Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dinesh Kumar vs Central Excise &Amp Customs on 19 November, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
...
O.A. No.60/754/2018 Date of decision: 19.11.2019
M.A. No.60/928/2018
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J).
...
1. Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Ghanshyam Dass, aged 35 years, working as
Inspector, Plot No.19, CGST, Sector-17, Chandigarh-160017.
2. Rajeev Negi son of Shri Darban Singh, aged 32 years, Inspector,
Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Ludhiana Zonal Unit,
Ludhiana.
3. Rohit Meena son of Shri Om Parkash Meena, aged 34 years, Inspector
CGST, Phagwara Division, Jalandhar.
4. Avnit Sood, son of Shri Roshan Sood, aged 33 years, GST Audit Circle,
Ludhiana-1.
5. Narender Kumar son of Sh. Ram Gopal Sharma, aged 36 years, CGST
Division, Baddi, Shimla.
All group B.
...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry
of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise &
Customs, 4th Floor, Hudco Vishala Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi Pin-110022.
2. Chief Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise (CS), Chandigarh-I,
Central Revenue Building, Plot No.19, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-
160017.
3. Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Chandigarh-I (Cadre
Controlling Authority of Chandigarh Zone), Central Revenue Building,
Plot No.19, Sector-17C, Chandigarh-160017.
...RESPONDENTS
PRESENT: Sh. V.K. Sharma, counsel for the applicants.
Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the respondents.
2
ORDER (Oral)
...
SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
1. M.A. No.60/928/2018 has been filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of the C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking permission to allow the applicants to file a joint petition. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
2. On a request made by learned counsel for the parties, this matter is taken up for disposal by a Single Bench.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants very fairly submitted that out of three reliefs claimed by the applicants, relief 8(a) has already been granted by the department by refixing seniority of the applicant in terms of judgment in the case of U.O.I. and Ors. vs. N.R. Parmar and others (2013(2) SCT 287). With regard to relief 8(b), he submitted that in another case titled Vishesh Gupta & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. (O.A. No.60/983/2018), this Court while disposing of the OA on 24.9.2019, directed respondents therein to grant benefit of seniority to the applicants (therein) for the service rendered by them in the same cadre in the previous Commissionerate from the date of joining the Central Excise department by relying upon decision in the case of Balwinder Singh Matharoo vs. Union of India & Ors.
(O.A. No.338/PB/2012), subsequently followed in the case of Dhirender Kumar Bhakta and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No.60/597/2019) decided on 5.2.2019. Thus, he prayed that the respondents be directed to consider second relief in terms of decision in the case of Balwinder Singh Matharoo (supra), as facts of this case are identical to that case.
3
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondents may be given liberty to consider claim of the applicants in the light of decision in the case of Balwinder Singh Matharoo (supra) and to pass order, qua relief (b) indicated above.
5. Considering the consensual agreement arrived at between the parties, present O.A. is disposed of in the above terms by directing the respondents to consider the service rendered by the applicants in the earlier commissionerate in terms of indicated case, expeditiously but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No case.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) Date: 19.11.2019.
Place: Chandigarh.
'KR'