Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Goyal S/O Lt. Sh. Satpal ... vs Union F India Through Secretary on 14 January, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH O.A. No.060/00607/2015 Decided on: 14.01.2016 Coram: Honble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A)
1. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Goyal S/o Lt. Sh. Satpal Goyal, aged 52 years, working as Senior Account Officer in the office of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Western Command),{PCDA (WC)}, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. Sh. Pankaj Kumar Jain S/o Sh. R.K. Jain, Section Officer (Accounts).
3. Sh. Ram Krishan Pramhans S/o Sh. Sidhnath Prasad, Section Officer (Accounts).
4. Sh. Aman Prakash S/o Bhanu Prakash Sinha, Section Officer (Accounts).
5. Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Jairam Prasad, Section Officer (Accounts).
6. Sh. Dinkar Batra S/o Sh. C.L. Batra, Section Officer (Accounts).
7. Sh. Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary S/o Sh. Janardan Choudhary, Section Officer (Accounts).
8. Sh. Rajender Kumar Vijay S/o Sh. Ramavtar Vijay, Section Officer (Accounts).
Sr. No. 02 to 08 are working in the office of PCDA (WC), Sector-9, Chandigarh.
9. Sh. Shaitan Singh Rathore S/o Lt. Sh. Ganpat Singh Rathore, Section Officer (Accounts).
10. Sh. Sujit Kumar S/o Sh. Surendra Sharma, Section Officer (Accounts).
11. Sh. B. Venu S/o Sh. B Pulla Rao, Assistant Accounts Officer, Sr. No. 09 to 11 are working in the office of Pay Accounts Office (Other Ranks), Subathu, Shimla Hills under PCDA (WC), Chandigarh.
12. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Bodh Raj, working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the office Local Audit Office, (Air Force) (A), Chandigarh under PCDA (AF), Dehradun.
13. Sh. M.S. Kashyap S/o Sh. Asha Ram Kashyap, working in the office of Sr. Accounts Officer in the office Local Audit Office, (Air Force) (A), Chandigarh under PCDA (AF), Dehradun.
14. Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh, working as Sr. Accounts Officer in the office Local Audit Office (Air Force) Halwara, Chandigarh under PCDA (AF), Dehradun.
15. Sh. Narendra Kumar S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Podwal, working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the office Local Audit Office, (Air Force), Halwara, Chandigarh under PCDA (AF), Dehradun.
16. Sh. Anuj Rai S/o Sh. Om Sagar Rai, working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the office Local Audit Office, (Air Force) (B), Chandigarh under PCDA (AF), Dehradun.
.Applicants Versus
1. Union f India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt-110010.
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA), HQ, Western Command, Chandigarh.
..Respondents Present: Mr. D.R. Sharma, counsel for the applicant Mr. V.K. Arya, counsel for the respondents Order (Oral) By Honble Mr.Justice L.N. Mittal, Member(A)
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. They have agreed that the instant case is covered by a judgment dated 29.12.2010 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal, as affirmed by the Honble High Court of Madras, vide judgment dated 03.04.2014 (Annexure A-7) and subsequently followed by this Bench in order dated 17.12.2015 in O.A. No. 463/2015 titled Jagdish Singh Marwah & Others Vs. Union of India & Others and order dated 18.12.2015 in O.A. No. No. 063/00121/2015 titled Joginder Singh Rana & Others Vs. Union of India & Others and also in order dated 14.09.2015 in O.A. No. 060/00376/2015 titled Bhajan Lal & Others Vs. Union of India & Others.
2. In view of the aforesaid, the instant O.A. is to be allowed by directing the respondents to grant grade pay of Rs.5400/- to the applicants w.e.f. the due dates. However, the question of limitation relating to consequential benefits and arrears has to be determined.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on judgment of Honble supreme Court in the case of Jai Dev Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1997(4) SCT 355 followed by the jurisdictional High Court in order dated 14.01.2014 in CWP No. 13033/1998 titled Chander Shekhar Vs. Union of India & Others and judgment dated 15.01.2014 in CWP No. 6675/2000 titled Gurbachan Singh and Others Vs. Union of India & Others and contend that the arrears should be restricted to three years preceding the filing of O.A..
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short the Act), the limitation period for filing an O.A. is one year after waiting for six months after filing of representation by the aggrieved employee and, therefore, the arrears should be restricted to 18 months only preceding the filing of the O.A.
5. We have carefully considered the matter. The judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Dev Gupta (supra) did not lay down any principle of law that arrears by the Tribunal should be restricted to three years preceding the filing of O.A. although in that case the Honble Supreme Court, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case, restricted the arrears to three years preceding the filing of O.A. In the case of Chander Shekher (supra), the Honble High Court has also observed that judgment in the case of Jai Dev Gupta (supra) does not lay down any revealing principle except that the backwages over a long number of years cannot be granted in such a case merely on the ground of making representation, if the effected party has not approached the Tribunal. Judgment in the case of Gurbachan Singh (supra) is based on judgment in the case of Chander Shekhar(supra). Thus, we are of the firm opinion that on the basis of aforesaid judgments, it cannot be concluded that any principle of law has been laid down that the Tribunal should restrict the arrears to three years instead of 18 months preceding the filing of O.A.
6. Honble High Courts in Writ Petitions filed directly, where the Act is not applicable, restricted arrears to three years preceding the filing of Writ Petition on the analogy of limitation period of three years for filing a Suit. If the same analogy is followed in the cases before the Tribunal, the arrears have to be restricted to 18 months preceding the filing of the O.A., keeping in view the limitation period prescribed under Section 21 of the Act. As noticed above, the limitation period for filing of an O.A. before the Tribunal is one year after waiting for six months for the decision of the representation. In view thereof, the arrears by the Tribunal are required to be restricted to 18 months preceding the filing of O.A. In the instant case, the actual arrears, therefore, have to be restricted to the period of 18 months preceding the filing of O.A. because the arrears beyond that period have become time-barred. We hold accordingly.
7. Resultantly, the instant O.A. is allowed and the respondents are restricted to grant grade pay of Rs.5400/- to the applicants w.e.f. due dates. However, the actual arrears of difference shall be restricted to the period commencing 18 months preceding the filing of the O.A. which was filed on 20.07.2015. There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) (JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
PLACE: Chandigarh
Dated: 14.01.2016
mw
-5- O.A. No.060/00607/2015