Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Harjinder Singh vs D/O Post on 2 November, 2017
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
_ we CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Date of decision- 02.11.2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (3) HON'BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A} (I) RA No.060/00025/2017 IN OA No.060/00526/2015 and MA No.060/01196/ 2017 Smt. Satya Devi widow and legal heir of Late Sh. O.P. Chawla, Postmaster (Retire) resident of House No. 33, Upkar Colony, Karnal- 132001 (Haryana).
APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE: Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate. VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry -- of Telecommunications and Information Technology, Department of Posts, 415, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 11O00O1.
2. Principal Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Circle, Ambala Cantt, -133001.
Superintendent Post Offices, Bhwani Division, Bhiwani- 127021.
A, Senior Postmaster, Head Post Office, Bhiwani-127021. O) RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Ram Lal Gupta. {II} RA No.060/00023/2017 IN GA No.060/00422/2015 Tej Singh son of Sh. Bachan Singh, aged 78 years, Divisional Engineer, Phones (Retired), resident of House No. 2519, Tele house Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.
» APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE : Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate. VERSUS RA No. 060/80025/2017 in O.A No, 060/00526/2015 & etc. Bh feak . Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology (Department of Telecom), Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Deihi-110001. 2, Controller of Communication Accountants, Punjab Telecom Circle, Madhya Marg, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh-160019. «RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Arvind Moudgil. {TII) RA No.060/00024/2017 IN OA No.060/00420/2015 Tej Singh son of Sh. Bachan Singh, aged 78 years, Divisional Engineer, Phones (Retired), resident of House No.2519, Telehouse Society, -- Sector 50-C, Chandigarh. | APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE ;: Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate. VERSUS L. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology (Department of Telecom), Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-L 10001.
2. Controller of Communication Accountants, Punjab Telecom Circle, Madhya Marg, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh-160019. «RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Arvind Moudgil. (IV) RA No.060/00026/2017 IN OA No.060/00274/ 2017 Tarsem Lal Son of Sh. Hari Chand, aged 64 years, Office Superintendent, Group C (Retired), resident of # 26-A, New Beant Nagar, Jalandhar (Punjab).
wAPPLICANT BY ADVOCATE : Mr. A.L. Vohra.
VERSUS RA No. 068/00025/2017 in O.A No. 060/00526/2015 & ete. tad t. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue through Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Room No. 460, 4" Floor, Samrat Hotel, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110021.
2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Jalandhar. » RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. &.K. Thakur. (¥} RA No.060/00027/2017 IN OA No. 060/01032/2016 & MA 060/61654/2017 Banarsi Dass Gupta son of Shri Brij Lal, aged 71 years, Postmaster Group-C (Retired), resident of Ward No.4, BHUCHO Mandi, Bathinda 151101 (Punjab).
. APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE : Mr. A.L. Vohra.
1. Union of India through Secretary, Information: Technology "ie Sanchar Bhawan, Ashok suat0gon.. |
2. Chief Postrhaster Genéral Sector 17, Chandigarh- 160017. a
3. Superintendent of Pos 151005, --
mw:
- Bathinda' Division, Bathinda-
RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Ram Lal Gupta.
{VT} RA No. 060/00028/2017 IN OA No.060/00040/ 2017 Smt. Harjinder Kaur widow and Legal Heir of Late Sh. Mohinder Ram (Alias Mohinder Pal Sahota), Head Clerk-Group C (Retired), resident of Village and Post Office Shamchurassi, District Hoshiarpur now C/o Sh. Nirmaljit Singh Sahota, House No.166, Street No.5, Arman Nagar, Post ffice Dakoha, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar (Punjab).
. APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE : Mr. A.L. Vohra.
VERSUS RA No. 660/00025/2017 in O.A No. 060/00526/2015 & ete.
i. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue through Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Room No.460, 4" Floor, Sarnrat Hotel, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110021.
2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar.
. RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. K.K. Thakur. (VII) RA No.060/00029/2017 IN OA No.066/01113/2016 & MA 060/01227 / 2017 Roshan Lal Bansal son of Shri Plyare Lal, aged 63 years, Assistant Postmaster, Group-C (Retired), resident of 363, Ward No.i2, Kurall, District Mohali (Punjab). yee hata | APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE #Mr, ALL. Vohr VERSUS,
1. Union of India thretgh.S 1, Ministry of Communication and Information Technolog a . ent of Posts, Room No.415, New Delhi-110001.
Punjab Circle, Sector 17, Chandigarh- Sanchar Bhawan,
2. Chief Post: Master Geni 160017. oe cn 3, Senior Postmaster, Patiala Head Office, Patiala-147001. ral, wo .. RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Ram Lal Gupta. = (VIX) RA No.060/00031/2017 IN OA No.060/00229/2016 Harbir Sinigh son of Sh. Bishan Singh, aged 70 years, income Tax Officer (Group B-Retired), resident of # 189-A, Har] Nagar, Hoshiarpur {Punjab}, APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE : Mr. A.L. Vohra.
YERSUS RA No, 060/00025/2017 in OLA No. 060/00526/2015 & etc,
1. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue through Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Room. No.460, 4" Floor, Samrat Hotel, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021.
2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar. RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. K.K. Thakur. . {IX} RA No.060/00032/2017 IN OA No.060/00658/2016 Surinder Mohan Arora son of Sh. Parmanand Arora, aged 62 years, Assistant Postmaster, Group-C (Retired) resident of # 6315/3, Chick Mohalla, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt (Haryana). » APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE : Mr. A.L. Vohra.
- __venette
1. Union of Indi a.
3 pecretary . Ministry of Telecommunications. "ahd" fe | of Posts),, Room No: 41 Delhi-110001. © .
2. Chief Postmaster General, Cantt. | | an :
3. Senior Postmaster, GPO, anibala-t 133001. ;, (Department "Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New a nema crge 107, :T he Mall, Ambala | . .RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: on. Ram Lal Gupta. (X) RA No. 060/00033/2017, IN 'OA No. 060 /00579/2016 & MA 060/01198/2017.-
Harjinder Singh son of Sh. Wazir Singh, aged 72 years, Public Relations Officer-Group C (Retired), resident of # 42, Street No.VII, Ferozepur Cantt. (Punjab).
. APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE > Mr. AL. Vohra.
VERSUS
1. Union of India thraugh Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, (Department of Posts}, Room No.415, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Deihi-L10001. RA Na. 060/00025/2017 in 0.4 No, 060/00526/2015 & ate,
2. Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sector 1/, Chandigarh 160017.
. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur- 152001.
Cs) RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Ram Lal Gupta. (XI) RA No.060/00034/2017 IN OA No.060/00154/2016 & MA 060/01228/2017 Shri Bachan Singh son of Sh. Jagir Singh, aged 62 years, Sorting Assistant, Group-C (Retired), resident of Vilage and Post Office Chakohi, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana (Punjab) through Paramjeet Kaur widow and legal heir.
APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE # MrA.L. Vol . Chief Postmaster Gener 160017. . _ ,
3. Senior Superintendent, RMS, LD Division, Ludhiana (Punjab). oe oo | . RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Ram Lai.Gupta. PN ts & MA No.060/01195/2017 Naresh Kumar Jain son of Sh. Madan Lal, aged 69 years, Senior Postrnaster (Group B-Retired) resident of # 136, Ram Bagh Road, Ferozepur Cantt (Punjab).
. APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE : Mr. A.L. Vohra.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunications and Information Technology, Department of Posts, 415, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Dethi-110001. RA Na, 060/00025/2017 in O.A No. 960/00526/2015 & etc.
2. Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh-160017.
. Superintendent of Past Offices, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur 152001.
Oo RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Ram Lal Gupta. OUT) RA No.060/00037/2017 IN OA No.060/00115/2016 Smt. Sheela widow and legal heir of late Sh. D.P Singh Rana, Senior Postmaster, Group B (Retired), resident of # 1963, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal-132001 (Haryana). APPLICANT
2. The principal chiet FP Cantt. F 2
3. Senior Postmaster, Head 0 Office, Rohtak ~ 124001, (Haryana). ig -_ «RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Ram Lal val Gupta? . (XIV) RA No.063/00038/2017 EN (0A.No.063/00085 /2016 G.N. Lakhanpal son of, Sh, HD. Lakhanpal,.aged 82 years, Income Tax Officer (Group B)- Retired, "resident. of 'Village Sal Brahmna, P.O, Dugha, Tehsil and District Hamirpur (H.P}. . APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE : Mr. A.L. Vohra.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue through Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Room Na.460, 4' Flgor, Samrat Hotel, Chanakya Puri, New Dethi-110021.
2. Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), i* Floar, SCO 1-6, Opp. Vidya Mandir School, Kitchlu Nagar Market, Ludhiana, RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: Sh. K.K. Thakur. RA No. 060/00025/2017 in ©.A No. 060/00526/2015 & ete. ORDER ORAL L This order will dispose | of all the above captioned review applications as the grounds taken for review therein are common in all the applications and even review applications have been filed by single counsel. For convenience, the facts are curled out from RA No. 060/00025/2017 in O.A No. 060/00526/2015 titled Satya Devi Vs. Union of India being the leading case. . 2, The present RA has been filed under section 22(f) of the artes SA oiiy.
er ARG.
Administrative TribungisAct, One te tam a ae Administrative Tying gyfbrocedur ) ig 3 aN ying for review of Rule 17 of the Central uN Bier ' order dated agloa 2017 per :
of vide comfor Ponce sa dee i :
i Rog C ARNSRA herein that pee ekeview apple R ated 04.12.2014 to. we opoosie g/215 whereby AG, s 3 (Annexure Ae gth o. Aye the responddgts pc : n abla 7 rsemeft of medical ke se ' & ' expense on ime of 'opt ered govesat we
a) 'Rules, 1944, : he, applicant challenged ReaD under the purvie the impugned order theraimon various Sour based upon the judicial pronouncements. After noticing the contention raised by learned counsel for the respective parties that since the Hon'bie jurisdictional High Court in CWP No. 26270/2015 titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohan Lal Gupta & Anr, has already ceased of the matter and stayed the order of this Court, therefore, it was ordered to list the matter after the final decision in the above referred writ petition.
Thereafter, the applicant moved MA for revival of O.A based upon the order dated 22.11.2016 passed in connected CWP No. 22310/2016 wherein order of this Court was impugned and in that 0.A, the matter RA No. 060/00025/2017 in O.A No. 060/00526/2015 & etc. was adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 22.11.2016 directed this Tribunal to decide the matter on merit. While allowing the MA, it was ordered to list the main petitions for final disposal.
3. Though the matter is of Single Bench but on the statement made by learned counse! for the respective parties and as per the provision of Act, the matter was listed before the DB. On various occasions, the matter was heard and finally vide order dated 06.04.2017, all the connected 31 matters including the present case i.e, Satya Devi, were disposee-of By i se BY : ee © basis where the epotaggs the in bh Apshee oresent O.As be se mpmon order on consensual =) disposed of in term : ego by" the g on' le Supreme Court. in casey of; indran\Pilla 'a NOL ar decided on N 3 ee ® BS Sty i Sie.
& 20.03.2017. rer recorl ingties RS Sac 2 eee |jsposed of by noticing the bonteton ' ss, "6. x ciel agreemeltt" setween the parties, we digocgeot Sal none inet 1e88 ame tegms as in case of R. Ravi indgane One, tie (supra) with § egire ou Ride fh togthe competent authority YamopGee, t 'e. respondents*to, specie ne claim of the applicants ay passingnd. "reasoned aiid Socata order within a oeriod of three Prgnths® ORR the" datgoOf géceipt of a certified copy of the Order. "SBN applicants are also at liberty, as requested, to rais@ sag. many ag.<plta before the concerned authorities before they take any decision upon their claim. The impugned order(s) be also kept in abeyance till then. The linked MAs in respective O.As are also disposed of."
"paket 4, Subsequently, out of 31 O.As which were disposed of vide commion order, 14 present RAs have been filed where counsel for the review applicants have taken somersault by taking contrary submissions to the submissions made at the time of final disposal of the O.As to the effect that he never agreed for disposal of his Q.AS in terms of decision in case of R. Ravindran Pillai (supra). Apart from that, it has also been submitted therein that though O.As were decided RA No, 060/00025/2047 in O.A No. 060/00526/2015 & etc, 10 in terms of decision in case of R. Ravindran Pillai(supra), but impugned order therein was not quashed, therefore, order under review be reviewed. |
5. This matter came up for preliminary hearing on 11.07.2017 where after noticing the contention raised by the learned counsel for the review applicants i.e. Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate assisted by Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate, this Court issued notice to the opposite side which was accepted by Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Sr. CGSC and Mr. K.K. Thakur, Advocate who represented the respondents in their respective OLAS, nee ries "ey2017 17 in RA No. 7, ' = Peis lew =< i ~~ have submit bea ot gre i inet Se in \ PAO RS contrary to the record andxetatement _ oat at the TINY of disposal of SA ~ gy, O.A. It has che ben, sh ap therein tnd st ey ws disposed of Whe, EY g toget her on the Seated that they are Saari Ses rendered in case of R. Ravindran pia * alpra), Based upon their consensual agreement, this Court disposed of all the O.As with a direction ta the respondents to consider their claim In the light of the decision relied upon by thern, therefore, it cannot be said to be any ground for review and accordingly, it is prayed that RA be dismissed.
8. Today the matter is sted for hearing. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at considerable length. Sg. | When we were not inclined to entertain the present RA(s) and have decided to dismiss the same on the account of misuse of L RA No. 060/00025/2017 in O.A No. 060/00526/2015 & etc. il process of law and also wastage of Court time, then Mr. A.L. Vohra, Advocate assisted by Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate for review applicants seek permission to file their affidavit which has been sovereign in presence of Mr. Rohit Seth, Advocate, President of CAT Bar Association indicating therein that they are not pressing the ground raised in para 3(b) of the RA to the extent that concession was not given by them at the time of final disposal of the O.As. They agreed that the respondents will decide their cases in terms of decision rendered in case of R. Ravindran Pillal (supra). In para 4 of the affidavit, they have By also submitted that MA NQBSO/0TT ; se _ % eR N aS y & :
for recalling of order dated} BOv 20 they are not preésitigsthe SORES fea gtaterent that this = s 3 RN the RA and park adopted, the applicdnts.who are ¢ reimbursement during their Bresent life time as the respondents are likely to reject their claim again and they shall again have to go through the same court procedure. He respectfully urged to decide the case on merits in accordance with law in terms of directions of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in judgment dated 22.11.2016 in CWP No.22510 of 2016 (O&M) titled 'Te] Singh Versus Central Administrative, Chandigarh and others'. The counsel specifically urged to decide the cases in terms of judgment dated 25.02.2016 passed by this Hon'bie Bench in Baldev Singh's case.
This part of the vital aspect has not been mentioned or discussed in the order dated 06.04.2017 and therefore, it cannot be said to be a consensuous order and it needs to be recalled / modified to this extent. Necessary affidavit of counsels for applicant is annexed as Annexure RA-2."
Para 4 of the affidavit:-
RA No. 060/00025/2017 in O.A No, 060/00526/2015 & etc. 12 4, That the deponent had also filed a Misc. Application No.1196/2017 in the present case with regard to the body of order dated 11.07.2017 so far as it relates to the happenings in the court. The deponent does not seek to press or pursue the aforesaid Misc. Application too and the same may be treated as withdrawn."
9. Learned counsel for the respondents objected their prayer for filing affidavit. Mr. K.K. Thakur, Advocate submitted that they cannot be believed for their act because they are changing their stand as per their convenience. On this plea, Mr. A.L. Vohra, learned counsel for the review applicants submitted that the present affidavit which :
has been witnessed by Mr. Rohit Seth, President of CAT Bar aa See revs, Siig Association may be taker" 'On paca pepe pieisegrier conduct may not Voc a a oi gs 5 be considered thigs timgy*
10. wohhays WN matter and We é "of the. .cofisideke [= 5 a but an atterptkts re- afguean / a \ the limited Beppe of reve & Skea x & Section 22 eg % _--y CAwa Act, 1985, x Rea RT RR "bhai, Court Sachin 'they realized that they RRR escape from any -- oF cannot, succeed in their application for review, this way out has been attempted by them. To our mind, in shape of compromise, they decided to file affidavit in Court. Be that may, once the counsel representing the review applicants have realized their mistake, therefore, in the interest of justice, affidavit is taken on record and contention raised therein be accepted. Accordingly, MA No. 060/01196/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn. There is also no need to clarify the order qua the last para of the relevant order where this Court recorded the finding that their case be considered In terms of RA No, 060/00025/2017 in OA No. 060/00526/2015 & ete.
Why decision rendered in case of R. Ravindran Pillai (supra} because intention of the Court can be seen from para 6 of the order which clearly stipulates that whatever has been granted In case of R. Ravindran Pilal (supra), same be allowed in favour of the present applicants. Merely that impugned order was kept in abeyance will not give any handie to the respondents not to consider their claim in the light. of the observation made in case of R. Ravindran Pillal (supra) or the impugned order will remain alive after passing of fresh order. The authorities have to consider their cases independently in the light of the observation made in Ase OP Re Rawingren Pillai (supra) and have pis "for grant of relief in ae x 8 Seas to pass a fresh order Cook Were hone Wg branted otherwise BAs atScidnissed being Yass pe also=placed in other ran) a 8 Reeves. i 2 ' my, e x =e . ee ee "Hy wt "aes Co. a (P. GOPINATH) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (A) a MEMBER (3) Dated: 02.11.2017 Fk' RA No. 060/00025/2017 in O.A No. 060/00526/2015 & etc. atgh es