Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mes No.363665 Lekh Raj vs Uoi & Ors. In O.A.No.604/Pb/2 on 12 February, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH O.A. No.1158/JK/2012 Dated: 12.02.2013 CORAM: HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A) & HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) 1.MES No.363665 Lekh Raj, Age 54 Years, MCM 2.MES No.502658 Ram Parkash, FGM HS II 3.MES No.503816 Darshan Lal, FGM SK 4.MES No.503376 Sudesh Kumar, FGM SK 5.MES No. 502647 Roshan Lal, FGM SK 6.MES No.507160 Jamit Chand, FGM HS II 7.MES No.504802 Darshan Kumar, Elec. HS II 8.MES No.502825 Gurdyal Singh, Refg. Mech. 9.MES No.508781 Hem Raj, Valveman 10. MES No.505599 Gurcharan Singh, Valveman 11. MES No.503023 Kaka Ram, Valveman 12. MES No.503373 Parshotam Lal, Mate 13. MES No.503605 Isher Dass, Mate 14. MES No.503992 Krishan Dev, Mate 15. MES No.503375 Amrit Pal, Mate 16. MES No.503991 Ashok Kumar, Mate 17. MES No.508622 Amrit Pal, Mate 18. MES No.503378 Ved Parkash, Mae 19. MES o.505602 Madan Gopal, Mate. 20. MES No.505777 Om Parkash, Mate 21. MES No.505787 Bhola Ram, Mate 22. MES No.505798 Des Raj, Mate 23. MES No.507152 Abdul Aziz, Mate 24. MES No.507287 Kewal Krishan, Mate 25. MES No.505797 Ashok Kumar, Mate 26. MES No.508364 Parhlad Kumar, Mate. 27. MES No.506536 Jagdish Raj, Mate 28. MES No.508421 Rakesh Kumar, Mate 29. MES No.508082 Ramesh Kumar, Mate 30. MES No.508732 Bhushan Kumar, Mate 31. MES No.507146 Tirath Ram, Mate. All in Water Supply in O/O AGE (E/M) And 32 to 219 Applicants. Present: Sh. Shailendra Sharma, counsel for the applicants Sh. Rohit Sharma, proxy Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, counsel for the respondents. ORDER(Oral)
(BY Honble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member(A)
1. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment in the case of Bhatinda Ammunition Depot Janta Karmachari Sangh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. in O.A.No.604/PB/2010, decided on 13.07.2011 and in the case of Kartar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors in O.A.No.182/JK/2012, decided on 25.05.2012.
2. We have considered the matter and heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Tribunal had decided O.A.No.604/PB/2010 on 13.07.2011 and it was ordered therein as follows:-
11. It cannot be disputed that the AD Bathinda was deployed in the Operation Parakram and it had also adopted War Establishment System of Accounting and there was huge rush of work relating to issue, receipt, loading and unloading of ammunition, which was carried out on war footing and on all days, including Sundays, were declared to be working days. In other words, the AD Bathinda was put into operation as if it was in a war-like situation. Thus, whether it was actually shifte3d to a war zone or not would not make any difference. The applicants would fall within the term of deployed/mobilized staff for the Operation Parakram. If the Army Personnel have not been paid FSC, that does no mean that the applicants cannot be sanctioned the same despite a specific decision having been taken in their favour.
12. The AD, Bathinda, itself has clarified in letter dated 10.04.2008 (Annexure A-5) that no relationship can be drawn between the payment of FSC made to the defence civilian employees vis-a-viz Depot Army Personnel as the FSC has been paid to civilian employment in lieu of free rations and other benefits whereas Army Personnel were already in receipt of free rations. Thus, withdrawal of the same from the applicants is illegal.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Original Application is allowed. Impugned notice dated 16.07.2010 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed not to make any recovery of FSC already paid to the applicants and take further action to make payment of FSC for the entire period from 14.12.2001 to 18.03.2003 instead of restricting it upto 19.12.2002 only and pay the arrears of the allowance to the applicants within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
3. We find that the relief asked for in the present case is squarely covered by the orders of this Tribunal in the O.A. mentioned above. Therefore, this case is also disposed of in the same terms, with no order as to costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) (PROMILLA ISSAR) MEMBER(J) MEMBER (A) PLACE: CHANDIGARH. DATED: 12.02.02013. sv: