and are not restricted to the < olicant in that case viz, My, &.¥, Mathew. He contended thar se Qe as Nos. 928, 938, 939 af 2014 & 436007 3, Rosanna John & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors, the applicants were claiming the same reliefs as were granted in case of PE Mathew (supra). The order of Emakulam Bench of this Tribunal was confirmed by the Rerala High Court by its order dated 6° April, 2017 in OP. (CAT) Nas, 202, 213, 217 & 235 of 2016. The observations made by the Kerala Hieh Court in these petitions clearly indicate that the judgement passed in the case Of BE Mathew (supra) v Was a judgment in rem and not in personam, Therefore, the question of limuation does not arise, He contended that this bench of the Tribunal has held that t when a judgment is in rem, the question of imitation does not arise, He further submitted that juniors have been granted the benefit which was later on granted in the case of EY Mathew (supra) bot the same is being denied to the present applicants in this case not on the ground that they are not similarly situated but on the ground that the relief granted in the case of BF Mathew (supra) was limited. Mr PV. Mathew. Mr. VA. Nagrani, 48 OA Ne. 23 f2o0ee with MA No. 558/eoa2. learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following Cases?
wey No Sy ey AS fi) Siaeshika ney F Go vind Kutkes rl ¢ aes ¢ \fncas hae (Li) Resend Jos & Ors, Vs Union of india & Ors, G4 Nos. $28, 938, S39 af sald See l§, CAs i Kinakidam Bench, decided on faedy, 2076.
Gi? Solvn Vs. Union of india & Ors, GA Na. 270/00513/2018, decided on 20 November, 2618.
{iy} Onion of Didia & Ors. Vs. Rosanuna John & Ors. GP (CAT). Now aie af 2016, High Court of Kerala, decided on 6° April, 2017.
24. Mr RUR. Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that si CPC hac only made recommendations. Unless recommendations are accepted, the benefits cannot be extended to the applicants on the basis of mere recommendations. He firther contended that the applicants are fence-sitters, They waited for the devision to be rendered in the ease of BK AMfathew (supra), After the decision was rendered in his favour, the applicants have fled this OA. Therefore, they are not entiled to the benefit given in the cas eof RE Mathew (supra) He further submitted that article 14 is a positive concept, Therefore, a wrong decision cannot be made applicable to the applicants. There is grass delay In preferring this QA. The applicants have not even filed MA for condonation of delay. Therefore, the OA is OA. No. si2/aoge with MA No. ss8/ooes, barred by limitation. Even ifthis court comes to the conclusion that the / §) applicants are entitled to.arrears, the same be restricted to only 03 years prior to the date of filing of this OA, He placed reliance on the following cases:
() State of Bihar and Others Vs. Aagmeshwaer Prasad Singh and Another (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 94, GQ) State of Puniah and Another ¥s. Bafkaran Singh, (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 709.
(8) Union of India Fs. Tari¢ Ranjan Bas, (2003) Lf Supreme Cour Cases 658. an
(iv) Union of India and Others Vs. dtivanmoy Sen and Others, (2008) i Supreme Court Cases 630, (WE. Parmasivan and Others Ps. Union of dndia and Others, (2003) i2 Supreme Court Cases 27%, {vi) Union of India and Others Ws. Tarsem Sug, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648.
(viii Union af India and Others Vs. KF Rapsa Raje and Others, (2019) 1 Supreme Court cases (L&S)d 325, 2078) 16 Supreme Court Cases 732. ° (vill) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and Others, (2885) 6 Supreme Court Cases 754.
2.5. We have given thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by the learmed counsels for the respective parties. 2.6 Inthe case of PE Mathew (supra), following observations were made:
"6. The Grade Pay for the pre-revised merged seale of poh Bet OA. No. srs feoee with MA Ne. seh /eoee.
