Gauhati High Court
The Union Of India & Anr vs Sd-211720 Shri Naresh Kumar & 8 Ors on 28 March, 2016
WP(C) No.5418 of 2014
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT SINGH, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
28.03.2016
(Ajit Singh,C.J.)
Heard Mr. S.C.Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India,
appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S Saikia, learned Standing Counsel,
Finance for respondents.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby, it has allowed Respondents' OA No.367/2012.
3. In OA No.367/2012, the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming payment of license fee @ 10% of their monthly salary with effect from 1.7.1987 or from the date of their actual posting at Nagaland. The respondents pleaded themselves to be similarly situated as of petitioners in OA 143/99 (Sri Krishna Sinha vs. Union of India). The Tribunal vide order dated 6.11.2000 allowed OA No.143/99 with a direction against the Union of India to pay license fee @ 10% of monthly pay with effect from 1.7.1987 or from the actual date of posting at Nagaland whichever was later. The Tribunal also directed the Union of India to continue to pay such fee till compensation was not withdrawn or modified and rent free accommodation was not provided. The order dated 6.11.2000 passed by the Tribunal was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Union of India, but the Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 8.2.2010.
4. The Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed OA No.367/2012 of the Respondents directing the petitioner/Union of India to make payment of license fee to them @ 10% compensation in lieu of free rent accommodation with effect from 1.10.1987 within a period of 3 months. And the Tribunal passed this order without even issuing notice to the Union of India.
5. It is argued on behalf of the Union of India that the case of the Respondents is not similar to that of Sri Krishna Sinha (supra) as the respondents were allotted government free rent accommodation with electricity and water supply charging Rs.95/- per month. It has also been argued that had the Union of India been given an opportunity before the Tribunal, the impugned order in favour of respondents would not have been passed.
6. Admittedly, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order without even issuing notice to the Union of India. And by the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the Union of India/the respondents to pay license fee @ 10% of monthly pay. The order directing the Union of India to pay license fee without giving an opportunity of hearing is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Tribunal for its decision afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Union of India.
The petition is allowed to above extent.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE