Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
J.Soloman vs Union Of India Represented By Its ... on 19 August, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH O.A. NO. 715 OF 2008 Wednesday, this the 19th day of August, 2009. CORAM: HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. J.Soloman Store Keeper, Material Organisation Naval Base, Kattari Bagh, Kochi 4 Residing at Pilivilayil, Aroor P.O Cherthalai, Alappuzha 2. S.C. SeyedKoya Store Keeper, Material Organisation Naval Base, Kattari Bagh, Kochi 4 Residing at Type II, A4, Dowson Vihar, Thykoodam, Vyttila, Kochi 19 3. P.V.Santhakumari Store Keeper, Material Organisation Naval Base, Kattari Bagh, Kochi 4 Residing at Vivek Villa, Vennala PO, Kochi - 28 ... Applicants (By Advocate Mr.R.Sreeraj ) versus 1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence New Delhi 2. The Chief of the Naval Staff Integrated Head Quarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy) New Delhi 110 011 3. The Flag Officer Commanding in Chief Head Quarters, Southern Naval Command Kochi ... Respondents (By Advocate Mr.TPM Ibrahim Khan, SCGSC ) The application having been heard on 19.08.2009, the Tribunal on the same day delivered the following: O R D E R
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER This OA has been filed by three applicants seeking the following reliefs:
i, " To quash Annexure A-5 to A-7 ii, To declare that the applicants are entitled to get the benefit of the 2nd financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from the respective dates on which they completed 24 years from their respective dates of initial appointmetn on casual basis.
iii, To direct the respondents to grant the applicants the benefit of the 2nd financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from the respective dates on which they completed 24 years from their respective dates of initial appointment on casual basis with all consequential benefits including arrears and interest."
2. Briefly stated, the applicants are working as Store Keeper in the Respondents Organistaion. Initially they were engaged on casual basis during 1982 and thereafter they were regularly absorbed in service in 1983/1986 as the case may be. Still later, the casual services were also regularised for all purposes.
3. The Government have introduced Assured Career Progression Scheme effective from 09.08.1999 which provided for two financial upgradations after 12/24 years subject to fulfillment of certain conditions stipulated in the scheme. The applicants' case is that they should be granted the 2nd financial upgradations after completion of 24 years from the initial date of engagement on casual basis as the said casual service was also subsequently regularised. However, vide Annexures A-5, A-6 and A7, the respondents had denied the same stating that the 2nd financial upgradations could be granted only on completion of 24 years with effect from the date of absorption. In fact, the applicants have made a request on the basis of certain decisions of this Tribunal to which the response was with the casual period regularised as per CAT's order as in other cases will not be taken into account in the case of applicants unless it is specifically ordered for the same. Being aggrieved by the order of the respondents, the applicants have filed this OA on various grounds as itemized in Para 5 of the OA.
4. Respondents have contested the OA. While admitting all the facts as contained in the OA their objections is limited to the extent as given in para 4 of the reply which reads as under :
"Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that while disposing of the large number of similar cases, this Hon'ble Tribunal had declared that the applicants therein are entitled to the ACP benefits after taking into account the total services counting from th date of regularisation of the casual services also. It is further submitted that the applicants herein appeared to be a similarly situated person as that of the applicants in OAs 1018/2003, 932/2003 and 420/2006, as the services rendered by them on casual basis has been regularized. However, the respondents are not in a position to extend the benefits under CAP Scheme violating the extant Government orders on the subject."
5. Counsel for applicants submits that the case of the applicants is identical to those cases in respect of whom the Tribunal had directed to treat the period of casual services also as qualifying services for the purpose of ACP. And in all those cases the respondents have accordingly calculated and afforded the 2nd financial upgradation. However, in respect of all the applicants they have denied the same. The Counsel further submitted that the Apex Court in a number of cases held that similarly situated persons should be treated alike.
6. Counsel for respondents have submitted that in the absence of Court order if the applicants are granted the 2nd financial upgradation that will go against the stipulated cutting in the scheme which provides that the period of 24 years should be 24 years after regularisation.
7. Arguments were heard and documents perused. The fact that the applicants casual service has also been regularised is not denied. It is also an admitted fact that in other cases the Tribunal has held that the Casual Labourer services on regularisation became regular service and the same shall be reckoned to work out 24 years of service. A few orders of this nature are stated to have been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court as well. And in these cases the respondents have promptly implemented the order.
8. In Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 648, the Apex Court has held as under:
"... those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court.
9. The Apex Court as early as in 1975 in the case of Amrit Lal Berry v. CCE, (1975) 4 SCC 714 , held as under:
We may, however, observe that when a citizen aggrieved by the action of a government department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievances to court.
10. The V Central Pay Commission in its recommendation, in regard to extension of benefit of court judgment to similarly situated, held as under:
"126.5 Extending judicial decisions in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed employees.
-We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgment is only extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed and others v. UOI & others (O.A. Nos. 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the entire class of employees who are similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other judgments like G.C. Ghosh v. UOI, [ (1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC) ], dated 20-7-1998; K.I. Shepherd v. UOI [(JT 1987 (3) SC 600)]; Abid Hussain v. UOI [(JT 1987 (1) SC 147], etc. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Government should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of general nature applicable to a group or category of Government employees is concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an individual employee."
11. In view of the above, OA is allowed. Respondents are directed to take into account the period of casual period service of the applicants which already stand regularised for the purpose of reckoning 24 years of service and accordingly grant the financial upgradation admissible to them. Four months' time is calendered for the implementation of the order of this Tribunal.
12. No costs.
Dated, the 19th August, 2009.
K GEORGE JOSEPH Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER