Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Abhishek Kumar vs Garrison Engineer on 28 July, 2023
1 (OA No. 063-314-2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
..........
Chandigarh, this the 28th day of July, 2023
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
O.A. No.063/314/2023
1. MES NO. 376727 Abhishek Kumar, s/o Sh. Rajendra
Kumar, age 30, presently working as Mason(SK),
Kasauli.
2. MES NO. 300521 Rahul Meena, s/o Sh. Madan Lal
Meena, presently working as GE, Kasauli.
3. MES NO. 314542 Sudhir Kumar Attrey, s/o Sh. Om
Prakash attrey, presently working as AGE'T', Kasauli.
4. MES NO. 208688 JayrajMohanta, s/o Sh.Shib Prasad
Mohanta, presently working as AGE B/R, Kasauli.
5. MES NO. 372862 Khajan Singh, s/o Sh.Ramsawrup,
presently working as AGE E/M, Kasauli.
6. MES NO. 420910 Prasoon Sharma, s/o Sh. P.K.
Sharma, presently working as AGE B/R, Kasauli.
7. MES NO. 414141 Brijesh Kumar, s/o Sh. PN
Shakyawar, presently working as AGE E/M, Kasauli.
8. MES NO. 317952 Anurag Verma, s/o Sh.Snil Kumar
Verma, presently working as JE QS&C, Kasauli.
9. MES NO. 317221 Gulvaraz Khan, s/o Sh.Sulaman Khan,
presently working as JE E/M, Kasauli.
10. MES NO. 317993 Kumar Gaurav, s/o Sh. Shyam Kishor
Singh, presently working as JE E/M, Kasauli.
11. MES NO. 317986 Nitin Kumar Singh, s/o Sh. Krishna
Moan Prasad Singh, presently working as JE B/R,
Kasauli.
12. MES NO. 318005 Abhishek Kumar Singh, s/o Sh.Keran
Singh, presently working as JE B/R, Kasauli.
13. MES NO. 317989 Sumit Dahiya, s/o Sh. Ved Parkash,
presently working as JE B/R, Kasauli.
14. MES NO. 318050 Rohit Khichar, s/o Sh., age Jhabar
Mal, presently working as JE B/R, Kasauli.
15. MES NO. 318051 Balveer Shekhawat, s/o Sh. Rajendra
Singh, presently working as JE B/R, Kasauli.
16. MES NO. 143476 Yugul Kishore, s/o Sh. Naresh Kumar,
presently working as Mason(FGM), Kasauli.
17. MES NO. 449163 Ashok Thakur, s/o Sh.Rajender
Thakur, presently working as JE B/R, Kasauli.
2 (OA No. 063-314-2023)
18. MES NO. 195889 Sohit Kumar, s/o Sh. Satyapal Singh,
presently working as Mate(Elect), Kasauli.
19. MES NO. nil Maninder Pachar, s/o Sh.Puran Mal,
presently working as JE E/M, Kasauli.
20. MES NO. nil Deepak Chandra Joshi, s/o Sh. Jagdish
Chandra Joshi, presently working as JE E/M, Kasauli.
21. MES NO. 483793 Abhishek Prakash, s/o Sh. Arun
Kumar Yadav, presently working as AGE E/M, Kasauli.
All are presently working in the office of Garrison
Engineer, Kasauli.
......... Applicants
(By Advocate : Sh. Rishav Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,Government of
India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-
110011.
2. Chief Engineer, Headquarters, MES, Western
Command,Chandimandir, Panchkula-160101.
3. Garrison Engineer, Shimla Hills, Kasauli-173204.
4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, Western
Command, Sector 9, Chandigarh-160009.
...... Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)
ORDER
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against reply dated 13.02.2023 to the Legal Notice dated 09.01.2023, given by the applicants and rejecting the grant of Remote Locality Allowance (RLA) at Shimla Rates by extending them the benefit of judgement dated 19.06.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and 3 (OA No. 063-314-2023) restricting the benefits only to the petitioners therein.
2. Facts are not in dispute. All the applicants joined under Respondent No. 3 on different dates. The Government of India issued instructions dated 15.11.1985 for grant of Remote Locality Allowance (RLA) to the Central Government employees posted in Himachal Pradesh and whole State was put in four groups. Shimla was, however, placed in Group-I on the pretext of its being a remotely located station whereas Kasauli which was lacking in many amenities in comparison to Shimla was put in Group -IV. This OM was further amended on 23.09.1986, 14.10.1986 and 27.04.1987. Aggrieved by this discrimination, the employees of Central Research Institute, Kasauli made representation to almost all quarters and having been denied by the DGHS/Ministry of Health, finally approached this Bench for Redressal of their grievance by way of filing OA No. 92/HP/1988. This OA was allowed and the respondents were directed to grant RLA to the Central Government employees posted at Kasauli at par with the Central Government employees posted at Shimla. The S.L.P. filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Apex Court and thus, the OA attained finality.
3. On the recommendation of Fifth Central Pay Commission, the Government of India issued another Office Memorandum dated 20.07.1998 but that too was contrary 4 (OA No. 063-314-2023) to the law laid down by this Tribunal and upheld by the Apex Court in as much as it does not include Kasauli in the category in which Shimla was placed. Even in CWP No. 2083/2007 titled Rattan Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, vide order dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure A-3), the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed this Tribunal's order and held that till the Government of India takes a decision, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of RLA at the same rates as given to the similarly situated employees posted at Shimla. This judgement was implemented by the respondents but only qua the petitioners therein.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
5. Sh. Rishav Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, at the very outset, stated that the matter is squarely covered by a judgement dated 19.06.2018 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP NO. 2083/2007 and while implementing the said judgement, the respondents have already released the benefit of Remote Locality Allowance to the counter parts of the applicants herein.
6. It is noticed that similarly placed employees filed OA No. 544 of 2021 titled Sunil Dutt and Others Vs. UOI & Others in this Bench and the said OA was allowed in their favour vide order dated 29.09.2021 (Annexure A-5). The order dated 29.09.2021 already stands implemented 5 (OA No. 063-314-2023) and the payment of the RLA has been made to the applicants therein.
7. It is also a point of law that once the issue has been set at rest by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court, there is no earthly reason with the respondents to deny the benefit of the decision to identically placed person like the applicants herein. In the case of K.C. SHARMA VS. UOI ETC., 1997(3) SCT 341 the Apex Court and in SATBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA ETC, 2000(2) SCT 54, the jurisdictional High Court has held that benefit of a judgment cannot be denied to similarly situated employees. Similarly, in UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. VS. LALITA S. RAO & ORS., AIR 2001 SC 1972, it was held that an order of a court should be implemented for similarly situated employees whether party or not instead of forcing each and every individual to approach the court of law for similar relief.
8. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The letter dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure A-1) is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release the same benefits with regard to Remote Locality Allowance in favour of the applicants as has been released in favour of their counter parts pursuant to the judgement dated 19.06.2018 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2083/2007 ad judgement dated 29.09.2021 rendered by this Bench in OA No. 544/2021.
6 (OA No. 063-314-2023)
9. Let the requisite orders be issued by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. There shall be no order so as to costs.
(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) Member (J) ND* 7 (OA No. 063-314-2023)