Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kartar Singh Aged 54 Years Son Of Sh. ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary To ... on 24 April, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS N0. 060/00755/2016
Chandigarh, this the 24th day of April, 2017
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER(A)
1. Kartar Singh aged 54 years son of Sh. Rattan Singh, Transport Section, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh
2. Pardeep Kumar son of Sh. Roshan Lal, Transport Section, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
3. Jaspal Singh son of Sh. Gian Chand, Transport Section, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
4. Jaswant Singh son of Sh. Transport Section PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
5. Sunil Dutt son of Sh. Sant Ram, Transport Section, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
6. Dev Raj son of Sh. Roshan Lal, Transport Section, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
7. Harpreet Singh son of Sh. Ajit Singh, Transport Section, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
8. Nirmal Kumar son of Malkit Raj, Transport Section, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
9. Nanku Debey son of Sh. Ramcharan Dubey, Transport Section, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
10. Harikrishan son of Sh. Matu Ram, Transport Section, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
(Applicant No. 1 to 10 are Group-C employees).
.. APPLICANTS
(Argued by: Mr. Devinder Lubana, Advocate)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi -110001.
2. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Educational and Research, Chandigarh through its Director.
. RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Thakur and Mr. Sanjay Goyal)
ORDER (Oral)
JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J) Applicants Kartar Singh son of Sh. Rattan Singh and others, have preferred the instant Original Application (OA), challenging the validity of the impugned show cause notice dated 8.12.2015 (Annexure A-6), impugned order / letter dated 30.3.2016 (Annexures A-12) and dated 15.7.16 (Annexure A-14), whereby the respondents have withdrawn the grade pay of Rs.2400, granted to them under Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme of 2009, in the pay band/grade pay of defined promotional hierarchy, in the cadre.
2. On the contrary, initially the respondents have refuted the claim of the applicants and filed the written statement, stoutly denying all allegations and grounds, contained in the OA, and prayed for its dismissal.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties, are at ad-idem, that the controversy involved in the instant OA, is directly and substantially in issue, in a bunch of SLPs connected with main SLP ) No.21803 of 2014 titled Union of India Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair etc. in which notices have been issued and operation of the impugned orders (therein) have been stayed, vide order dated 8.8.2014, by the Honble Apex Court. According to them the judgment of Honble Supreme Court would have a direct bearing and substantial effect on the issue in hand. Thus, they fairly submitted that in this view of the matter, instead of burdening the applicants of huge financial expenses of unnecessary repeated adjournments, the present O.A. be disposed of at this stage, with liberty to the applicants to file a fresh OA, on the same cause of action, after the decision of the above mentioned SLPs, by the Honble Supreme Court.
4. Therefore, the instant OA is disposed of, at this stage, to enable the applicants to file a fresh OA, on the same cause of action, without prejudice to their rights, in any manner, after the final decision in the indicated SLPs, by the Apex Dispensation, as prayed for.
5. Meanwhile, the interim order dated 12.08.2016, passed by this Tribunal, is extended in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 24.04.2017
sk
1
(OA No. 060/00755/2016)