Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sushil Kumar vs Union Of India& Others on 3 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHALPRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 3179 of 2016 Date of decision: 03.10.2024 Sushil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Union of India& others ....Respondents. Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner: Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI.
Rajiv Shakdher Chief Justice (oral):
CMP No. 18414 of 2024
1. This is an application seeking early hearing of the writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed in 2016. The record shows that the writ petition was admitted on 29.12.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner says that the issue raised in the instant petition is covered by several judgments.
4. Accordingly, the prayer made in the application is allowed.
5. The writ petition is taken for hearing and final disposal with the consent of counsel for the parties.-2-
CWP No. 3179 of 2016
6. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) [hereafter referred to as the "Tribunal"].
7. Via the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application [O.A.] filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches.
8. On facts, it is pleaded by the petitioner that he was appointed as Postal Assistant (Reserved Trained Pool) on 29.10.1982. 8.1 The petitioner was, thereafter, appointed as a regular Postal Assistant on 12.02.1988.
9. Since the petitioner was not treated at par with the regular Postal Assistants concerning pay, allowances, and seniority, he approached the Tribunal in and about 1990via O.A. no. 1402/HP/1990. 9.1 The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal via order dated 01.01.1992.
9.2 The operative part of the said order reads as follows:
"For the above mentioned reasons, we accept this Application and hold that the applicants are entitled to be paid the same salary and allowances as were being paid to the postal assistants appointed on regular basis, for the period during which the applicants had been working in R.T.P. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears i.e. difference between the amount already paid to the applicants and the amount to the payment of which the applicants -3- are entitled on the basis of this judgment and also all other consequential benefits within a period of 3 months from today."
[Emphasis is ours] 9.3 Strangely, although the Tribunal had directed payment of arrears along with consequential benefits to the applicant within three (3) months of the order being passed, the petitioner chose not to enforce the order, perhaps, due to a misunderstanding of the directions issued by the Tribunal.
10. The petitioner woke up to the fact that it had been granted relief when the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered its decision on 18.02.2014 in CWP No. 1466-CAT, titled Union of India and others v. Pardeep Jain and others.
11. On the basis of the said judgment, the petitioner preferred a representation, which was not responded to. This led to the petitioner approaching the Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal, via order dated 24.12.2014, disposed of the petitioner's O.A. with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner.
13. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the concerned authority via order dated 23.03.2015. -4-
14. It is against this backdrop that the petitioner preferred a second O.A. before the Tribunal, which was dismissed, as noticed above, on the ground of delay and laches via order dated 24.05.2016.
15. Ms. Shikha Chauhan, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner says that the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in thePardeep Jain's case has been implemented by the respondents.
15.1 For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to the communication dated 03.04.2014, addressed by the Assistant Director, Postal Services Haryana Circle, Ambala, interalia, to the HR Division Ambala.
15.2 In addition thereto, in support of the plea that the aforementioned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been implemented, our attention was also drawn to the communication dated 26.05.2014 addressed by the Superintendent RMS, HR Division Ambala to the HRO, RMS HR Division, Ambala.
16. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, does not dispute the fact that despite delay being propped as defence in the Pardeep Jain case, the Court ruled against the respondents and the judgment was subsequently, as noticed above, implemented.
-5-
17. The peculiarity of this case stems from the fact that despite the Tribunal, in the first round, having directed the respondents to grant not only arrears of pay but also consequential benefits, the petitioner failed to comprehend the import of the directions passed in his favour.
18. Be that as it may, the petitioner's cause is not different from the cause addressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Pardeep Jain case.
19. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the writ petition.
20. The petitioner will be paid all consequential benefits at par with those whose cause was the subject matter of the Pardeep Jain case.
21. Ms Chauhan concedes that since the petitioner delayed enforcement of the order passed by the Tribunal in the first round, the petitioner cannot lay claim to interest on arrears for the period spanning 01.01.1992 and 23.03.2015.
(Rajiv Shakdher) Chief Justice.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 3rd October, 2024 (kck)