Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kalyan Singh S/O Late Amar Chand vs Union Of India Through Secretary To ... on 10 September, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.No.1238-HP-2013 Decided on : 10.09.2013 CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) & HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A) 1.Kalyan Singh S/o Late Amar Chand, IDS DCDA (Retd.), aged 62 years, resident of Tika Lehsar, Yol, PO-Yol Camp, Teh. Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (H.P). 2.Harnam Singh, IDAS ACDA (Retd.) aged 62 years, resident of Village Upper Barol, PO-Dari, Teh. Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (H.P). 3.Kamlesh Sarin, IDAS ACDA (Retd.), resident of Village Narwana, PO Yol Camp, Teh. Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (H.P). 4.Rajesh Sharma IDAS ACDA (Retd.), resident of H.No. 101, Lane 4, New Dhashmesh Nagar, Ph-II, PO Ladhewali, Jallandhar-144407. 5.Hansraj Sharma, IDAS, ACDA (Retd.), resident of Village Chhudra, PO Matti, Teh. Salooni, Distt. Chamba (H.P). 6.S.J. Raina, IDAS ACDA (Retd.), resident of H.No. 3,O Astha Enclave, Near Gilco Valey, Kharar, Punjab. 7.B.L. Kaul, IDAS ACDA (Retd.), resident of 26 Buta Nagar, Near Kehar Singh Manhas, Paloura, Jammu. 8.Purab Singh, IDAS DCDA (Retd.), resident of Narwana Khas, PO Yol Camp, The. Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (H.P). 9.Smt. Krishna widow and legal heir of Late Sh. R.R. Chauhan, IDAS DCDA (Retd.), resident of Tika Lehsar, Yol., PO-Yol Camp, Teh. Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (H.P). 10.Baldev Raj IDAS DCDA (Retd.) resident of 21, King Colony, Green Wood Avenue, Mithapur, Jallandhar. Applicants By : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate. Versus 1.Union of India through Secretary to Govt. Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2.Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road, Delhi Cantt-110010. By : Mr. Deepak Agnhotri, Advocate. Respondents O R D E R
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) In this Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :-
i. That both the impugned orders dated 31.5.2013 (A-1) denying the applicants benefit of STS pay scale in accordance with judgment passed by the Honble Madras Bench and upheld by the Honble Madras High Court be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
ii. That respondents be directed to grant the benefit of STS pay scale i.e. Rs.10000-325-15200 (revised to PB-3 in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay Rs.6600/-) to the applicants w.e.f. the date they were promoted as ACDAs in the cadre of IDAS with further promotion as Junior Administrative Grade after five years service in STS grade with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears of pay fixation with further benefits of revision of their retiral benefits from the date they have been retired from service.
(iii) That respondent be further directed to grant the applicant interest @12% p.a. on the amount calculated as per relief no. (ii) in as much as it is the respondents who have denied the aforesaid benefit to the applicant for such a long period and even after judgment passed by the Honble Madras Bench and upheld by the Honble Madras High Court same benefit has been denied to the applicants.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that for redressal of the grievance raised by the applicants in this O.A. applicants No.1&3 had submitted a representation dated 14.5.2013 and 9.5.2013 respectively claiming that their case is squarely covered by the order dated 26.4.2010 in O.A.No. 35/2009 T.R. Krishnamurty Vs. Union of India etc. passed by C.A.T. Madras Bench as upheld by Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 1/2010 on 9.9.2011. The claim of applicants is that the respondents have admitted that category of ACDA has been granted higher pay scale pursuant to the decision aforesaid and it is settled law that once an employee is held entitled to a benefit to which other similarly situated employees are also entitled to, it shall be extended to all without compelling each one of them to approach court of law. However, the claim of the applicants was rejected vide two orders dated 31.5.2013 (Annexure A-1 and A-2) on the ground that the benefit extended to Shri T R Krishnamurthy and other officers were specifically based on orders / directions of various benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal and High Courts in OAs/WPs filed by them and the benefit of the same cannot be extended to other officers automatically. Learned counsel for applicants submits that benefit of a judgment cannot be denied to similarly situated employees as per settled law in the case of K.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India, 1997(3) SCT 341 and Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (2) SCT 54.
3. For the order which we propose to pass there is no need to issue any notice to the respondents. However, Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Learned Sr. Central Govt. Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He could not, however, dispute the proposition of law that the benefit of a decision of a court of law to a similarly situated employee cannot be denied on the premise that he was not a party to the proceedings.
4. It is well settled by now that those who do not come to court need not be at a disadvantageous position as compared to those who had gone to Courts and were allowed relief. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled for similar treatment as held in the case of Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SLR 248; K. I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686 and K.T. Veerappa and Others v. State of Karnataka & Others, (2006) 9 SCC 406. In State of Karnataka v. C. Lalita, (2006) 2 SCC 747 it was held that service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. In Gulam Rasul Lone v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2009) 15 SCC 321, the Honble Supreme Court held that it is no way trite law that where the Writ Petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, relief(s) prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and latches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the Judgement..
5. In view of the above proposition of law the impugned orders, Annexures A-1 and A-2 denying the claimed benefit to the applicants only on the premise that they were not a party to the proceedings, cannot be sustained and is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of STS pay scale i.e. Rs.10000-325-15200 (revised to PB-3 in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay Rs.6600/-) to the applicants w.e.f. the date they were promoted as ACDAs in the cadre of IDAS with further promotion as Junior Administrative Grade after five years service in STS grade with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears of pay fixation with further benefits of revision of their retiral benefits from the date they have been retired from service, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The prayer of the applicants for grant of interest and costs is however declined.
6. Disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (A) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 10.09.2013 HC*