Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India & Others on 3 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Review Application No.20 of 2011
in
O.A. NO.243-CH of 2009
Chandigarh, this the 3rd day of May, 2011
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR.KHUSHI RAM, MEMBER(A)
Tarsem Kumar & others
APPLICANTS in O.A.
BY ADVOCATE: None
VERSUS
Union of India & others
RESPONDENTS (Review Applicants)
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI DEEPAK AGNIHOTRI, Sr.Central Govt. Standing Counsel
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
This order shall dispose of the present Review Application filed by the Respondents in the O.A.(hereinafter referred to as the Review Applicants).
2. The essential averment, made in support of the review plea, is that at the time of hearing the consent was given only to the extent that the department/ respondents will consider the case of the applicants in terms of orders dated 5.2.2002 and 5.6.2002 but the Honble Tribunal was pleased to direct the respondents to give benefit to the applicants herein in terms of the order dated 5.2.2002 and 5.6.2002.
3. The Review Applicants, thus, wish to wriggle out of the noticed fact that the disposal of the O.A. had come about on consensual basis. The plea projected is that the consensual arrangement pertained only to an assurance that the case of the applicants shall be considered in terms of orders dated 5.2.2002and 5.6.2002.
4. For enabling proper appreciation of the controversy, we would like to reproduce hereunder the order dated 25.10.2010:-
It is common ground that the applicants applied for the grant of relief granted by a Coordinate Bench of the C.A.T. to the similarly circumstanced employees while disposing of O.A.No.533-CH of 1998, filed by A.K.Prasher etc. The allowance came about vide order dated 5.2.2002 read with 5.6.2002 in the said O.A.
2. On the own showing of the respondents, the plea made by the applicants could not be acceded to on the ground that they were not party in the above said O.A.No.533-CH/98 and that the applicants in the said OA were granted benefits in compliance with Honble CAT, Chandigarh Bench order dated 5.2.2002 and 5.6.2002 subject to final outcome of the SLP filed before Honble Supreme Court of India.
3. It was clarified in the course of the written statement that benefit to the applicants in O.A.No.533-CH of 1998 had been granted subject to the final outcome of the SLP filed before the Apex Court. It is presently common ground that the SLP aforementioned stands dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2004 (copy Annexure A-9).
4. This O.A. shall stand disposed of, on consensual basis, with a direction to the respondents to give benefit to the applicants herein in terms of the orders dated 5.2.2002 and 5.6.2002 aforementioned, which have attained finality on dismissal of the SLP, vide order at Annexure A-9.
5. The directions given above shall be complied with by the respondents within one month from the date 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. DASTI.
5. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the extracted order (Para 1 thereof) , that there was no controversy about the fact that the applicant had applied for the grant of relief which a learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had extended to the similarly circumstanced employees while disposing of O.A.No.533-CH of 1998, filed by A.K.Prashar etc.
6. The pleadings raised by the applicants (and quoted in Para 2 of the above extraction) also indicate that the claim raised by the applicants could not be granted as they were not parties to OA No.533-CH of 1998.
7. Para 3 of the extracted order would also quote an averment made in the counter, that the benefit in the context had been granted subject to the final outcome of the SLP which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2004.
8. It is, thus, in the light of the facts noticed in the course of Paras 1 to 3 of the extracted order that the disposal of the O.A. was ordered on consensual basis and this fact stands recorded in Para 4 of the order itself. Moreover, the disposal of the O.A., on consensual basis, came about in the presence of the learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel. The learned counsel has not filed an affidavit to support the averment by the respondents that the consensual arrangement was only qua consideration and not for grant of relief to the applicants in terms of the orders dated 5.2.2002 and 5.6.2002. No official of the respondents was present on that date. It was, thus, the learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel only who was best-circumstanced to have a say in the context and buttress it by an affidavit.
9. In this case, the learned Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel opted to refrain from filing an affidavit, supportive of the averments made in the R.A. The deponent of the affidavit (R.A.) is not noticed to be present (on the day of disposal) . In fact, even his own affidavit does not indicate that he too was present at the time when disposal of the O.A. came about on the basis of consensual arrangement aforementioned.
10. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any justification for admitting the review plea to a hearing. It shall stand dismissed in limine.
11. Disposed of accordingly.
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND) MEMBER(J) (KHUSHIRAM) MEMBER(A) Dated: May 3 , 2011 `bss