Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbachan Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 15 January, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.6675 of 2000(O & M)
Date of Decision:15.01.2014
Gurbachan Singh and others ....petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others .....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for
Mr.D.R.Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners
***
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL):
The petitioners are aggrieved by their trade of tailor not being upgraded in scale on the basis of recommendations of Expert Classification Committee, though other trades were so upgraded. The petitioners, thus, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and have succeeded as per the impugned order dated 05.03.1999 (Annexure P-4).
The only grievance raised in the petition is that the benefit has been confined to a period of 18 months prior to the filing of the OA in view of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, while the benefit should have been granted for 36 months.
The aforesaid issue is no more res integra in view of our judgement passed in CWP No.13033 of 1998, titled as "Chander Shekhar vs. Union of India and others", decided on 14.01.2014, where we have observed as under:-
".......learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., 1997(2) S.C. Services Law Judgments 432.A perusal of the same shows that firstly, it is an order and not a judgment. Secondly, it does not lay down any revealing principle. Thirdly, whatever observations are made, in fact, seized to Verma Neenu 2014.01.21 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.6675 of 2000 -2- substantiate the principle that back wages over a long number of years cannot be granted in such a case merely on the ground of making representations, if the effected party has not approached the CAT. In this behalf, the judgment in Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu & Ors. vs. R.D. Valand, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 593 has been referred. The arguments of back wages from the date, the superior work was done, was rejected while simultaneously observing that the Tribunal was not right in invoking Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short 'the Act') for restricting the difference in back wages by one year. Back wages are granted for a period of three years as the petition had been preferred in May 1999 and such relief was granted from May 1996. It appears from the reading of the aforesaid order that the principle of three years of limitation for recovery of amount has been applied as against a lessor time period of one year prior to preferring of the application. In the present case, the monetary relief has been restricted to 18 months before filing of the application on account of Section 21 of the said Act. Section 21 of the said Act would not apply in view of what has been stated in Jaidev Gupta's case (supra).
If parity is applied to the facts of the present case, the benefit could have been restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the application even in the present case.
Ordered accordingly."
In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners are held entitled to the benefit of three years prior to the filing of the OA i.e.36 months instead of 18 months.
The petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)
CHIEF JUSTICE
15.01.2014
neenu (ARUN PALLI)
Verma Neenu
2014.01.21 13:57
JUDGE
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh