Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Balachandar vs Posts on 10 March, 2023
*, Lof9 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH M.A/310/00466/2021 in OA/310/00938/2021 cL. fPrent yo! DATED THIS 7 THE | o pay OF REBREARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY Fit CEE CORAM : HON'BLE MR. T. JACOB, Member (A) HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J) P. R. Blachandar (Age 61) S/o. K. Rajappa Chief Postmaster, Annasali PO (Retd) No.4, Ground Floor, 39" Street, Thillai ganganagar, Nanganallur, Chennai-600 061; T. Baskar (Age 62) S/o. M. Thambusamy SSPOs, Kovilpaiti Division (Retd) 55, SRT LAYOUT, Singanallur, Coimbatore- 641 005; N. Ahagupandiyan (Age 63), S/o. K. Natarasan S5POs, Dindigul Division (Retd.} 2/204, Tirukkan, Nallamanar Kottai, Dindigul -624 005; S. Arumugam S/o. V. Subramantyan SPOs, CSD, Chennai (Rtd.), 90-C, Samundi Nagar, Thindal, Erode- 638012; 2089 G.K. Ponnurangam (Age 61) S/o. G.S. Kuppusamy, Senior Postmaster, T. Nagar (Retired), Plot No.7, lind Street, Jain Nagar, Hastinapuram, Chennai-600 064. Applicants (By Advocate M/s. M. Mohanarangam) Vs Union of India Rep. by the Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 001; Chief Postmaster General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai- 600 002. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, Sr. PC} ee ae 30f9 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. T. Jacob, Member(A)) Heard both sides.
2. MA 310/00466/2021 is filed by 5 applicants seeking permission to jointly pursuing the application together.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants in MA submit that the cause of action and relief sought for in respect of 5 applicants ts common. 4, Learned counsel for the respondents raised objections for joining the applicants together. He has also relied on the decision of this Bench in M.A. No. 319 of 2021 in 0.A. 693 of 2021 dated 12.08.2021 in support of their contentions.
5. The respondents in MA have filed their reply statement and the MA applicants also filed their reply to the objections raised by the respondents in MA. | 6, Perused the pleadings and other connected records.
7, Rule 4(5) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 reads as under: .
"(5)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) to (3) the Tribunal may permit more than one person to join together and file a single application if it is satisfied, having regard to the cause and the nature of 4o0f9 relief prayed for that they have a common interest in the matter.
(b) Such permission may also be granted to an Association representing the persons desirous of joining in a single application provided, however, that the application shall disclose the class/grade/categories or persons on whose behalf it has been filed [provided that at least one affected person joins such an application]
8. The above rule is akin to Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:
"One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest.
(1) Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit,
(a) one or more 'of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested;
(b} the Court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so @) interested.
(2) The Court shall, in every case where a permission or direction is given under sub-rule (i), at the plaintiff's The above provisions are as per the 1976 amendment to the CPC and the Sof9 expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested either by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct. .
(3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted or defended, under sub-rule (1), may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit."
object and reasons of the said amendment is as under:
9, consumers to file a single complaint. The said provision reads as under:
"Objects and Reasons: Clause 55: sub-clause (iv}, Rule 8 of Order I deals with representative suits. Under this rule, where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of them may, with the permission of the court, sue or be sued, on behaif of all of them. The rule has created a doubt as to whether the party representing others should have the same cause of action as the persons represented by him. The rule is being substituted by a new rule and an explanation is being added to clarify that such persons need not have the same cause of action." -
Sec 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 permits plural 6o0f9 "Manner in which complaint shall be made-(1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by -
(c} one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested; or
10. The Apex Court has in the case of Anjum Hussain v. Intellicity Business Park (P) Ltd., (2019) 6 SCC 519 held as under:-
"The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 12(i)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act being to facilitate the decision of a consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers are interested, without recourse to each of them filing an individual complaint, it is necessary that such a complaint is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest. A complaint on behalf of only some of them therefore will 7of9 not be maintainable. If for instance, 100 flat buyers/plot buyers in a project have a common grievance against the builder/developer and a complaint under Section 12(1)
(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is filed on behalf of or
- for the benefit of say 10 of them, the primary purpose behind permitting a class action will not be achieved, since the remaining 90 aggrieved persons will be compelled either to file individual complaints or to file complaints on behalf of or for the benefit of the different group of purchasers.in the same project. This, in our view, could not have been the legislative intent. The terms "persons so interested" and "persons having the same interest" used in Section 12(1)(c) mean, the persons having a common grievance against the same service provider. The use of the words "all consumers so interested" 'and "on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers so interested", in Section 12(1)(c) leaves no doubt that such a complaint must necessarily be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having a common grievance, seeking a common relief and consequently having a community of interest against the same service provider."