Ra, 3500-9080 and &s §800-20500 is notified as Rs 3200+. The Grade Pay af ORs 26h O is made applicable andy fo the preremted seale of Rs 6500+] U500 after uperading the seals tg Re T43061/500. The anglicant falls n fhis category as he ig granted the Grade Pav of ad fies iS se, Ge respondents cannot auen Ps load 18 oP canted fie Grade Pay » of Rs. 4 160 iy pre-revised seale of Ry. G30 10-k whe Unless Ge gppiicant'y pay ix reflrea' hom Ry, S500-000 to Ry. S500-F 0500 for upera adati ont forthe seme of Rx F#SO-L1500. he cannaz dvaw the Grade Pay af Rs. 4800/- in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800 the revived pay structure with effect From OF.OY. 2006. therefore, W is evident that the apeticant iy elisiile for upgradation tt ihe pee-revised scale from Ry. 5500-86 ee fa Re 8200-20 500 Jtom fhe date of promotion « as Superintendent fram 07 01.1999 before fieing, Ais pay is ihe new pay structure, The Rand of the respondents ih rat Revised Pay) Rudes, 2008 & they have followed he OCS ;
in fleiig the pay of the appl icant is nal to the paind. The is Sue raised by the avnlice his representation dated 24,82 2008 that the deuble sce ie jump > Fixation from Rs. SOGESHH) te Rs, Pe 30~ ihe ingiol af Med upgradation ta ike seale af Rx 6300-20800 with effect from a date prior "to vr OL 2006 is against the Pay Rules resudting ia @ disudvontose to hint has nog been sonstdered at all in the papugned order dated IRGLOIO. The inipe "ened order is vidated for not having considered the velevant fact in arrdl ine af decision fo reject the representation or the applicant and he, sed 33, therefor ¢, Hable io be set aside. Accord feet if iy oF dered a aauies"
ae 2.7. Thus Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation of Mr. PV. Mathew in the light of the above observations. This decision was challenged by the Union of ndia & Ors in the High Court of Kerala by OP. (OAT) No. 2635 of 2013. While upholding the decision of the Emakulam Bench of this be ery GA No, 32/8020 with MA Ne: 558/20g2, Tribunal, Kerala Hieh Court held thus:
Now "Fer verting fe clause (18) in the prec ceding paragraph of Annexure A? in, Ext PT, i can he seen Hat under the then existing arrangements. direct recruttme ene in Central Passport Offices was only te posts af Lower Division Clerk and Menoerapher Grade Hh All. ather Bosts in the hierarchy in COs were deing Alled wp, largely by promotion, This obvious ' cues at the root of the contents af paragraph 3 af the inpugned ander Susy 506 was meant jor direet reernity avd S086 wes meant to be is the wpsraded feeder cadre. Suet classification befween the direct recrulis and feeder cadre as sought ta be made by the ¥ Central Pay 8 P (CAT) No. 2635 af 2013 Commission could not be given effect to, because there. was uo gestion OF any dirvet PECINILIERT Appointment ta that CHekOry Was Oaly by promotion, Therefore SOS af f the existing posty o} f Superintendents referred fo in paragraph No. (ill) ia Anmexure-d? af ExiP i, appraved by t he Finance Afinister yor ig perading tie pay seale af Rs 6 SG0-IN $60 1: af Lid. 1997 applied fo those persens wha are pa the ediegary af Superintendents without reference fo whefl her Mey are direct reerudiy ar apoointees oy PPOTRONOR ecco oes ccenonse | 2.8. This decision of Kerala f dich Court was chal uenged by Union of India & Ors by filing SLP Na, S08a/2014 in th © Apex Court. The Apex Court while dismissing the said SLP on 1! 3 uly, 2014 ordered thus:
et " fleard learned Additional Solicitey General representing the petitioners.
Delay condoned Ne grown! jor iniesfrence is made out in exercise of yaa Jurisdiction wrder "Article i386 af the Constitulion of India Posh Special leave petition ix dismissed 'i dated 128) CLA. No. gie/soge with MA Ne. 5q8/eoae.
3.9, Relying on the decision of Ernakulam Bench of this Tnibunal xecember, 2011 in OA No. 149/2010 filed by Mr PY. 2013 where + v. Mathew was granted the benetit of upgradation in prevevised Nod seale from Rs. $500-9000% to Rs, 6500-10500/- from 1® November, 1999 Le, the date from which Mr PV. Mathew was promoted as Superintendent.
03. In the case of Rosunnna Jodn (supra), Emakulam Bench of this Tribunal held thas:
"Ya. fa view of the order of tus Tribunal in PV. Mathew's case attaining finality we are of the view that the respondents have to pass on ders akin to Anmecure A3 order Gin OA No, 928 of 2014) in favour of all the applicants In these cases/Therefere while quashing Aunexure AS order in GA Ne. 28 af Zid, Annexure A? order in COA No. 998 of 2014, Annexure AS order in OA No, 939 of 20l4-and Armmexures Al & AZ orters in QA No. 436 of 2015, we direct the responds ais to consider for granting ihe same relief to the applicants as in Annexure AS avder Gn OA Ko. 828 of 2014) to the applicants in these cases, in the fight of the above observations, Ordered accordingly. This exercise shall be completed by th the respon ae within bee weeks from the date of receipt of a of this arder."
x a aed eR 3.1. This decision of Ernakulam Beach was challenged before the High Court of Kerala. In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Resamma John (supra) held thus:
48
OA, Nx srefanes with MA No. $58/2022.
"When the finding ofthe Tribunal that the HIN: CPC had upsraded the pay scale of Superintendents of "Passport Organisation fram = 6,500 - 10300" tp 2 7900 - 11, S60 and ther 'fore, the upgrada tion of the pay § cate af 2 6, 300-20, 500/- to the scale af pay af RF 450- Ed, 3008 would fmply prior upgradation af the scale of pay of © 3,500-9 000/40 the scale of pay af * 6,300: 10,500" had GeCor me final and formed the haste fer Anmexure-4] order which was confirmed by mis Court and became final with the dismissal af the & spec jel heave Petition againsi Annexure-d2 judgment we do not } find any reason fo hold that the common order passed by fhe Tribunal is infected whh ary ilegaily warranting aH interjerence by us it exercise of Ihe power af judicial review under article 227 af the Constitutian of India Ne ure of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly, justified and 'correct in holding that the respondents herein are entitled ta get the similar diree ion as im the case af aforesaid Sei PV Mathew and itis the satd reatisutior that culminated in the direction in Ext P3 cannon order whereby the Tribunal directed the. peditioners to grant ike sume relief as has been granted fo Sri PP "Marhew under dunexure-A3/ In seach clrcwnstances, these original petitions pus! f fall * a 3.2. These observations unmistakably make it clear that the judgment rendered in the case of PE Mathew (supra) is a judgment in rem an a 2 ot In Persoviam.
33. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Ms. drvind Kumar Srivastava and Others (supra), i is held that the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit, Para 22.1,, 22.2 & 22.3. read thus:
22.1 The normal rule is thar when a particular set af amployeer is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need 16 58 reated alike By extending that beneji, Not doing so would conount fo discrimination and would be vielative of drticie 14 af the Constitation of india, Tuy principle need is fo be applied in gerpviee matfess more emphatically as ihe service furisprudence evolved Op ¢ postulafes that ad Neulany 3 freated similariy. Therefore, the normal rule wo? ul b that merely because other similarly 8 sinaited persons did HOt ot approach the Court earlier they are notie be treated hen Phe seae Fh .
shis Coe. et from time § fo ia os Ss po P= < BS & a:
es & S pa ay Sey x ee bod birch $e ee Bh, oo 8 t 222 However thix orinciple 8 subject fe ele x x challense the wrongfd acon I their CRSES nd acyuieseed inte the same and woke Np a long delay only because of tte reason that theiy counferparis who i 8 approached ihe cow? sarlier in ive suc eded in ede effor xs, then suck enyplovecs comma! elaine | that the benefit of the judgment rs a situated persons be extended to them. they world | peated as fence-siiters and laches. gad delays, angor the acquiescence, would be a valid gronna fe disnuss their claiat 33.3. However this excention mur not apply ir tase cases where the fuceme, ent zu OHO ced By the conn! was fudoment in peat wit intention fe ove benefit fo ail shoifariy situgied persons, senhier ihey uppros ached the court oy Rot FRA seck « pronounncemer ent the obligation is ¢ cast upon He une ge lf exter sd the hanes hereofto all similarly situated persons, Such a sifeadion can occur whea ihe subjeciuuster af t ihe deoksion touches upon the policy matters, 11ke scheme of regidarisation and the (ike {see Et Sharma yu Union of aie), Ov the other Road. ihe fudgment of the court vas in personamt holding that benefit of the said judiemen sf shall acorne to the parties before the court and such an iention is stofed expreasiy im the Fudgaent or i ean be implleddy | found ant from the tenor and language af the fudge mis those who want io get the henoflt of the said Judge aay extended to Then shail farve ios satishi fhat thelr petitian ee Mes HOt suffer row either lavdes and olay or goguiescence, © eh i oye SRG S082.20
DLA. No, sis/soee with MA Mo, §58/anas. funderlining is curs} 3.4. From the reading of the relevant extract of RK Mathew's Case {supra}, confirmed by Kerala High Court and the Apex Court, as has bean narrated by us above, it can be easily made out that thess observations indicate that the judgment is in rem and not in personam. The observations do not spell out even maplicdly that the relich was restricted only to the applicant viz. Mx PV. Mathew. Therefore, the question of limitation goes on the back barter The applicants are, therefore, entitled to the benefits extended to Mr. RV. Mathew. The Respondents committed gross error in rejecting the representations of the applicant.
