Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Chander Mani Atwal & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. Respondents on 16 February, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench M.A.No.3211/2011 in O.A.No.564/2011 New Delhi, this the 16th day of February, 2012 Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Chander Mani Atwal & Ors. Applicants (By Advocate: Ms. Suhasini Sen) Versus Union of India & Anr. Respondents (By Advocate: None) [Order reserved on 02.02.2012] O R D E R By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A):
MA No.3211/2011 has been filed seeking clarification of the order dated 20.10.2011, passed by this Tribunal in OA No.564/2011.
Although, notices had been issued to the respondents on 01.12.2011, none appeared on behalf of the respondents either on the last occasion, that is on 05.01.2012, nor has anyone appeared even on 02.02.2012, when the case was listed for second time. Therefore, we are deciding the MA on the basis of the available pleadings on record.
2.1. OA No.564/2011 had been decided by this Tribunal on 20.10.2011 on the basis of a statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents (referred to in the order).
2.2. The present MA has been filed seeking clarification of the order dated 20.10.2011 under Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 to secure the ends of justice.
It is stated in the MA that the order of this Tribunal dated 20.10.2011 makes relief to the applicants contingent on the Respondent No.2 filing a Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, but they have not chosen to do so, nor have the applicants been granted the benefits admissible to them. The learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, argued that if no specific directions are issued to the respondents by clarifying the aforesaid order, it would be easy for the respondents not to give effect to it and to continue to deny the benefits sought to be extended to similarly situated persons in the same organization, vide Tribunals order dated 4.02.2011, even without challenging the order in the High Court.
2.3. As already observed by us, in spite of sufficient opportunity/time having been given to the respondents after issue of notice in the MA on 1.12.2011, the respondents have chosen not to file a reply to the MA or appear on the two dates on which the case was fixed for hearing, constraining us to pass this clarificatory order on the basis of available pleadings.
3.1. On 07.09.2011, the respondents counsel had informed us that action to challenge the order of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal dated 4.02.2011 (on the basis of which the applicants had sought extension of benefits to them, being similarly placed) was under process. Further, on a query from the Court whether an order on consensual basis could be passed that the respondents would extend all the benefits to those similarly placed as the applicants before the Chandigarh Bench, keeping in view also the order that has already been issued by the Government dated 22.07.2009 (Annexure A/2) and that this could be made subject to the final outcome of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the event the Chandigarh Bench order is challenged there, the respondents counsel sought time to take clear instructions in the matter. We, therefore, granted him four weeks time to seek clear instructions in the matter so that the order on consensual basis as mentioned above could be issued.
3.2. On 20.12.2011, when the case came up for hearing, we had disposed of the OA No.564/2011 in terms of the following order:
It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that a Writ Petition against the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.675/PB/2009 along with other connected OAs is being filed in the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court shortly, and that further action in the matter would be taken based on the decision of the High Court and that if the Writ Petition is dismissed then the respondents would re-consider the cases of the applicants and decide the same keeping in view the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal.
2. In view of the above, on consensual basis, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the issue as above.
3. The OA stands disposed of. No costs.
4. We clarify our order dated 20.10.2011 as follows:
(I) The intention of this Tribunals order dated 20.10.2011 was that the same benefits that had been given to the applicants in OA No.675/PB/2009 and other connected OAs in terms of the orders of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal be extended to the applicants in OA No.564/2011 as they were stated to be similarly situated, and that the only event in which such benefits may not be extended to them was if the respondents had appealed against the orders of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the Punjab & Haryana High Court (the respondents counsel having stated that an appeal was being filed shortly) in which case the orders passed in the appeal by the High Court would become operative.
(II) In the event of the respondents not having appealed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the orders of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal would have to be extended to the applicants in OA No.564/2011, they being similarly placed. Thus, if the respondents have not filed a Writ Petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter by the time of receipt of this order, they are required to extend the benefits extended by them in terms of the orders of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal (to the applicants therein) to the applicants in this OA also. This may be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(III) In the event of the respondents having gone in appeal against the order to the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the orders passed by the High Court would hold the field.
5. The application is disposed of in terms of the above directions, with no order as to costs.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to both the parties.
(Dharam Paul Sharma) (Shailendra Pandey) Member (J) Member (A) /nsnrsp/