Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
K L Yadav vs M/O Defence on 29 September, 2022
1
Item No. 22
O.A. No. 3953/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3953/2018
M.A. No. 4396/2018
This the 29th day of September, 2022
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
NCC-9311 Ex major K L Yadav, Age 84 Years
House No. 509/3, Prem Nagar Opposite Raj Cinema,
Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon - 122001.
...Applicant
(By Advocate:Mr. I.S. Yadav)
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through: The Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi - 110011.
2. Through the Secretary,
Integrated HQ of MOD (Army),
Quartermaster General‟s Branch,
Army Headquarters, Room No. 14A, „L‟ Block,
Church Road, New Delhi - 110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. U Srivastava)
2
Item No. 22
O.A. No. 3953/2018
O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 04.08.2017 whereby canteen facility which was earlier extended to the applicant has been withdrawn abruptly without giving any show-cause notice. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is a complete violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant submits that he would be satisfied if the applicant is given an opportunity to represent his claims before the respondents by way of a representation to be decided by them by way of a reasoned and speaking order.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the same while drawing support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 556-557 of 1998 decided on 30.04.1998 titled Major M.R. Penghal Vs. Union of India and Others. The relevant paragraph reads as under:-
"9. As stated above, although the appellant was selected by the Postal Department for appointment to the post of clerk, but he could not be given any 3 Item No. 22 O.A. No. 3953/2018 appointment due to want of vacancy in the unit of his choice. Under such circumstances, the appellant was offered an appointment to work as a clerk in the Army Postal Service on the condition that he would remain a civilian employee on deputation in the Army. The appellant accepted the aforesaid offer and agreed to the conditions that he would revert to the civil appointment in Posts and Telegraphs Department on his release from the Indian Army Postal Service. With these conditions, the appellant continued to serve in the Army as a permanent employee of the Posts and Telegraphs Department on deputation and was promoted up to the rank of a Major in the Indian Army. However, the appellant was only given a temporary commission and he worked as such till the date when his relinquishment was ordered. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the appellant has a lien with the Posts and Telegraphs Department working on deputation in the Indian Army Postal Service and at no point of time the appellant became a full-fledged army personnel. Since the appellant was not a member of the Armed Forces and continued to work as a civilian on deputation to the Army Postal Service, his case was covered under Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. In that view of the matter, the High Court was right in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant, whereas the Central Administrative Tribunal erroneously accepted the claim of the appellant that he is an army personnel. We, therefore, uphold the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Since the appellant while holding civil post was working in the Army Postal Service on deputation, the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the original application filed by the appellant. We accordingly set aside the order dated 31-1-1997 passed by the Central Administrative 4 Item No. 22 O.A. No. 3953/2018 Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, and remand the case to it to decide expeditiously Original Application No. 1647 of 1996 of the appellant, on merits."
4. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this O.A. is disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall prefer his claims before the respondents by way of detailed representation within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents shall decide the same by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking order keeping in view the extant rules and instructions on the subject within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is made clear that I have not made any observations on the merits of the case while passing this order.
5. Pending M.A., if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
No costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) Member (J) /dd/