Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Arjun Dev (Mes No.375015) vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 2585/2009
New Delhi, this the 29th day of April, 2010
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
1. Shri Arjun Dev (MES No.375015)
S/o Sh. Lal Chand,
Working under GE Patiala
R/o 54/6, MES Colony,
Patiala Cantt.,
2. Sh. Bhagat Singh (MES No.371739)
S/o late Shri Bishan Singh,
Working under GE Patiala
R/o 54/2, MES Colony,
Patiala Cantt.
3. Sh. Ram Bilas (MES No.368736)
S/o Shri Inder Dev,
Working under GE Faridkot Cantt
R/o Baba Farid Nagar,
Gali No.2, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Old Cantt. Road,
Faridkot (Punjab)
4. Sh. Ganesh Bhadur (MES No.507614)
S/o Shri Baldev Singh,
Working under GE Office MES Kapurthala
R/o Q.No. P-20, Old Cantt.
Kartarpur Road,
Kapurthala (Punjab)
5. Sh. Heera Lal (MES No.374148)
S/o Shri Ganga Ram,
Working under GE Jalandar Cantt
R/o Pot Khan Bazar,
Jalandar Cantt.
6. Sh. Chunnilal (MES No.373806)
S/o Shri Sumer Singh,
Working under GE Ludhiyana
R/o Q.No.4/5 MES Colony,
Badwal Cantt.
GE Furniture Yard
7. Sh. Jaswinder Singh (MES No.369538),
s/o late Shri Ram Singh,
Working under GE (West, Furniture Yard)
R/o H.No.1, Wajir Ali Building,
Church Road,
Firojpur Cantt (Punjab)
8. Sh. Nirmal (MES No.375078)
S/o Shri Malook Ram,
Working under Air Force MES Barnala
R/o GE Office, Khalwara MS
Ludhiayana.
9. Sh. Ram Prakash (MES No.602198),
S/o late Shri Indrajeet,
Working under GE Air Force, Adampur
R/o Village Saini Majra, PO Nurbedi,
Distt. Roper (Punjab)
Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri T.D. Yadav)
Versus
Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
Engineer-in-Chief Branch,
(EIC-3), Kashmir House,
DHQ PO, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi.
The Chief Engineer,
Headquarter Western Command,
Chandimandir, Chandigarh.
The Chief Engineer,
Air Force, Subroto Park,
Delhi Cantt.
5. The Chief Engineer (Army)
Chandigarh Zone,
Chandigarh.
. Respondents.
(By Advocates : Shri Rajiv Manglik with Shri R. P. Aggarwal) : O R D E R (ORAL) :
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
By this OA, 9 Applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following prayers :-
(i) to direct the respondent No.2 to grant the same benefits to applicants as respondents have already granted in OA No.2697/03 (Raj Kishore V/s UOI & Ors.) vide implementation dt. 9.12.2004 & OA No.1018/03 dt. 5.1.2004 (Man Singh V/s UOI and order dt. 17.3.2008 in OA No.1832/07 (Bansi Lal V/S UOI) in pursuance of order dt. 15.9.2000 in OA No.804/98 and granted skilled grade of Rs.950-1500 from the date of initial appointment with all the consequential benefits like difference of pay scale (arrears) as per IV and V Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996.
to pass any other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Award costs.
2. Brief facts of the case would reveal that all 9 Applicants were appointed as Cane-weaver between 1979 and 1994 with the Respondents. It is the case of the Applicants that the Respondents implemented the orders of this Tribunal passed in OA No.2697/2003, OA No.1018/2003, OA No.1832/2007, OA No.804/1998 by which the pay scale of the skilled grade along with consequential benefits were granted with effect from the date of respective officials initial date of appointment. The Applicants, in their representation dated 11.7.2008 (Annexure A) prayed to the Respondent No.2 that they were similarly placed Canemen and the same benefit of skilled grade should be extended right from the date of their initial appointment. As the Respondents have not taken action on the said representation, the Applicants have approached this Tribunal in the current OA.
3. The main contention raised by Shri T. D. Yadav, learned Counsel for the Applicant, is that the Respondents have extended the benefit of the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in K. C. Sharma and Others Versus Union of India & Others [1998 (1) SLJ SC 54] and the Applicants have a right to get the benefits which have also been extended by the orders of this Tribunal in many OAs and upheld by the judgment of Honble High Court. In those judgments the Respondents are implementing the pay scale meant for the skilled grade i.e Rs.950 - Rs.1500 from the date of initial appointment of the Applicants/Petitioners in the concerned cases. In the present case, the relief sought by the Applicants is to extend them the benefits of the scales of pay of skilled Caneman with effect from the date of their initial appointment and also to accord consequential benefits.
4. Shri Rajiv Manglik with Shri R. P. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Respondents, submitted that the OA has been filed in the Principal Bench of the Tribunal whereas all the Applicants are outside the jurisdiction of Principal Bench and they have been working in the Chief Engineer, Western Command, Chandigarh, coming under the control of Respondent No.3 and they belong to the State of Punjab. He argues that the jurisdiction in this OA lies before the CAT, Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. On this preliminary objection of jurisdiction, Shri Yadav pointed out that the representation was given to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block (Respondent No.1) who is located at New Delhi, Respondent No.2 located at Delhi and the cause of action has arisen at Delhi. As such, Rule 6 (ii) of the CAT Rules would be relevant, the jurisdiction issue raised by the Respondents would not be applicable. We have considered carefully the issue of jurisdiction. We find that this technical ground has been properly met by the Counsel for the Applicant. It is noted that in the OA No.1118/2009, OA No.375/2010 and OA No.40/2006 where the Applicants were outside Delhi and similarly placed as the present Applicants, the Principal Bench has adjudicated the OAs. We have carefully gone into the details of jurisdiction issue raised by the Counsel for the Respondents and are of the opinion that on technical aspects, we cannot just ignore the claim of the Applicants and dismiss the OA just on the basis that they should have filed the OA in some other Bench of this Tribunal. Therefore, we are closing the issue of jurisdiction raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents and taking up the OA on merits.
5. Another preliminary objection was that of the limitation raised by the Counsel for the Respondents and have argued that most of the Applicants were appointed in the year 1986 or there about and have approached this Tribunal in the OA filed on 28.8.2009. There is a considerable delay which remains unexplained. Further, the orders of the Tribunal in similar matters were passed on 9.12.2004 and more than 4 years have passed for the Applicants to come before the Tribunal. We find that the non granting of the pay of a skilled grade Caneman to the Applicants is a continuing malady that has been affecting the Applicants. This being a recurring cause of action affecting the Applicants financially and they even get less pay than they are entitled, delay and laches cannot hit the OA. Since the relief that they have been seeking is a continuous one, the law of limitation would not be applicable in the present case.
6. On merits of the case, Counsel for the Respondents has accepted that in similarly situated persons, the respective orders passed by this Tribunal and by the Honble High Court and other Benches of this Tribunal have been implemented fully by the Respondents, and the pay scale of a Skilled grade has being given to the similarly situated Canemen with effect from their initial date of appointment.
7. We find that the issue involved in the present case, having been covered by many orders of this Tribunal, we take the extract of the operative part of one of the orders i.e. OA 401/HR/2005, which reads as follows :
We find that facts of the present case are similar to those in OA No.804/98 decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal passing a detailed order dated 15.09.2000 which has been relied upon by the applicants in the present OA. Applicants in that OA were also Caneman working in MES under Ministry of Defence and the respondents were directed to provide opportunities to Caneman in their set up on par with the opportunities available to Caneman in the Indian Railways. Writ Petition filed against this judgment was dismissed on 15.07.2002 and has been implemented by respondents qua the applicants in that OA . The respondents themselves should have implemented the order qua other similarly placed employees instead of taking the plea that the judgment was applicable in personam. The case of the applicants is, thus, fully covered by the judgment given by the Principal Bench in the said OA. Accordingly, this OA is also allowed in the same terms as contained the claim of the applicants for grant of skilled grade of Rs.3050-4590 as admissible to them in pursuance of the judgment of Principal Bench in OA-804/98 in the case of Hari Ram Shukla & Others (Supra). This directions shall be complied with within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
8. The same matter was also dealt by the Principal Bench in the case of Bansi Lal Versus Union of India & Others, OA No.1832/2007 decided on 17.03.2008, wherein the orders of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA 401/HR/2005 was relied upon and the following orders were passed:-
..The facts as mentioned by counsel for Applicant noted above would not possibly be disputed and also otherwise it is quite clear from the records of the case that the impugned order needs to be modified. Accordingly, applicants would be entitled to the pay scale of the skilled grade from the date of initial appointment to the post of Caneman with consequential benefits.
9. The present OA is covered by the dicta of this Tribunal in OA No.1832/2007 passed on 17.03.2008. We, therefore, direct the Respondents to follow the dicta of the said order and to extend the skilled grade from the date of the initial appointment of the Applicants with all consequential benefits. Accordingly we allow the OA in terms of the above directions.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda)
Member (J) Member (A)
/pj/