Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Teja Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 November, 2012
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Vineet Kothari
DBCWP No.3956/2010
Teja Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors
With 57 connected matters
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
1. D.B.C.W.P. No. 3956/2012 TEJA SINGH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
2. D.B.C.W.P. No. 3957/2012 SURESH CHAND & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
3. D.B.C.W.P. No. 3958/2012 JASPAL SINGH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
4. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6144/2012 TOLARAM & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
5. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6145/2012 RAM KUMAR & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
6. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6146/2012 SHANKER LAL & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
7. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6147/2012 SOHAN KHAN & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
8. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6148/2012 RAMPRATAP & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
9. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6149/2012 SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA &
ORS
10. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6150/2012 OMPRAKASH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
11. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6151/2012 BHAGAT RAM & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
12. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6206/2012 RAJPAL SHARMA & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
13. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6207/2012 OMPRAKASH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
14. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6208/2012 GURDEV SINGH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
15. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6209/2012 HARBALJINDRA SINGH &
ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
16. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6210/2012 HUKAM BAHADUR & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
DBCWP No.3956/2010
Teja Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors
With 57 connected matters
2
17. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6211/2012 RAMDHAN SINGH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
18. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6212/2012 RUGHNATH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
19. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6213/2012 SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
20. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6214/2012 NIRANJAN SINGH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
21. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6215/2012 OMPRAKASH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
22. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6216/2012 KRISHAN LAL & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
23. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6217/2012 HEMRAJ & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
24. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6218/2012 SUBHASH & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
25. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6219/2012 SURAJ BHAN & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
26. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6220/2012 BABU LAL & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
27. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6221/2012 RAMLAL & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
28. D.B.C.W.P. No. 6222/2012 BHARAT LAL & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
29. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11383/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
BABU LAL & ORS
30. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11387/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
RUGHNATH & ORS
31. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11388/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
PAWAN KUMAR & ORS.
32. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11389/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
SANTOSH DEVI & ORS
33. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11396/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
AMICHAND & ORS
34. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11403/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
OM PRAKASH & ORS
DBCWP No.3956/2010
Teja Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors
With 57 connected matters
3
35. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11408/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
TULSI RAM & ORS
36. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11409/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
SHANKER LAL & ORS
37. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11415/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
OM PRAKASH & ORS
38. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11416/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
SURAJ BHAN & ORS
39. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11426/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
KRISHAN LAL & ORS
40. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11436/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
RAM LAL & ORS
41. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11437/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
BHARAT LAL & ORS
42. D.B.C.W.P. No. 11445/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS
SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS
43. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11384/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS.
44. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11385/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
BHAGAT RAM AND ORS.
45. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11386/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DALVEER SINGH AND ORS.
46. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11398/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
NIRANJAN SINGH AND ORS.
47. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11401/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
RAMKUMAR AND ORS.
48. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11402/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. SUBHASH AND ORS.
49. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11404/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. OM PRAKASH AND ORS.
50. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11405/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. TOLARAM AND ORS.
51. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11424/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. GURDEV SINGH AND
ORS.
52. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11425/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. RAMDHAN SINGH AND
ORS.
DBCWP No.3956/2010
Teja Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors
With 57 connected matters
4
53. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11427/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. SOHAN KHAN AND ORS.
54. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11433/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. OMPRAKASH AND ORS.
55. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11438/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. JASPAL SINGH AND ORS.
56. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11441/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. RAMPRATAP AND ORS.
57. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11442/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. SURESH CHAND AND
ORS.
58. D.B.C.W.P.No. 11443/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS. HARBALJINDRA SINGH AND
ORS.
DATE OF ORDER : 22nd November 2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.Hemant Jain, for the petitioner.
Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the Union of India, appellant.
BY THE COURT:
These writ petitions, filed respectively by the applicants and respondents of the similar nature OAs before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT') for both the parties being dissatisfied with the order dated 12.12.2011 as passed by the CAT in disposal of the OAs, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record we are, with respect, DBCWP No.3956/2010 Teja Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors With 57 connected matters 5 unable to approve the order as passed by the CAT either way; and the only appropriate course appears to be of setting aside the order impugned and restoring the matters for reconsideration by the CAT.
As the matters are proposed to be remanded for reconsideration to the CAT, not much dilation on the factual aspects appears necessary. Suffice it to notice for the present purpose that the applicants filed the OAs leading to these writ petitions stating grievance against the denial of modified field area allowance to them as the defense civilian employees in accordance with the decision already taken by the respondents. The relief as claimed in OA No.443/2011 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"1. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this original application may kindly be allowed and the Respondents be directed to comply with the directions and instructions given in the circular dated 21-09-2000 (Annexure A-3), in letter and spirit, and to allow and release the amount of Modified Field Area Allowance alongwith 12% interest, as admissible to each of the Petitioner, from the date of the circular dated 21-09-2000 or the date of their initial appointment, whichever is later; and
2. That the Impugned Orders dated 20-04-2010 (Annexure A-
1) & 30-04-2010 (Annexure-A-2) passed by the Respondents as also the recovery proceedings taken up against the Applicants for the recovery of amount paid as Field Service Concession to the Applicants for rendering their services in operation parakaram, may kindly be quashed and set aside; and
3. That if any recovery is effected, in pursuance and compliance of the orders dated 20-04-2010 (Annexure A-1) & 30-
04-2010 (Annexure A-2) or any such orders, during the pendency of this Original Application, the same may also be declared illegal and the same may also be quashed and set aside; and
4. The cost of this Original Application may kindly be awarded in favour of the Applicants, and
5. Any, other Order or Direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the Applicants." The respondents, on the other hand, asserted that so far the DBCWP No.3956/2010 Teja Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors With 57 connected matters 6 persons like the petitioners were concerned, full field service concessions as per their entitlement had already been granted.
The CAT after having heard the parties, in the first place, ordered that the quantum of the amount involved in 'Operation Parakaram' cannot be recovered from the applicants and quashed the order to that effect with reference to the decisions rendered in other cases. Thereafter, in relation to the dispute about allowable benefits, the CAT observed that there appeared to be some confusion and proceeded to issue the directions to the respondents to carry out further survey of field areas or modified field areas and to examine the factors to be taken into consideration for the quantum of compensation required to be received by each kind of personnel and, thereafter, to formulate a structure of compensatory allowance and then, to make payment to the applicants with effect from the date of filing of OAs without any interest and after 6 months period, with interest @ 10% per annum. The directions as issued by the CAT read as under: -
"3. There now appears to be some confusion, as the applicants would claim that they are entitled to such benefits, which should be given to them, but probably the issue may be as to what their quantum of benefits should be. Therefore, to provide harmony, we are issuing the following declarations and directions:-
(i) The respondents shall undertake a further survey of Field Areas and Modified Field Areas on the basis of geographical significance as well as functional content and determine the workload and risk feature of each area, and make an intelligible differentia, which is to be applicable to both uniformed personnel and Defence Civilians doing a similar or particular category of work. The feasibility of DBCWP No.3956/2010 Teja Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors With 57 connected matters 7 work related and risk related study shall take into consideration the quantum of compensation required to be received by each kind of personnel in relation to his situational significance. The concept of risk feature of uniformed personnel vs. defence civilian functional content and risk element also shall be taken into account while deciding the matrix.
(ii) After having established a differentia between the two functional elements, on the basis of work content and its features, a structure of compensatory allowances which is related to the present time, and keeping in mind the various pay structure available after the Sixth Pay Commission, shall be formulated and arrived at.
(iii) These, thereafter, shall be made available, within six months from today, to the applicants, and those like them, with arrears from 09.10.2011, i.e. the date of O.A., without any interest and thereafter after the six months period with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
The O.A. is allowed to the limited extent as stated above. No order as to costs."
The applicants state grievance against the order so passed by the CAT to the extent the relief has been declined to them for Modified Field Area allowance from the date of circular i.e., 21.09.2000. On the other hand, the respondents of OAs, state grievance that the distinction of Field Area and Modified Field Area had already been made by them; and the same was neither in dispute nor could have been decided by giving directions of the nature contained in the order impugned. It is submitted that the directions issued by the CAT for restructuring are rather imaginary.
After having examined the matter in its totality, we find it difficult to approve the order impugned either way. With respect, it appears from the perusal of the order impugned that without dealing DBCWP No.3956/2010 Teja Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors With 57 connected matters 8 with the rival contentions, the CAT has merely referred to the so- called inconsistency or confusion in the matter as regards grant of Field Area Allowance to the applicants; and then, abruptly issued the directions, as reproduced hereinabove. The order as passed by the CAT essentially turns out to be an assumptive order, not supported by reasons; and for this reason alone, is required to be set aside. Needless to emphasis that the CAT ought to have examined the merits or otherwise of the rival contentions and ought to have arrived at a considered decision in the matter with reference to the factual and legal aspects putforward by the parties.
Thus, the only appropriate course is to be to set aside the orders impugned and to remand the matters to the CAT for consideration afresh.
Accordingly and in view of above, these petitions are partly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. The impugned orders are set aside. The respective Original Applications filed by the respective writ petitioners shall stand restored for reconsideration by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the CAT on 07.01.2013. No costs.
(Dr.VINEET KOTHARI),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
cp/jhala
DBCWP No.3956/2010
Teja Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors
With 57 connected matters
9
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. /2012
DATE OF ORDER : 22nd November 2012
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.Hemant Jain, for the petitioner.
Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the Union of India, appellant.
<><><> The writ petition stands partly allowed [Vide common order made in D.B.C.W.P. No. 3956/2012-Teja Singh & Ors Vs. union of India & ors.] By order By order [Court Master] [Court Master] cp/jhala