a 3.5. The Authorities cited by learned counsel for the respondents have no application to the facts of the case at hand. In the case of Balkaran Singh (supra}, it is heid that a suit for declaration in matizr relating to a service is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and wherein the period is three years and the terminus a quo strarts when the right to sue first accruss. This was not the case claiming relief by similarly situated persons. The cause of action had arisen in the year 1980 and the petitioner had filed the suit in the year 1993. 2h OA. No. g12/eoee with MA No. as8/an £ + fisitation (let he FEE the Admini.
ihe said rule is cases Bhere @ serv ioe reforted sigin is Based op H st. WEOMS, we e 2 :
in seek! ried remedy, with peforence fo the date aE ¥ while * the cOH sina Ne wror 4 COMPRENCER, ¥ SHER COR ', 2G summarise, normally a belated serv chuerwill be rejected on rs ¢ ground of key fwhere yenmedy iy sought by fing a a writ tat ton) 0 or nt ww & ad t 2 aes pe pas te ny BS wok we PPORe CPRCUIES cb CORTON SS SQNRE gor ae NPY, Buf th an excepiion 1 the sent a iF the mespect oF any ¢ FE lated ho oF ay fe oe aaiminisirarive < dé jecied several others alse, and IF the grievance Man ashied -
In para 7 in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), 1 is held thus:
ige reletied "ees gee 3EPS IS reopening of the isane would apect tthe settled rights of ihind parties, then Me clote wil example, Uf the ei He ee Ss fo nin pay ar pension, relief may be granted in s i does nor affect fhe gids nf isin part :
» s f he entertained, Par nr or refixation of se of delay as s. But if he claim fnvelped issues relar Ing fa Sesioriry GP promanion, ate. affecting offers, & gud doctrine of laches' = nae wou render the eb 'aire stale Now will be EppUes i dnvofee as the consequential refé ef 0 f recovery of arn eR fora pew period ix concerned) ihe principles * recurring successive owrones will conseguence, the High " ;
perled of three years prior to the date of, peiiion, * aA Courts will COARSEYUE anuticd pelle? reigdng io arrears orn ji Wing of ite ating ig AS @ pesipick fe aly to ad 3.7, 'This case is also not applicable te the facts of the instant case.
The facts in the case of Torsea: Singh (supra) were totally different. In that case, Tarsem Singh was declared invalid fror army on 13° Wevernber, 1983. He approached the High Court as late as in the ¥ 1999 for grant of disability pension. In the facts <j yournstances year sof tS BS O.A. No. s1¢/soee with MA No. 558/s028, that case, the relief granted was restricted to the petitioner in that cas 2} This is not the fact situation in the case at hand. 3.8. The case of E. Parmasivan fsupra)}, is also not applicable to the case in hand. In this case the employees had retired from service between 31° January, 1974 to 31% May, 1985 and they had sought fixation of their pay on promotion in terms of the concordance table notified in the Ministry of Defence OM dated 1 2° January, 1976. This ease has no application to the facts of the case at hand. 3.9. In the case of 4rvind Kumar Srivastava (sepra), vi has been clearly held that the question of delay and laches will mot arise when the judmment is in rem. Epis clearly held that this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention fo give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. O4. For the same reasons, the judgement in the case of Niranaeay Sen (supra)is not applicable to the instant case. 4.1. Inthe case of Jer Ranjan Das (supra), itis held that conclusion of the commission is nota subject matter for judicial review. 4.2. In the case of Amur Nath Goyal (supra), the question was whether O.A. No, siz/sose with MA No. 2 S/2oge. the decision of the Central and State Governments to ros strict The revision of {he quantum of gratuity as well as the inereased ceiling of gratuity a consequent upon merger of a portion of dearmess allowance into dearness gay reckonable for the purpose of caloulating gratuity, was irrational of arbitrary. This is not the question invelved in the instant case. Therefore, his decision of the Apex Court has no application to the facts of the case at hand. A3. inthe ease of Kamesh wer Prasad Slagh (supra), in para 30 i aeld thus:
x "30 The concept of equalily as envisages ed under drticie id af the Cansifiadion {¢ a pesiive concepe + Rich gaan be enforced in a negat ive muaaner When ony authorily iy shown to Reve canonitted any Ules ality ar irre: ularly if Jevour of any individual or r group Gf individuals, offers cannot clatn the same Ueeaiy or regu ee Bat a He ground of denial Shere. fie . judgment passed in favaur of one incivi 'uct dou nile ethers te cigin simile snpiits, Fathi res Court iy Garsharan. Sin eihi Adzeyz Conunitiee®" held thar sifizens have axsupied wroeg notions regarding the scope of * Article id af the Consitintion hich g ryuraniees eguality before law fo all i citise 'hes Benefits & extended fo some persone IN aH irregular oF ilegal manner comer he clebred by x eitize? en on the plea of equality aS 62 ashrined In Article 4 . of fhe Constindion by way of writ perivion filed in ine ="
Hig oh Caurt, The Court obser ved: (SCC p. 465, para eNoiher aricls {4 of the Constin lags CUNCEEVES within Me equality clause gis comept } jor Anicle 228 empowers the igh Co pure te emforee such 2 claim of equality before law, If such elaine are eorced, if.shall amount to directing fo continue and perpeluale an legal procedure or an illegal order jar extending her agg fe ; ealiers. Refore a claine base YP pat be establis shige a8 OLA. No. sie/anee with MA No. ss8/so0e2, .
latin beng fust and legal, has been denied to him, while if has deen extended ta others aad in this process there has been a discrimination. * Again in Secy, Jaipur Development Authority w Deaulot Mal Jain? this Court considered the scope of Article 14 ofthe Constitution and reiterated ix earlier POSHION pe- Sanding the concept of egrality holding: (SCC pp. $1-S2, Para 28) "Suffice Hf to held that the illegal allorment founded upon ultra vires and ilecal pulley of al- lotment mide fo some other persans wrongly would not form a legal premtise to ensure if fo the respandent or fo repeat or perpeivate such Hlegal order nor cavld if he legalized fy other words, ju- icial process connor be abused te perpetuate the Hegaliies. Tits considered. we hold that the High *s Coury was clearly in error in directing the appel- lants fo allot the lonud te the respanclents.
4.4. Inthe case at hand, the judgment in the case of PK Murhew (supra) has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefere, this ease has no aps elication to the facts of the case in hand.
< 4.5. In view of the above, the applicants are similarly situated with Mr PY, Mathew. As held in the case of Arvind Ansar Srivastava fsupra}, the obligations are cast upon the authorities in extend the benedits thereof to all simuarly situated employees. When the judgment is in rem, the question of limitation does not arise, 4.6. In Ught of above, we deem it appropriate to allow QA No. $12,002 and direct the respondenis to extend the benefit of RE Mathews case (su-
Pra) to the applicants, being similarly situated. However, we do not think it < a oO th * ogard at on the arrears having re SE niters » io award F wk pee ws Ma sh "hesh mo oon fad oe a ¢ bodes cba id ie) a Peet .
FOR EK we;
1 ter eee Ye pen a Ne Peed OE a eh Oe is eed "a eo ban 8B et a PR ico pe 4 Fe Be tras a, te