Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Brijesh Kumar Srivastava vs M/O Defence on 14 March, 2023
Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. O.A.685/2021 Dated this WU es.cauthe \ Ly day of March, 2023. \ Coram : Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member (Administrative). 1, Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, P3320A Post: Foreman (G), Dept.: Battery Coimmissioning Facility (Sewri), Naval Dockyard, Mumbai ~ 400 023 esiding at: Flat No. 306, Building Nos, Or chid-B, Nisats « Greens, B-Cabin Road, Ambermath (5), Thane ~ 421 501, Mobile:$000029263 Email:/bks933 14k@ gmail.com 2. Pramod Kumar, Post: Senior Design Officer (Grade D, Dept.: Engineering, Room No.B12, A-33, Kailash Colony, wuectorat® af Nayal Designs (SSG), w Delhi~ 110 G22. Ree iding at: 109B, Type 4, Sector 12, RLX. Puram, New Delhi~ 110 O22, Mobile: TOT TTOGL94 Email: pkm 1 [email protected] 3, Avaneesh Kumar Singh (Old Tno. 11523), TNe. 7017 Post: HSK-H, Deets: YW 'orsshop Servi ices Group, $08 Army Base Workshop, Chheoki Pravag Pine George Town, Mok 0 gS END Py rojeet Dyn Residing at: Vishweshrayya Abhlyanta ta Society, Wear Shiv Mand, , Airport R Road, Chaitanya Nagar, Nanded, Mahar: ashtra -- 43 1 605. Mobile: 8087698131. Email: saniaynande oy 0T8A '@amail.com oF Subhash Brahmdev Yaday, T.No. 6972 Post: HSK-IL Dept.: Material Control Organisation 508 Army Base Workshop, Chheoki Pravagraj, Pincode- 212 165 Re siding at: 138 Lig Awas Vikas Colony, Yojana 2, Jhushi Prayagraj, Mobile: 7355255386 email: yvdsubhash6972 @email.com 6. Julius Fernandes, H.No, TD 4/24, Post : Deputy Director, Dept. - Directore ate of Ligl HHOUSES § und Lightships, tog Mobile: ests Grama com 7 Santosh Kumar Gupta (Old TNo.1052E) T.No 182, Post: HSK-L, Dept.: Electronic and Mechanical Engineering, S08 Army Base Workshop, Chheo ( Prayagral, Pincode-2 12105. Residing a at LSOT/O7K/05, Ops Nagar, - Near Amamath School, Rairooe Pur, Prayagraj, U.P-211 O11, Mobilise : S31 8631695 Email skeupta@smail com 8. Ganpat Singh Chouhan, Yno. Li387M, Post: HSK-L epi: Manager Electrical Power System, Dep Waval Dockyard, Mumbai -- 400 023. Residing at: ASO2, Tirupati Hp Loon, Sector 20, Plot 45, Kamathe, New Mumbai -- 410 008, Mobile > 8369651682 Email: chouhanS&3 ' toed S on CPt a 'owl 5 bee pees Mahavir Nagar, Karma Road, __. Aurangabad -- 824 101, , Residing at: Kanti Bhavan, Kshatriye' Nagar, Ward No.2, Near Aradhya Suzuki Showroom, Aurangabad -- 824 101, Mobile: 6299049520 Email raikumarofranchi3 @email.com Applicants. ( By Advocate Shri Sangram Chinnappa ). Versus 1, Union of India, throu gh Secretary, Ministry of Defenc e, South Block, Mew Delhi --- 110 001. 2. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, Navy, 1, Cooperage Road, Cusrow Baug Colony, Colaba, Mumbai -- 400 G08. 3. Admiral Superintendent Naval Dex wkyard. Mi unbai, Lion Gate, Mumbai ~ 400 023. 4. Personnel Manager, Naval D Do gar Mumbai, Lion Gate, Mumbai -- 400 O23. .. Respondents. { By Advocate Smt.N.V. Masurkar 3. Order reserv ed on: 01,03,.2023 Order gronouced on : {4,03,2033 ORDER
Shri Broesh Kumar Srivastava and 8 other O.A. on (2.07. 2021 seeking setting aside of order dated 02.02.2021 We gui, iS.03.2021 which directed the applicants to app a Since Pe are fae owsateda-e . oe ; sche wedeamee She the Tribunal for seeking appropriate direction to respondents fos oes aos AYES Nie om Fh sy amount paid to them from January, SC 4 OA.655/202 1 January, 2012 in February, 2012 in pursuance to order dated 16.06.2003,
2. Reply and rejoinder have been filed by the parties. MLA.AT7/2023 submitted by the respondents to take on record their reply to rejoinder submitted by the applicants has been allowed.
3. The applicants have filed M.A.647/2021 for condonation of delay in fling the present OLA, 4, Heard Shri Chi 'mappa Sangram, counsel for the applicants and Mrs.N.V. Masurkar, counsel for the respondents on this M.A. on
5. Before dealing with details of the O, A. fois necessary to ayy mo a XK, welever The aed by? aN Oil Hled for condoning the delay. Shri Chinnappa ¢ Sangram submits that the applicants is 1 the present OLA. were pariy to és earlier group of OAs which were decided by the Tribunal on a any 16.06.2003. Fer nor acompliance of the order of the Tribunal, a number of Contempt Petitions were filed by apniicants in OAs other than preser on: eee 7 tere ten er ern ed ~ or bo mies wiles teary Ben, appucants On which order was passed on 12.07.2011 directing the respondents to obtain required sanction from Ministry of Defence in the ea a *< Vehoweres My yh * sea flre ante sy maker anc disourse ine ameunt to the applicants therein as per the direc wa .
on ess rs Ys be
a) th pee applicants therein i in January, 2012 in 'pursuance to order of the Tribunal dated 16.06.2003 for the peried from January, 2004 till January, 2012. el However, the present applicants in the O.A. were not a party to O.A.78/2014,
7. The respondents in their reply have stated that as per the order dated 26.06.2019 in O.4.76/2014 payment of interest was made in November, 2021 on delayed payment of arrears to 118 applicants in that O.A. The pre esert O.A. seeking payment of interest to the applicants, therefore, is barred by limitation as the applicants were neither party to O.A.76/2014 nor they have submitted the present O.A. in time. The present O.A. has been Aled by them after a lapse of 9 years after payment of arrears to them.
8. The applicants have admitted that there is delay in filing the present O.A., therefore, M.A.647/2021 has been submitted for condoning the delay. They have submitted that they were not posted in Mumbai at the time of fling of O.A.76/2014, so they were not party to that O.A. While the present applicants have been paid arrears in Saye ray yp 43 "ey a emset "YOR clesilear te -_ fe February, 2012, April, 3012 and August, 2013, similar to the grant of ~ A mcd vg tog > aiewant ae ~ 3 tS manger Tay payment of interest on delayed payment of arrears to 11S apolicants in OLA. 76/2014, they Tish < abet rs aye 7a os oat 4 Ria ox ' : ssoking payment of interest in this O.A,, O7 O89 & OAO33/2021 * Courts, if will be applied to similarly placed persons, Since the a applicants are similarly placed with th é applicants in O.A. 76/2014, they should also be paid interest on the arrears paid to them. Thereafter they have filed the present O.A. 9, The respondents' counsel i pleads that apart from the above details, the applicants In the M.A.647/2021 have not explained any asons because of which they could not approach the Tribunal in time for fling the present O.A. The applicants were neither party to the O.A. 76/2014 nor after its decision of the Tribunal on it, approached the respondents or Tribunal in time to file this O.A. Thus they have filed this O.A. after 7 years of submission of O.LA.76/2014, so their request for condoning delay cannot be accepted. Therefore, this MLA. should be rejected and as a result the O.A. should be dismissed, 10, As per submissions of the applicants' counsel, if they were similarly placed with parties to the earlier group of OAs decided by the order of the Tribunal dated 16.06 ce of order of the Tribunal by the respondents, they of CPs which were decided by the Tribunal on 30.04.2010. However, they were not party te these CPs, Subse. gy] "Ss ee yy aaa : wy home GRE ASAD DS rave paid in February, 2 ? OA.6S3/2021 cause of action for the applicants seems to have arisen in February, 2012 bat they did nat approach the Tribunal thereafter in time. They were not ven a party to O.A.76/2014 which was decided on 26.06.2019 directing the respondents to pay interest on the arrears at GPF interest rate. Thus neither the applicant took any action in pursuance to the decision of the Tribunal dated 16.06.2003 nor on payment of arrears to them in February, 2012, They also did not join as party to O.A.76/2014. Their claim that they were not posted at Mumbai is not justified because in the present O.A. also only three of them were posted in Mumbai in 2021 whereas rest of them were posted at other places such as New Delhi, Prayagrai, Nanded, Aurangabad, ete when they have filed the OLA. | 202%. Tfthey were vigilant, they could have approached the Tribunal in lene es #3 ot me eat ox:
time atleast aller payment of arrears to them | in the earlier group of P OAs oe in February, 2015. Even after the decision In O.A.76/2014 dated 26.06.2019, the applicants did not approach the Tribunal in time, In view of these facts, M.A.647/2021 for condonation of Bont eAnariy aetttinas nana . # Cos alyte delay has no properly justifying reasons for the delay and, therefore, this SA 2 Aliseates + » aaa ele MLA. is dismissed. As a consequence, O.A.655/2071 alse stand (DOrBhagwin Sa Member PAS