Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mes 504395 vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 14 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH. O.A.NO.1015-JK-2010 Decided on: July 14, 2011 CORAM : HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) AND HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A). 1. MES 504395, Abdul Majid Hajam s/o Mohd. Shaban Hajam, aged 51 years presently working as Caneman in the office of Garrison Engineer, 970 C/o 56 APO. 2. MES 505507, Gh. Mohhammad Bhat s/o Abdul Ghani Bhat presently working as Caneman in the office of Garrison Engineer, 864 C/o 56 APO. 3. MES 364534, Gh. Rasool Wani S/o Gh. Mohd. Wani aged 52 years, presently working as Caneman in the office of Garrison Engineer, 970 C/o 56 APO. 4. MES 505456, Gh. Hassan Hajam S/o Mohd. Bakir Hajam presently working as Caneman in the office of Garrison Engineer, 864 C/o 56 APO. 5. MES NO. 507519, Ab. Sattar Dar S/o Gh. Mohd. Shaban Hajjam presently working as Caneman in the office of Garrison Engineer, Air Force Wing, C/o 56 APO. 6. MES 507843, Ab. Kabir Thakur S/o Gh. Gh. Mohd. Thakur presently working as Caneman in the office of Garrison Engineer, Air Force Wing, C/o 56 APO. . Applicants By: Mr. Jagdip Jaswal, Advocate Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Engineer, Air force Zone, Udhampur C/o 56 APO. Respondents By : Ms. Jaspal Kaur, Advocate. ORDER (ORAL)
HONBLE MRS.SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) Six applicants have filed this joint Original Application pleading that they are Visually Handicapped persons and they were appointed as Caneman with effect from different dates during 1974 to 1987, in the pay scale of Rs.210-290. This pay scale was revised to Rs.800-1150 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and to Rs.2650-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The applicants were granted the benefit of two financial upradations on completion of 12/24 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 and then Rs.4000-6000 respectively. Their pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 has been revised and they have been placed in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
2. The applicants have submitted that their category has been treated as Semi-skilled even though they were doing the job of skilled category from the initial date of their appointment. As a result of recommendations of 3rd Central Pay Commission, an expert Committee was constituted which re-classified certain categories from Semi-skilled to skilled but left out the category of the applicants. Thus, an Anomaly Committee was constituted to re-evaluate the job contents of left out categories in the pay scale of Rs.210-290 for their placement in the skilled grade of Rs.260-400. This time also, the category of Caneman was not considered.
3. The applicants have further submitted that certain Cane-men filed O.A.No. 804 of 1998 titled Hari Ram Shukla & Others Vs. UoI etc. in the Principal Bench of C.A.T. seeking the placement of their category in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 at par with similarly situated categories. The said O.A. was disposed of on 15.9.2000 (Annexure A-2) with directions to the respondents to review the matter. This order was challenged by the respondents in CWP No. 1054 of 2001 in the Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the respondents passed the order dated 9.10.2001, placing the category of Cane-men in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 from the date of filing of the O.A. The Writ Petition was dismissed with costs on 15.7.2002 (Annexure A-2). This decision was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court also. Thus, the issue with regard to category of Caneman being Skilled Category attained finality.
4. It is pleaded by the applicants that one Sh. Man Singh filed O.A.No. 1018/2003 seeking benefit of the Skilled pay scale from the date of his initial appointment, which was allowed vide order dated 5.1.2004 (Annexure A-1), reported in 2004 (3) ATJ, 255. This decision was implemented by the respondents.
5. The applicants have prayed for a declaration from this Tribunal that they are entitled to the benefit of the order (Annexure A-1) as well as benefit of pay fixation and seniority etc. and other consequential benefits from their initial date of appointment. They have also placed on record the latest judgment rendered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 2585/2009 titled Arjun Dev & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 29.4.2010, wherein the Court has given a direction to the respondents to grant Skilled Grade to the applicants from the date of their initial appointment, with consequential benefits.
6. The Respondents have filed a reply. They have submitted that the applicants are working as semi skilled Cane-men but are drawing skilled grade i.e. grade pay of Rs.2400/- consequent upon grant of ACP-II. They submit that up-gradation of a non skilled visually handicapped cane-men to skilled category by virtue of promotion and that too retrospectively from the initial date of their appointment is a statutory matter for which a change of policy is required and the issue has already been taken up with higher authorities.
7. The applicants have not filed any rejoinder.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the file.
9. After careful consideration of the matter we are of the view that the issue in this case is no longer res-integra and stands settled in a number of decisions, including the latest one in O.A.No. 2585 of 2009 titled Arjun Dev & Others Vs. Union of India & others, decided on 2.4.2010 (supra) in which it was held that the employees were entitled to skilled category pay scales from the initial date of their appointment along with consequential benefits. The objection of limitation taken in that case was also rejected. The Bench had reproduced the relevant para of O.A.No. 401-HR-2005 which is reproduced here also for the sake of ready reference:
We find that facts of the present case are similar to those in O.A.No. 804/98 decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal passing a detailed order dated 15.09.2000 which has been relied upon by the applicants in the present O.A. Applicants in that OA were also Cane man working in MES under Ministry of Defence and the respondents were directed to provide opportunities to Caneman in their set up on par with the opportunities available to Caneman in the Indian Railways. Writ Petition filed against this judgment as dismissed on 15.07.2002 and has been implemented by respondents qua the applicants in the OA. The respondents themselves should have implemented the order qua other similarly placed employees instead of taking the plea that the judgment was applicable in personam. The case of the applicants is, thus, fully covered by the judgment given by the Principal Bench in the said O.A. Accordingly this O.A. Is allowed in the same terms.
10. In para 5 of the order in Arjun Dev case (supra) answering the objections of the respondents with regard to limitation it was held as under:
Another preliminary objection was that of the limitation raised by the Counsel for the Respondents and have argued that most of the applicants were appointed in the year 1986 or there about and have approached this Tribunal in the OA filed on 28.8.2009. There is a considerable delay which remains unexplained. Further, the orders of the Tribunal in similar matters were passed on 9.12.2004 and more than 4 years have passed for the Applicants to come before the Tribunal. We find that the non-granting of the pay of a skilled grade Caneman to the Applicants is a continuing malady that has been affecting the Applicants. This being a recurring cause of action affecting the Applicants financially and they even get less pay than they are entitled, delay and laches cannot hit the OA. Since the relief that they have been seeking is a continuous one, the law of limitation would not be applicable in the present case.
11. Thus, it is apparent that the issue that the visually handicapped Caneman are entitled to benefit of skilled category from the initial date of their appointment already stands settled and this has attained finality upto the Apex Court of the country. Therefore, applicants in the present case are also held entitled for the same relief.
12. This O.A. is thus allowed and disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Arjun Dev & Others (supra) and the decision in the case of Man Singh (supra) (Annexure A-1) with direction to the respondents to pass necessary orders for grant of benefit to the applicants from their initial date of appointment with consequential benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh. Dated: July 14, 2011 HC* - 1 - (O.A.NO.1015-JK-2010)