Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Another vs Sat Pal Tomar And Others on 14 March, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 4597 of 2012
DATE OF DECISION : 14.03.2012
Union of India and another
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
Sat Pal Tomar and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Advocate, for
Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate,
Additional Central Government Standing Counsel,
for the petitioners.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
1. In this writ petition, the Union of India and the Engineer-in- Chief, Army Headquarter, New Delhi, are praying for quashing of the order dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure P-3) only qua respondents No.2 and 3. Vide the said order, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), the Original Application No. 57/PB/2006 filed by respondents No.1 to 3 was allowed and the petitioners were directed to grant the skilled grade to respondents No.1 to 3 with effect from 1.5.1998 with all consequential benefits. CWP No. 4597 of 2012 -2-
2. Respondents No.1 to 3 are working as Caneman in the office of petitioner No.2. In the year 1998, the similarly situated Canemen working with petitioner No.2 approached the Principal Bench of the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 804 of 1998 for granting skilled grade i.e. ` 3050-4590 to them. The said Original Application was allowed vide order dated 15.9.2000 and the petitioners were directed to re-consider the matter in the light of the observations made in the order. The writ petition filed by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed on 25.7.2002 and they were directed to comply with the orders within a period of two months. The petitioners, on consideration, accepted the claim of the Canemen and granted them skilled grade with effect from 1.5.1998. When the same skilled grade was not granted to respondents No.1 to 3, who are also similarly situated, and when on their representation, no response was given by the petitioners, they (respondents No.1 to 3) approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 401/HR/2005 for grant of skilled grade with effect from 1.5.1998 along with arrears. Vide order dated 16.2.2005, the said Original Application was allowed in terms of the order dated 15.9.2000, passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. When the said order was not complied with, contempt petition was filed. Thereupon, the petitioners granted the skilled grade to respondents No.1 to 3 with effect from 4.5.2005, i.e. the date of filing of the Original Application. Respondents No.1 to 3 again approached the Tribunal by filing fresh Original Application, claiming CWP No. 4597 of 2012 -3- that they should be granted the skilled grade with effect from 1.5.1998, as was granted to the other similarly situated Canemen. The learned Tribunal allowed the said Original Application, while coming to the conclusion that there was no justification with the petitioners to grant the skilled grade to the Caneman working in the department from two different dates.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Canemen, who filed the Original Application in the year 1998, were visually handicapped, whereas in this case, respondents No.2 and 3 are non- handicapped, therefore, they are not entitled for the grant of skilled grade with effect from 1.5.1998. The similar contention was raised by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal. In our opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected this contention of the petitioners. No discrimination can be made between the visually handicapped and non-handicapped Caneman working in the department, for the purpose of grant of skilled grade. The proposed classification in the matter of grant of skilled grade has no nexus with the object to be achieved. If both the categories of persons are working in the cadre, discharging the same duties and functions, then there is no reason to treat them differently for the purpose of grant of skilled grade to them.
4. The second contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the skilled grade is to be granted to respondents No.2 and 3 from the date of filing of the Original Application and not from the date, CWP No. 4597 of 2012 -4- when it was given to the similarly situated employees, i.e. with effect from 1.5.1998, is also not tenable, because the petitioners themselves have accepted the grant of skilled grade to respondent No.1 with effect from 1.5.1998. In this writ petition, they are seeking quashing of the impugned order only qua respondents No.2 and 3 and not qua respondent No.1. Once they have accepted the impugned order qua respondent No.1, then there is no reason to deny the similar benefit to respondents No.2 and 3 with effect from 1.5.1998, only on the ground that they are not visually handicapped. As already stated, no discrimination can be made by the petitioners with respondents No.2 and 3 on the ground of visually handicapped and non- handicapped employees. This classification is arbitrary and unreasonable, hence violates the constitutional mandate of `equality' in the matter of pay scales. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
5. Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
March 14, 2012 ( T.P.S. MANN )
ndj JUDGE