Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Union Of India And Ors vs Sitaram Sharma And Anr on 3 July, 2019

Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Vinit Kumar Mathur

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR


                 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1697/2016

1. The Union of India through the Secretary to the Government
of   India,    Ministry   of   Finance,        Department         of    Expenditure
(Implementation Cell), North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence
(Finance), Establishment-I Section, New Delhi.
3. The Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA), Ulan
Batar Road, Palam Cantt-110010.
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Border Road)
Seema Sarak Bhawan, Narayana Ringh Road, Delhi Cantt-
110010.
5. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, Southern
Command, Pune-411001.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1. Sitaram Sharma s/o Shri Mool Chand Sharma, aged 38 years,
R/o Quarter No.B/2, Type-III, Surya Nagri Enclav, Jodhpur-342
006, Presently posted in O/o Area Accounts Officer (SC),
Jodhpur.
2. Arun Kumar Thakur S/o Kamal Narayan Thakur, aged 37
years, R/o 3/B/IV, Surya Nagri Enclav. Rasala Road, Jodhpur-
342001, presently posted in the O/o AO 45 BRTF, C/o 56 APO.
                                                                        Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Deelip Kawadia
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Aditya Singhi


              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 03/07/2019 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.4.15 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 10:12:24 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-1697/2016] Bench, Jodhpur whereby the original application preferred by the respondents was disposed of in the light of earlier order dated 9.8.12 passed by the CAT in Original Application No.293/11, the operative portion of the order reads as under:

"The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants regarding fixation of their pay in the revised pay structure from the date of their promotion as SO (A) and treat the applicants at par with applicants in OA No.293/2011 of CAT-Allahabad Bench. The respondents are directed to complete this exercise expeditiously but in any case not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that since this order is being made on the basis of order passed by the CAT-Allahabad Bench in OA No.293/2011 which is under challenge before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in WP No.13860/2013 and which is pending consideration, therefore, this order shall be subject to final outcome of the proceedings in the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court."

Learned counsels appearing for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands set at rest vide order dated 30.1.18 passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1350/18 arising out of SLP (C) No.3315 of 2018 (CC No.9986/15) "Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.V. Rama Raju & Ors." along with other connected matters.

The Supreme Court disposed of the civil appeals involving identical question with the directions in the following terms:-

"We accordingly hold that under the relevant Rules, the pay-scale is to be determined by multiplying basic pay as on 1st January, 2006 by a factor of 1.86. Thus, the view taken by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by Order dated 7 th July, 2015 in O.A. No.310/00173/2014, R. Karthikeyan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., is upheld. Even though a writ petition against the said order is said to be pending before the High Court of Madras, since the matter has arisen before us and we (Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 10:12:24 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-1697/2016] have considered the issue, we approve the said view. Contrary view on the subject stands set aside."

Learned counsels appearing for the parties submit that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1350/18 (supra), the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned passed by the CAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur deserves to be set aside.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court dated 30.1.18 in Civil Appeal No. 1350/18 (supra). The order impugned dated 24.4.15 passed by the CAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur is set aside. No order as to costs.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANGEET LODHA),J 15-RP/-

(Downloaded on 04/07/2019 at 10:12:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)