Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sunil Behl vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 19 April, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Chandigarh, this the 19th day of April, 2012
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR. KHUSHIRAM , MEMBER(A)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1084/CH/2011
S/Sh.
1. Sunil Behl, S/o Sh. A.S. Behl, aged 53 years, presently working as Inspector in the O/o Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Commissionerate, Chandigarh-1, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
2. Kuldeep Kumar, S/o Shri Bishan Dass, aged 48 yeas, presently working as Inspector in the O/o Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.
3. Ravinder Singh Sethi son of Shri Baldev Singh Sethi, aged 48 years, presently working as Inspector in the O/o Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Commissionerate, Chandigarh-ii, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
4. Parivardhan Rajy S/o Shri Davinder Sahai, aged 48 years, presently working as inspector in the O/o Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Commissionerate, Chandigarh I, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
5. Balwinder Singh, S/o Shri Bhagat Singh, aged 55 years, presently working as Inspector in the O/o Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Commissionerate, Chandigarh I, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
6. Amarjeet Singh, S/o Sh. Dulo Ram, aged 54 years, presently working as Inspector in the O/o Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Commissionerate, Chandigarh I, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
Applicants
BY ADVOCATE: SH. D.R. SHARMA
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary (Revenue) to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.
2. Chief Commissioner (Chandigarh Zone), Customs, Central Excise
& Service Tax, Plot No. 19, C.R. Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh-
160 017.
Respondents
BY ADVOCATE: SH. SANJAY GOYAL
O R D E R (ORAL)
BY HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
1. The learned counsel for the applicant states that no rejoinder is required to be filed.
2. The claim raised by the applicant herein is squarely covered by a decision dated 19.1.2010 rendered by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA. 156/JK/2009 (Annexure A-1), which came to be affirmed in the Judicial Review Challenge (CWP No. 12894 of 2010, Annexure A-2) as well. The SLP against the view obtained by the High Court, also came to be negatived vide Annexure A-3.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents reiterates the premise of resistance indicated in the course of the pleadings to the effect that the view obtained in the case aforementioned was applicable to that case only and it could not be cited as a precedent. In raising that plea, the learned counsel also places reliance upon Annexure R-1.
4. A view obtained by a Court/Tribunal on a point of law is applicable to all the similarly circumstanced and hedging its applicability to a given case would not be legally acceptable. This view of ours is a reiteration of the view obtained in a number of judicial pronouncements that all similarly circumstanced must get the relevant benefit without the non-parties being forced to knock at the doors of law.
5. Be that as it may, we have no hesitation in allowing the OA. The impugned order Annexure A-4 restricting the implementation of the order dated 19.1.2010 qua the applicant therein only, is ordered to be invalidated. The applicants are held entitled to the benefits in terms of the order dated 19.1.2010 in OA. 156/JK/2009. The relevant benefits be disbursed to the applicants within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. There shall be no order as to the costs of the cause in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Disposed of accordingly.
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND) MEMBER(J) (KHUSHIRAM) MEMBER(A) Dated: April 19th, 2012. ND* 1 (OA No. 1084/CH/2011)