Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Coram: Hon Ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik vs Union Of India on 10 August, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA No. 060/01185/2015 Date of decision-10.08.2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
Amarjeet Kaur W/o Late
MES No. 508007 Naresh Kumar,
Aged 51 years,
R/o MES Q.No. 4015, Nalwa Road, Jalandhar Cantt. (PB).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Sh. Shailendra Sharma.
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief Ministry of Defence,
Army HQ, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Engineer,
Western Command, Chandimandir.
4. Commander Works Engineer,
Jalandhar.
5. Garrison Engineer,
Kapurthala.
6. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (WC) Sector 9A, Chandigarh.
7. Accounts Officer,
Garrison Engineer, Kapurthala.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE : Sh. Sanjay Goyal.
ORDER (ORAL)
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
The applicant is aggrieved against the order dated 01.07.2015 whereby the respondents have decided to withdraw the benefit granted to husband of the applicant in terms of the decision rendered by this court in view of the fact that all Valvemen who were earlier in pay scale of Rs. 750-1150 have been granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 in terms of the various judicial pronouncements.
2. The undisputed facts, which led to filing of the present O.A, are that Sh. Naresh Kumar, husband of the applicant, was working as Valveman under the command of respondent no. 5. Unfortunately, he expired while in service on 31.08.2006. As per the implementation of recommendation of 4th Pay Commission, the Valvemen were kept in the semi skilled scale of Rs. 750-1150 by treating them as Group D employees whereas the Valvemen were entitled for the scale of Rs. 950-1500, meant of group C employee. Various representations were made by the similarly situated persons. Ultimately, Valvemen approached this Tribunal by filing number of O.As praying therein to grant them pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 meant for Group C employees, which were allowed by this Tribunal and that attained finality upto the Honble Supreme Court. Pursuant to decision of this court, all the Valvemen, working with the respondents, were allowed the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and accordingly, same was allowed in favour of the husband of the applicant also vide Annexure A-2 by revising the pay scale to Rs. 950-1500 and consequential benefit was also made available to him. Vide impugned order dated 01.07.2015, which is under challenge, the respondents have decided to withdraw the same on the pretext that husband of the applicant was not a party to O.A No. 1308/PB/2001, therefore, benefit of pay scale as admissible to Valvemen cannot be granted to him as same is to the allowed only to the applicants in that O.A.
3. The respondents have filed the written statement wherein they submitted that since the applicant was not party to O.A, therefore, he was wrongly granted the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 which was made available to Valvemen and when this fact came to notice of the authorities, immediately impunged order was passed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
5. Sh. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that impugned action of the respondents is nothing but colourable exercise of power on their part to deny the benefit to the husband of the applicant. To elaborate his argument, he submitted that once it is settled by the court of law that Valvemen are entitled for pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 then the respondents cannot deny the benefit to the applicant on the ground that he was not a party to the O.A. He submitted that once issue has already been decided by highest court of law, then, similarly situated persons are entitled to get the same benefit without forcing them to approach the court of law, therefore, impugned order be quashed . Learned counsel for applicant submits that benefit of a judgment cannot be denied to similarly situated employees as per settled law in the case of K.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India, 1997(3) SCT 341 and Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (2) SCT 54.
6. Per contra, Sh. Sanjay Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated what has been stated in the written statement.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings as available on record.
8. The only question to be answered is as to whether the husband of the applicant is entitled for grant of benefit of judgment wherein it is held that Valvemen are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 950-1500, irrespective of the fact whether he was a party to that decision or not?
9. It is not disputed by the respondents that husband of the applicant was working as Valveman in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1150 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 950-1500 as per the judgment by the various courts of law. There is also no denial by the respondents that benefit of enhanced pay scale was given to the husband of the applicant. The only plea which the respondents have taken is that he was not party to the O.A, therefore, benefit cannot be extended to him. We are afraid this argument can be accepted because it is well settled by now that those who do not come to court need not be at a disadvantageous position, as compared to those who had gone to Courts, and were allowed relief. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled for similar treatment as held in the case of Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SLR 248; K. I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686 and K.T. Veerappa and Others v. State of Karnataka & Others, (2006) 9 SCC 406. In State of Karnataka v. C. Lalita, (2006) 2 SCC 747 it was held that service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.
10. Recently again, their lordships in case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., 2015(1) SCC 347 have reconsidered the entire law on the subject and have laid down the parameters for grant of benefit to similarly situated persons in para 22 which reads as under:-
22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.
11. Viewed from this angle and facts of the present case, once it is held by the court of law that cadre of Valveman is entitled for grant of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and the judgment being in rem, therefore, rightly they had granted the benefit to the husband of the applicant and the impugned orders and action being contrary to the law, cannot be sustained and accordingly, same is quashed and set aside. The O.A is allowed in above terms.
12. No costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 10.08.2016.
`jk
1
OA No. 060/01185/2015
(Amarjeet Kaur Vs. U.O.I & Ors.)