Gauhati High Court
The Union Of India & 4 Ors vs Sanjeev Kumar Poon & 2 Ors on 22 November, 2017
Author: Manojit Bhuyan
Bench: Manojit Bhuyan
WP(C) No.7137 of 2017
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
22.11.2017
(Ajit Singh, C.J.)
Mr.SC Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the
petitioner.
Mr.S Nath and Mr.GJ Sharma, learned counsel for the
Respondents.
Heard on admission.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 9.2.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby it has disposed of Respondents' OA No.040/00029/2016 with certain directions.
According to the respondents, they are working as UDC in the office of 5104 ASC Battalion (MT), Missamari under the Ministry of Defence (Army). And earlier, they were placed for 2 years on ad hoc/temporary basis as Civilian Clerks whereafter they were absorbed against regular vacancies as Civilian Clerks. The grievance of the respondents is that their said 2 years of "in lieu of combatant services"
have not been taken into account for the purposes of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP schemes. The respondents therefore filed OA No.040/00029/2016 before the Tribunal for a direction against the petitioners to grant them benefits of service rendered by them as Civilian Clerks "in lieu of combatant services" for the purposes of counting of service for ACP/MACP and to revise the ACP/MACP benefits granted to them in the light of judgments and orders dated 1.2.2012 passed in OA No.3409/2011 and dated 11.9.2013 passed in OA No.38/2013.Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, finally disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the petitioners to examine the case of respondents whether they are similarly situated with applicants of OA Nos.3409/2011 and OA No.38/2013 and if they are found to be similarly placed, they be also given the same benefits.
Since the Tribunal has given direction to the petitioners to first examine the case of respondents and if found similarly placed then only benefits be extended to them, we find no justification to entertain the present petition. The petitioners will now examine the case of respondents as directed by the Tribunal and thereafter pass an appropriate order.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
skd
Page 2 of 2