Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
R Venkatesha Murthy vs Kudremukh Iron Ore Company, M/O Steel on 12 August, 2021
me {On Video Conference from Central Administrative Tri . Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh), CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | BANGALORE BENCH Order Pronounced on: Vel. dea (Order reserved on: 12.8.2021) Sr years, residing at No, 209, Sriven Skypark, 3° Cross, Nobel Residency Road, Doddakammanahalli, Off BG, Road, Bangalore-560083.
ADDRESS FoR SERVICE:
M, SUBRAMANYA BHAT AND k RASHMI, Advocates,» ~ NO,204 11 Floor, "Amar Tower", Opp. IDBI Bank, 1 Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560009. (11) O-A.NO.170/284/2020 | 'Sri. Nagabhushana H, S/o Late 4 Suryanarayana, aged about 64 years, residing at No, 9-7-679, N Kustagi Road Behind SFS School, B.T. Patil Nagar, Koppal-583231.
7 ADDRESS FOR SERVICE.
MM. SUBRAMANYa BHAT AND K RASHMI, Advocates, No.204 II Floor, "Amar Tower", Opp. IDBI Bank, 1% Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560009, % Me ~ M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT AND K RASHMI,
- "Advocates, --
~~ No.204 II Floor, "Amar Tower", Opp. IDBI Bank, 1° Cross,
- Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560009.
(IV) 0.A.NO.170/286/2020 ne Sri, R. Venkatesha Murthy, S/o Ramanna S, aged about 64 years, residing at No. 144, 2" Main Road, S.T. Bed Area
-Koramangala Bangalore-560034.
ADDRESS FOR SERVICE:
-M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT AND K RASHMI, Advocates, No.204-II Floor, "Amar Tower", _ Opp. IDBI Bank, 1% Cross, Gandhinagar; Bangalore-560009. (VY) O.A.NO.170/287/2020 Sri. Sreenivas V S/o Late Venkannachar, aged about 66 years No. 91, Dwarakamayi, Flat No.301, Kempanna Layout,
- Uttarahalli, Bangalore-560061. .
ADDRESS FOR SERVICE:
~_M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT AND K RASHMI, Advocates, --
No.204 IT Floor, "Amar Tower", Opp. IDBI Bank, 1° Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560009. eee eee ..» Applicants _ (By: Sri M. Subramanya Bhat, Advocate) Versus
1. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry _ Of Steel, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi-11.
2, The KT O CL Limited, 11 Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-34, _ represented by the Chairman and Managing Director
3. General Manager (HR) Kudremukh Iron Ore Company _ Limited, 11 Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-34. . 18 .Respondents we (By: Sri M.V. Rao, Advocate) a RON _170/284/2020, 170/285/2020, 170/286/2020 170/287/2020 are taken up together for disposal, DER ; ORD Perr SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J) The » Original Applications No.170/283/2020, and as a | "common question of law and facts is involved in all these | 'cases, With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the facts. are being extracted from O.A.No. 170/287/2020 (SREENIVAS V_VS. UNION OF INDIA ETC.) and the said oo case has been treated as a lead case.
- 2 The pleaded case of the applicant is that he was working as: Assistant Manager in Kudremukh Iron Company Ltd. at Vizag (hereinafter called as the respondent company), "The: respondent company was involved in the business of -- mining Operations. On closure of the mining Operations at Kudremukh, 'Pursuant to a decision dated 30.10.2002 in LA, No. 670. of 2002 in Writ Petition No. 202/95. (K.M, . : SHINAPPA, TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD ys. a UNION OF INDIA ETC.), a Policy decision was taken to 'introduce. the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) to " downsize the Strength of the surplus Manpower, vide order : dated: 3. 4. 2013 (Annexure A-1). The said Scheme came into force wef, 4.4.2013 and remained in Operation uptil
25. 04. 2013. As per Clause 7 of the Scheme, the employees "were "assured that they would. be paid the benefits anes ~ enumerated in the Sub-clauses (a) to (j) of the said Clause. © , Clause 7(d) pertains to the benefits of encashment of earned A leave and half pay leave apart from casual leave. In short, a - the VRS optees were extended the benefit of encashment of : . Earned Leave (EL)/Half Pay Leave (HPL) to the extent of 480 days.
3. The applicant also opted for VRS and was relieved ~along with others from the services w.e.f. 5.9.2013 as per . order dated 16.5.2013 (Annexure A-2) in which his name is | "mentioned at Sr. No. 21 under "Executive & Supervisors". _ Meanwhile, respondents issued an office order dated 7.4.2014 ; by which the encashment of EL and HPL was limited to a maximum of 300 days as against 480. days as available under . ~ the Scheme, - While releasing the ex-gratia benefits in terms of VRS, the applicant and others were denied the encashment : of EL/CL/HPL in full. Some of the persons like applicant "approached this Tribunal by way. of O.A.No.1134-1236 of
- 2014 titled as Shri Manohar Shet & Others Vs. UOT etc. claiming therein. the benefits of, inter- alia, full encashment of . EL and HPL. This Tribunal, however, rejected the benefit of a "encashment. of EL & HPL vide order dated 29.4.2016 "(Annexure A-4), while issuing certain direction on other aspects of the matter raised in the bunch of those cases. 4 : 4, The order dated 29.4.2016 Passed by this Tribunal "AY came. to be 'challenged in - Writ Petitions No.8082- -8108 of 2017 titled as Sri Sri_Prashanth Kumar etc. Vs. VOI etc. "before the" Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Those Writ Petitions were allowed vide Order dated 1.10,2018 (Annexure oA ~5). A 'direction was. issued to the respondents to calculate the EL and HPL j in respect of the petitioners who had applied 'in: response 'to the VRS dated 30.4. 2013 and pay the
- difference of the amount to them. The benefit as granted by the Hon'ble High Court was extended to the petitioners in _ those petitions.
8, Some other similarly Situated persons also approached this Tribunal: 'by way Of a bunch of Original Applications es No. 595/2019 to 613/2019 titled as KL, Narendra Nath which were disposed: of vide Order dated 3,9, 2019. In the said ao "original applications, both the sides agreed that the applicants were similarly situated, therefore, the benefit was allowed in "terms of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in the case of Sri
- Prashanth Kumar (supra).
4. The applicant (herein) submitted a representation dated 3.12.2018 (Annexure A-7) for extending him the 'benefit of release of leave encashment. However, his claim was declined vide order dated 26.2:2019 (Annexure A- ~8) on "4 the ground that benefit of encashment of leave has been
--extended only to those persons who were parties to Writ | Petitions No.8082-8108/2017 and the respondent company _ has taken the initiative to examine the matter with legal opinion to take further necessary action in this regard. Not Satisfied with the reply, the applicant and others got issued a 7 : legal notice dated 15.1.2020 (Annexure A-9) to extend them . the benefit of the decision in the Writ Petition No.8082- : 8108/2017 and O.A.No.595/2019 to 613/2019. | This was : again rejected vide letter dated 31.41.2020 (Annexure A-10) "on the ground that decision in W.P.No.8082-8108/2017 is applicable only to the petitioners (therein) and since the "applicant. was not a party to the same, full encashment cannot be given to him.
a7 "It is in this background that the applicant has approached this Tribunal for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to extend him the benefit of. ~ encashment of EL and HPL to the maximum of 480 days. ce 8. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length.
| 9. Shri M. Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the issue raised in this case stands "settled 'in. favour of the similarly situated VRS retired : employees inthe case of Sri Pra hanth Kumar (supr 5% by sont 'PB "the Hon'ble High Court Of Karnataka as followed by this : _- Tribunal in the case of KL. Na e Nath nik (supra). In view of issue having been settled by courts of law, similarly Situated persons like the applicants are entitled a to benefit of: the same, denial of which is discriminatory.
10. On the contrary, Shri My. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the Hon'ble High Court and the. Tribunal have held that the decisions would apply only to. the. persons who were parties therein, so the oe "applicants 'have: rightly been denied the benefit and secondly, Court.
delay, : the Original Application is also barred by time and as such ce _ there is no question of extending any benefit to the applicant herein, Reliance in support of the contentions is placed upon ae : Ae STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LTD. VS. STATE OF 'that. benefit of a judgement iS not extended to a case automaticaly While granting relief, a court is entitled to "consider the fact situation Obtaining in each case including ee conduct of the petitioner and whether he/she had chosen to sit" over the 'Matter and. then wake up after decision of the if Case is filed after 4 long delay, it would disentitle him/her to obtain a discretionary relief. On the question of titled. MANISH CHAUDHARY Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER decided on 7.2.2019 in which it was ~ held that if a party wants to take a benefit from a court of law, he/she has to satisfy the court that he/she was diligently pursuing the matter and was prevented by sufficient cause for _ Not filing the O.A. within the period of limitation. 1i.-We have considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties.
