Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Learned Proxy Counsel For The ... vs Uoi & Ors. In O.A.No.604/Pb/2010. ... on 5 February, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH O.A. No.482/PB/2012 Dated: 05.02.2013 CORAM: HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A) & HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) 1.[P.No.6964830] Sh. Narinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, working as. 2.[T.No.173] Sh. Desh Raj S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, working as P/Mate. 3.[T.No.574] Sh. Mundrika Singh S/o Sh. Haridawar Singh, working as P/Mate. 4.[T.No.177] Sh. Vijay Singh S/o Sh. Chattar Singh, working as P/Mate. 5.[T.No.278] Sh. Banwari Lal S/o Sh. Jhabar Ram, working as P/Mate. 6.[T.No.281] Sh. Bikram Parsad S/o Sh. Rampat Ram, working as Mazdoor. 7.[T.No.290] Sh. Bharat Lal S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, working as P/Mate. 8.[T.No.293] Sh. Harbans Singh S/o Sh. Narh Singh, working as P/Mate. 9.[T.No.925] Sh. Tansukh Ram S/o Sh. Bhagwana Ram, working as P/Mate. 10.[T.No.302] Sh. Nand Ram S/o Sh. Maru Ram, working as P/Mate. Present: Sh. R.L.Gupta, proxy for Sh. R.K.Sharma, counsel for the applicants Sh. G.S.Sathi, counsel for the respondents. ORDER(Oral)
(BY Honble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member(A)
1. Learned proxy counsel for the applicants states that the issue raised in the present O.A. is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment in the case of Bhatinda Ammunition Depot Janta Karmachari Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. in O.A.No.604/PB/2010. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the judicial review challenge filed by the respondents against the said order has been dismissed by the Honble High Court vide order dated 20.04.2010.
2. We have considered the matter and have perused the material placed on record. This Tribunal had decided the O.A.No.604/PB/2010 on 13.07.2011 and it was ordered 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. The relief asked for in the present O.A. is the same as the relief asked for in the above mentioned O.A. and therefore, this O.A. 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: 05.02.02013. sv: