Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Harbans Kaur vs M/O Defence on 27 July, 2017
QO CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH ©. A. No.060/00525/ 2016 Date of decision: 27.07.2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANIJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J). HON'BLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A). Harbans Kaur aged 63 years, W/o Late Sh. Mazdoor Singh Group C, now resident of Village Desumajra, PO-Kharar Teh. and Distt.Mohail, Punjab. oo. APPLICANT VERSUS -- Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. | Ze Engineer in Chief, Army Headquarters, DHO, PO, Kashmir House, New Delhi-1 10011. 3. Chief Engineer; Headquarters, Northern Command, C/o 56 APO. 4. Cornmander Works Engineer, Udhampur (J&K)-900386., 5. Garrison Engineer (South), Udhampur (J&K). | "was RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Sh. Jagdeep Jaswal, counsel for the applicant. Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the respondents. ORDER
HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J).
i. The applicant herein challenges the order dated 04.06.2016, whereby the respondents while rejecting her claim for grant of pay scale skilled grade.
2. The facts which fed to filing of the O.A. are that the applicant joined the respondent department as Caneman on 20.11.1984 in the pay scale of Rs.210-290, which was revised to Rs.800-1500 wef, 1.1.1986 then Rs.2650-4000 w.e.f, 1.1.1996. On implementation of ACP Scheme, applicant was granted first ACP in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 and 2m ACP in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 on completion of 12/24 years of service respectively. The category of L bO Caneman in the respondent department was treated as semi-skilled. On implementation of 3% CPC, the category of Caneman was not considered to be included in the skilled category. Seme of the employees, who were working as Caneman, approached Principal Bench of the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.804/1998 seeking upgradation of their category in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 w.e.f. the date when similar other categories were upgraded. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2000 with a direction to the respondents to _ review the matter keeping in view of the observations made therein. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents filed Writ Petition No.1054/2001 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and pending writ petition they themselves have granted skilled grade to the category of Caneman to which the applicants belong from the date of filing of the O.A. However, the said order was passed subject to outcome of writ petition pending before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The writ petition was dismissed with costs vide judgment dated 15.07.2002. That arder also attained finality by dismissing SLP at the hands of the respondents and ultimately issue with regard to category of Caneman as skilled category attained finality. However, in view of the decision by the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant has not been granted the pay scale attached to the post of Caneman and has been allowed to get the benefit under old pay scale, which was available before the judgment of Delhi High Court. It is also the case of the applicant that the respondents have not implemented the decision of the Principal Bench qua similarly placed employees thus have discriminated amongst the similarly situated employees by violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
[ kaw.
The applicant along with some other similarly situated persons --
approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No.309/3K/2005 seeking benefit of the said judgment from the date of their initial joining, _ which was disposed of vide order dated 07.04.2005, directing the respondents to reconsider and decide the claim of the applicants therein by passing a reasoned and speaking order. When respondents rejected their claim, the applicant along with other persons, including Valvemen, filed O.A. no.414/3K/2012 seeking benefit of various judgments and consequential upgradation of their category w.e.f. 16.10.1981 or from the date of their appointment. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2012, with a direction to. the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants therein for grant of skilled category pay scale to the Caneman. The respondents filed review application No.16/2013, which was disrnissed vide order dated 12.01.2016. Pending litigation, the applicant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Vide impugned order dated 4.4.2016, respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant for skilled category without considering the ratio Jaid down by the Tribunal which was affirmed up to Hen'ble Supreme Court, without citing any reason, Hence this O.A, The applicant has taken various grounds for invalidation of the impugned order and the star argument which he has raised is that the respondents have discriminated the applicant vis a vis similarly situated employees to whom they have already granted benefit of upgradation by treating them under skilled category. Therefore, it has been alleged that respondents have violated Articles 14 and 16 of -
the Constitution of India. It has also been stated that while , ") 4 considering the case of the applicant, respondents have not considered the ratio laid down, wherein it has been held that category of Canernan comes under skilled category and they have to be granted pay scale of skilled category. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order be also set aside being non speaking order.
5. The respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant by filing detailed written statement wherein they have not disputed the factual | accuracy of the matter.
6& We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. Sh, Jagdeep Jaswai, jearned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the impugned order be set aside being non-speaking order as while rejecting her claim for grant of skilled pay scale, the respondents have not considered the ratio of the law laid down in the decision relied upon by the applicant qua similarly situated persons like her who are working as Caneman and have been granted skilled pay scale from the date of their initial appointment, whereas the case of the applicant has been rejected without any reason. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside. He further argued that once the direction has already been issued in earller round of litigation to consider their case in the light of judicial pronouncements on the subject then by dismissing their claim with a non-speaking order is _cantemptuous, as respondents have not shown any respect to direction issued by this Court. | &. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents is not in position to rebut arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter and have perused pleadings available on record.
L
10. has been held that category of Caneman is to be treated in skilled | {1.
entitled to grant of pay scale attached to skilled category. similar The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether the applicant who was working as Caneman is entitled to Skilled grade W.€.f. 16.10.1981 as per various judicial pronouncements wherein it grade.
In the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal while disposing of O.A, had directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicants therein in the light of various judicial pronouncements where this issue has already been settled, but the respondents without considering the ratio laid down in the judgments relied upon by the applicants therein, have rejected their claim by passing non-speaking ordér and have not come with a plea that category of Caneman does not fal under skilled category. . Therefore, view taken by the respondents cannot be approved. Even subsequently, this Tribunal vide order dated 17.9.03.2015 in O.A, No.060/00024/2014 titled as Usha Rani vs. UOI & Ors., has considered the similar issue and allowed the O.A. in the light of various judicial pronouncements holding that the Caneman fall under the skilled category and thus cases have also been decided in favour of the Similarly placed employees by the jurisdictional High Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2012 passed in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Sat Pal Tomar & others (CWP No.4597/2012) and 26.03.2014 in the case of Union of India and others vs. Bansilal and others (CWP No, 10050-CAT-2007). Even while dismissing the writ petition in the case of Bansilal and others (supra), the jurisdictional High Court has shown displeasure against Govt. of India for not extending the benefit ng 6 to those who are similarly situated. The relevant observation made
12. by the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:-
"Before parting with the matter, we must note that the Government of India has repeatedly been emphasizing that a litigation policy is sought to be implemented whereby unnecessary [litigation does not take place and there is no wastage of court time. However, the implementation of this professed litigation policy leaves something to be desired. At least the present case is example of the same. The facts set out aforesaid would show that it is a fit case where instructions could have been given to the counsel to withdraw the petition in view of the circular dated 7.3.2007 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and another vs. Sat Pal Tomar and others case (supra). This has not happened as none .
has cared to analyze the case with the result that valuable time of the court is spent in penning down orders which are really covered against the Government and that too in matters such as benefit at _ the iowest rung to. Canemen, a large number of whom were suffering from disability. Thus, we are of the view that costs must be imposed on the petitioners, to begin with at least notionally to sent right signal.
The petition is, thus, dismissed with costs of 6,000/- payable to six surviving effected private respondents in equal share of 1,000/- each,"
In the light of above judicial pronouncements, it.can be safely concluded that those who are working as Caneman are to be treated | as skilled category and pay scale attached to that post. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and therespondents are directed to grant the applicant pay scale of skilled grade Caneman from the date when the applicant filed earlier O.A. Let the above exercise be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(UDAYKUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) Date MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) : 27.07.2017.
Piace: Chandigarh.
"KKR' | 2