12. It is not in dispute that the issue raised in this case is no-longer res-integra and stands settled by the Hon'ble High Court of» Karnataka at Bangalore in the case of SRI : PRASHANTH KUMAR (supra). The Hon'ble High Court after : considering the issue threadbare formed the question as to & whether the office order No. 26/2014 dated 7.4.2014 could have been. made applicable to the case of the petitioners
--. therein s0 as to deny them the benefit which according to them had accrued under the VRS for which the existing rules as on the date of announcing of the scheme were applicable, : The Court answered the poser in negative holding that the ~ denial of the benefits to the petitioners therein in so far as the EL and HPL by applying the office order dated 7.4.2014 with effect from 30.5.2013 would not be justified. The "employees who have opted for retirement under VRS dated 30.4.2013 would be entitled to the EL and HPL which existed 4% = under the pre-amendeq rule to the Maximum accrual of 480 days. Thus, a direction was issued to the respondents to calculate the farned leave and the HPL in respect of the ~ Petitioners who had applied in response to the vrs dated " 30.4.2013 and Pay the difference of the amount to them,
13. Not only that, even the issue was considered
14. The objection taken by the respondents that since Ne -10- © which had taken a view contrary to the ratio laid down by Supreme Court judgment was allowed to stand, then the : resultant position would have been that some Traffic ~ Apprentices. who were parties in those cases would have gained an unfair and undeserved advantage over other
- employees who are holding the same post. Such enviable _ position would not only have been per se discriminatory but could have resulted in a situation which is undesirable for a . cadre of large number of employees in a big establishment like that of the Indian Railway. To avoid such a situation the "direction impugned was passed. It was absolutely necessary _ for the sake of maintaining equality and fair-play with the _ other similarly placed employees.
15. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab: and Haryana had the occasion to consider identical "controversy in the case of SATYAPAL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER, 1999 (2) : RSJ 377. In that case it was held that the State Government -- : "should have itself granted the same relief to other similarly & situated persons though they may not have come to the "Court. The State government should under. such _ circumstances apply the law itself to the similarly situated persons instead of forcing any individual or a Union to resort to unnecessary litigation as law is already settled and only 4 -11- Persons automatically get the same relief ~ without resorting to litigation, 16 "OTHERS, 1994 (7) sc 565 : lamented that a more desery;
, the Hon'ble Supreme Court -12-
- upon by learned counsel! for the applicants in the cases of _ INDERPAL YADAV VS. STATE OF HARYANA, 1985 SCR (3) 837: 1985 SC (2) 648; UTTARANCHAL FOREST RANGERS
- ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U.P. 2006(10) SCC 346 and STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. C. LALITHA, 2006 (2) SCC 747, |
17. In so far as the objection of limitation taken by ~ learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, we would like to.go by the observation made by a Division Bench of this "Tribunal in the case of K.L. Narendra Nath Kutnikar _ (supra) in which it was held that the applicants therein were : : low paid employees who had already retired from service and on the ground of merit, the delay was condoned, though | making that case applicable to applicants therein only. In any case, taking a cue from the observations made therein, we "hold that in this case also the limitation would not come in the way of the applicants to claim a similar relief more so : when it has been rejected vide reply dated 26.2.2019 against . ; which | the: applicant herein got issued a_ legal notice on : 15. 1.2020. which came to be rejected vide. reply dated 31.1.2020, whereas, O.A. has been filed on 7.9.2020. | 18. In the conspectus of discussions made hereinabove, we hold that. the cases of the applicants deserve to be allowed _ in the same manner as in the case of Sri Prashanth Kumar 4% -13- (supra) by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at. Bangalore and a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of K.L. rend ikar (supra).
19. As a result thereof, these Original Applications No, 170/283/2020, 170/284/2020, 170/285/2020, 170/286/2020 and 170/287/2020 are allowed and disposed of in the same terms as in the cases of Sri Prashanth ar upra) and K.L. Narendra Nath Kutnikar (supra). The necessary remaining benefit of encashment of EL/HPL be extended to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order,
20. There shall be no Orders So as to costs. 04 --
(SURESH KUMAR MONGA) -
MEMBER (J) (oe, ei ieee cae eae Re Siege itageg US rua nha ra MB nse ar RAS STEARIC Uy RG feta ROU Tp RS IY aL NE eg eS a AB ga RS FATE COTE AAS EEA RC Rel Epa ee BRA a NS Sree caereae et DEE ee A ca a Le aA UE