Karnataka High Court
The Director vs M. Manickam on 17 August, 2012
Bench: N.K.Patil, S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012,
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
Writ Petition Nos. 28153-156 of 2011 (S-CAT)
Between:
1. The Director,
Defence Institute of Quality Assurance,
S.K.Garden, Benson Town P.O.,
Bangalore-46.
2. The Controller of Defence Accounts,
107, Lower Agram Road,
Bangalore-7.
3. The Director General Quality Assurance
Department of Defence Production,
Directorate General Quality Assurance (DGOA),
Directorate of Administration (RMD/US),
'G' Block, Room No.56, Nirman Bhavan PO,
New Delhi-110 001.
4. The Union of India,
Secretary-Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. Jagadishchandra Hulsoor, CGC)
2
And :
M.Manickam,
S/o. Late Muniswamy,
Aged about 50 years,
Civilian Motor Driver II,
Officer of the Director,
Defence Institute of Quality Assurance,
S.K.Garden, Benson Town P.O.,
Bangalore-46.
... Respondent
(By Smt. Saritha.J, for Sri. Basavaraj Veerabhadra,
Advocate)
These W.Ps. are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order
dated 01/01/2010 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in O.A.No.334/2009
marked as Annexure-D.
These W.Ps. coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this
day, N.K.PATIL J., made the following:
:O R D E R:
The petitioners in these petitions have sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 01/01/2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in O.A.No.334/2009 marked as Annexure-D.
2. The respondent/applicant has filed an application before the Tribunal in O.A.No.334/2009 assailing the correctness of the impugned letter dated 15.4.2009 and 3 dated 30.6.2009 issued on behalf of 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent and also for a direction to the petitioners/respondents to consider his case for grant of Family planning allowance from 20.7.1995, the date of his reemployment in the light of the order dated 3.12.2004 in O.A.No.255/2004 and 355 to 357/2004, contending that, he was earlier serving as Naik E in Corps of EME, he was granted Family Planning Allowance (FPA) of Rs.20/- in the Naik scale on his wife having undergone tubectomy. He has drawn the said allowance till his retirement on 31.1.1995. Pursuant to his retirement, he joined DGQA on 20.7.1995 as Civilian Motor Driver at Defence Institute of Quality Assurance (DIQA) Bangalore. It is the further case of the respondent/applicant that, when he came to know about the Tribunal's order dated 3.12.2004 allowing the family planning allowance to re-employed employees, he submitted his representation to concerned authorities praying for sanction of the same treating him in par with others and the same has not been considered. Therefore, he again submitted another representation vide Annexure-A2 and 4 thereafter, vide letter dated 15.4.2009 he was informed that under the provisions of FR-27 (FR & SR Part-I General Rules), family planning allowance is not admissible to re- employed persons who had undergone sterilization prior to re-employment and clarification dated 2.9.2002 issued by the Ministry of Finance states that incentive for adopting small family norms is admissible during service life of eligible government servants and once an employee demits office/retires/ceases to be in Government service on whatsoever consideration, his service life ends and the incentive increment also comes to an end. On receipt of the said letter, first petitioner/first respondent requested the 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent to review the matter in view of the decision in OA Nos. 255/2004 & 355-357/2004 and by letter at Annexure-A8 he was informed the decision dated 30.6.2009 of the petitioners/respondents authorities.
3. Upon service of notice, petitioners/respondents have submitted that, grant of family planning allowance to re-employed persons is not admissible as per rules. The applicant/respondent subsequent to his retirement from 5 Corps. was appointed on 20.7.1995 as one of the driver of DIQA. he was drawing family planning allowance in the scale of Naik till his retirement on 31.1.1995. It is further contended that, on an application dated 6.11.2008 filed by the applicant/respondent with supporting documents for continuance of FPA that was being drawn by him during his military service, his request was considered by the higher authorities and CDA Bangalore informed DIQA Bangalore vide letter dated 15.4.2009 that FPA on reemployment is not admissible as per GOI order 11 E(V) under FR 27 of FRSR Part-I. On receipt of the said reply, the applicant/respondent submitted the Tribunal's decision dated 3.12.2004 in OA Nos. 225/2004 and 355-357/2004 extending the benefit of FPA to persons who were getting such allowances earlier on their reemployment in government service. To that, CDA Bangalore was again approached for review and CDA vide letter dated 30.6.2009 informed that the said judgment of the Tribunal is implied to the concerned applicants of the OAs advising DIQA to take up the matter with higher authorities for further clarification. Therefore, the matter was 6 taken up with HO DGQA, New Delhi, which has clarified that the judgment passed in the OAs provides continuance of FPA to the petitioners therein and not to similarly placed employees. The petitioners/respondents relying on the clarification dated 2.9.2002 of Ministry of Finance in this aspect that incentive for adopting small family norms is admissible during service life of eligible government servants and once an employee demits office/retires/ceases to be in government service on whatsoever consideration, his service life ends and the incentive increment also comes to an end, has submitted that the applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed by him.
4. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal, which in turn, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and placing reliance on the order passed by it in similar matters in OA Nos. 225/2004 & 355- 357/2004 and by assigning valid reasons in para-7 of the order, has allowed the said application and set aside the impugned letters dated 15.4.2009 and dated 30.6.2009 with directions to the petitioners/respondents to grant the 7 applicant/respondent family planning allowance from 20.7.1995 by extending the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/respondents have presented these writ petitions seeking appropriate reliefs a stated supra.
5. The specific ground urged by the petitioners/respondents is that, they cannot extended the benefit granted by the Tribunal in OA Nos. 255/2004 and connected matters dated 3rd December 2004 vide Annexure- A to the respondent/applicant as his case is entirely different and his representation submitted by him has been duly considered and it has been communicated to him stating that he is not entitled to the relief sought by him in par with the applicants in the said cases. But this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the order and it has proceeded to pass the said order on the basis of the earlier order passed by it and that is not a ground for the Tribunal to grant the relief sought by the 8 applicant/respondent Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/ applicant, inter-alia, contended and submitted that, the Tribunal after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and taking into consideration the citation as referred in para-6 and by assigning valid reasons in para-7 of the order, has allowed the said application and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after careful perusal of the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any error or illegality or much less material irregularity committed by the Tribunal in allowing the application filed by the respondent-applicant. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and following the order passed by it in O.A. Nos. 255/2004 & 355-37/2004 has held that, the stand taken by the petitioners/respondents while rejecting the claim of the respondent/applicant is not at all justified since the 9 Apex Court and this Court have time and again held that similarly situated persons need not approach the Courts/Tribunals for the same reliefs which were granted by the Courts/Tribunals in some other cases and it is an admitted position that the order passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases have been implemented by the petitioners/respondents and the same has attained finality and accordingly, allowed the said application. The reasoning given by the Tribunal for allowing the application filed by the respondent/applicant is just and proper. Further, it is not in dispute that the Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments have held that, once the benefit is extended to the persons, the same shall be extended to other similarly situated persons, without there being any application. In view of the well considered reasons assigned by the Tribunal in para-7 of the order, we do not propose to entertain the relief sought in these petitions. Nor we find any good grounds as such made 10 out by the petitioners/respondents to allow these petitions. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE tsn*