11. Thus, the primary object of more than one person being permitted to file any application under the A.T. Act 1986 is also the same as in the 8of9 7 case of the Consumer Protection Act, as specified by the Apex Court in the above case, viz., "The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act being to facilitate the decision of a consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers are interested, without recourse to each of them filing an individual complaint, it is necessary that such a complaint is fi'ed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest"
12. No prejudice can be caused to the respondents if one application is filed by a number of applicants even if the applicants belong to different divisions, for the credential or the like to be examined in respect of each of the applicants will be the same if one OA is preferred or plural OAs are filed. The cause and the nature of relief prayed for is one and the same and that the element of common interest in the matter being present has not been denied by the respondents. That the impugned orders are different and thus the cause of action is different in respect of the each of the applicant is inconsequential or immaterial as held by the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Housing Board vs T.N. Ganapathy (1990) 1 SCC 612 9of9 wherein after extracting the object and reasons In respect of Order1 Rule 8 of the CPC, the Apex Court has held as under:
veseenes therefore, no doubt that the persons who may be representing in a suit under Order 1, Rule 8 need not have the same cause of action."
13, The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in M.A. No. 319 of 2021 in O.A. 693 of 2021 dated 12.08.2021 fs inapplicable as it was rendered in different facts and circumstances of the case than the one available in the present case.
4. In view of the foregoing discussions, MA 466/2021 for joining the 5 @plicants together is allowed.
15. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Shri M. Kishore Kumar, Sr. Panel Counsel or the:respondents, who receives notice for the respondents shall file counter within 6 weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within 3 weeks thereafter. Case be listed before the Registrar's Court.
mb ] MA 310/00466/2021 in & OA 938/202! CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH MA _310/00466/2021 in & OA NO.938/2021 1"
Dated the Fri day of March Two Thousand Twenty Three CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. PR. Balachandar S/o K.Rajappa, Chief Postmaster, Annasalai PO (Rtd), No.4, Ground Floor, 39" Street, Thillai Ganganagar, Nanganallur, Chennai 600 061.
2. T. Baskar S/o. M.Thambusamy, SSPOs, Kovilpatti Division (Retd) 55, SRT Layout, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005.
3. N. Azhagupandiyan 5/0. K.Natarasan, SSPOs, Dindigul Division (Retd), 2/204, Tirukkan, Nallamanar Kottai, Dindigul 624 005. 4.5. Arumugam S/o.V.Subramaniyan, SPQOs, CSD, Chennai (Rtd), 90-C, Samundi nagar, Thindal, Erode 638 012.
5. G.K. Ponnurangam S/o. G.S.Kuppusamy, Senior Postmaster, T.Nagar (Retd), Plot No.7, IInd Street, Jain Nagar, Hastinapuram, Chennai 600 064, . Applicants By Advocate M/s M. Mohanarangam Vs,
1. Union of India Rep. by the Secretary Department of Posts Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001.
i) 2, Chief Postmaster General Tamil Nadu Circle Chennai 600 002, By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar 2 MA 310/00466/2021 in & OA 938/2021 ..Respondents 3 MA 310/00466/2021 in & OA 938/2021 ORDER (Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) Five applicants have filed the OA claiming the relief which is granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal for grant of Non Functional Selection Grade (NFSG). The applicants have filed MA No.466/2021 to permit them to join together and file a single OA.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the applicants are similarly situated and claiming the same relief. Hence, they have filed a single OA along with this Miscellaneous Application for joining together.
4, On the other hand, respondents have filed their counter affidavit and raised the objection pointing out that the earlier order passed by this Tribunal dt, 12.08.2021 in MA No. 319 of 2021 in OA 693 of 2021 wherein the application for joining together has been rejected and the averment to the said fact made in the counter reply has been brought to the notice by the learned counsel for respondents. The order reads thus :
"The respondents has to ascertaln the detalls such as date of appointment, date of absorption etc which have to gone into separately as it may not be same to all the applicants. Counter is also to be filed in respect of individlal applicants. Hence,. it is appropriate for the applicants to file separate OAs. With the above observation, the MA 319 of 2021 for joining the applicants together is rejected. Consequently, OA No. 693 of 2021 stands closed with liberty to the applicants to file separate OAs in accordance with law."
5. Learned counsel for respondents has also submitted that the applicants have also not given the details of their engagement/appointment/absorption and the post office in which they are working or worked. The application is not maintainable, as it does not give details of their service. The verification of date of joining and date of absorption/appointment vary from each applicants, herein and finding, checking of their records would consume te 4 MA 310/00466/2021 in & OA 938/2021 enormous time and also It would be difficult to file common reply In the OA and the applicants wantonly, deliberately had filed this single OA for their convenience but would compel the administration with huge task of gathering details by making enquiry in various offices with regard to thelr Initial engagement and appointment/absorption etc since the applicants are working in various Divisions under different Regions and also finding It difficult to collect the detalls of the individuals. It is atso submitted that few of the applicants have already superannuated from service from different post offices. It is also submitted that the order passed by this Bench is applicable to the instant application also.
6. It is to be noted that in the judicial discipline, it Is necessary to follow the earlier decisions of this Tribunal of equal strength of the Bench. In the said circumstances, law has been settled and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed the same in the matter of State of Orissa and others Vs. Bhagaban Sarangi and others and the same has been strictly followed by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as co-ordinate Benches and even this Bench. It is to be noted that contrary view cannot be taken by the Bench of equal strength.
7. Therefore, we are of the view that this Bench cannot take a contrary view, Hence, by observing that the present OA has been filed by 62 applicants jointly, however, as per the requirement of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the consideration of cases for giving justice, it is necessary that the application be accompanied by such documents fe., appointment orders, regularisation orders as well as details of place of posting and service rendered by the applicants individually. Since, no details whatsoever have been furnished in the application, therefore, while _ be 5 MA 310/00466/2021 in & OA 938/2021 dealing with the matter for settling the Issue for grant of benefit claimed by the applicants, it is necessary for the applicants Individually to give clear averment by way of specific pleadings and also to make specific grounds for seeking the said similar benefit for which they are clalming as they are entitled as well as to prove that the order passed by the respodents is against the law.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that ¢ MA filed by the five applicants praying to permit them to join together and file a single OA is rejected. Consequently, the OA stands closed with léBrty to the applicants to file separate OAs in accordance with law.
i MA No.466/2021 IN OA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH, CHENNAI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.310/00466/2021 : IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.310/00938/2021 ORDER RESERVED ON : 02.11.2023 . DATE OF ORDER: 08.11.2023 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA . MEMBER(S) © 1. Shri P.R.Balachandar (Age 61), | ' . S/o K.Rajappa, Chief Postmaster, Annasalai PO (Rtd), No.4, Ground floor, 39" Street, Thillai Ganganagar, 'Nanganallur, Chennai-600061.
2. Shri T.Baskar (Age 62);
S/o M.Thambusamy, SSPOs, Kovilpatti Division (Retd), 55, SRT Layout, Singanallur, Coimbatore -641005.
3. Shri N.Azhagupandiyan (Age 63), S/o K.Natarasan, SSPOs, Dindigul Division (Retd), 2/204, Tirukkan, Nallamanar Kottai, Dindigul -624005.
Perr rN Tag DWT DIOL CTE ey Perce ce OE Rae eee _ 7 2 MA No.466/2021 IN OA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 4, Sbri S.Arumugam, S/o V.Subramantyan, SPOs, CSD, Chennai (Rtd), 90-C, Samundi nagar, Thindal, Erode -638012.
5. Shri G.K.Ponnurangam (Age 61), S/o G.S.Kuppusamy, Senior Postmaster, T.Nagar (Retd), Plot No.7, [Ind Street, Jain Nagar, Hastinapuram, Chennai-600064. ... Applicants (ByAdvocate M/s.M.Mohanarangam) Vs.
1. The Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai -600002. ... Respondents (By Advocate Shri M.Kishore Kumar) 3 MA No.466/2021 IN OA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH ORDER Per: Justice S.Sujatha ........... Miember(J) As 3°" MEMBER In terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Chairman under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) nominating me as third Member to hear MA No.466/2021 in OA No.938/2021, the matter has been listed for hearing today.
2. MA No.310/466/2021 has been filed by the applicants under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 ('Rules' for short) seeking permission for the applicants to join together and file a single application before this Tribunal. Objections have been filed by the respondents to the said MA submitting that the applicants in the main OA No.938/2021 had worked in different Divisions and under Regions covering over all the State and the Service records are maintained in different Head Offices located in their respective Divisions and Regions. It is further submitted that the date of joining and date of absorption/appointment/retirement vary from each other amongst the applicants. The department finds it difficult and more 2 os as 4 MA No.466/2021 IN OA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH complicated to file a single reply since the applicants have worked in various Divisions under different Regions and it would be difficult to collect the details of applicants individually, more particularly, in the absence of such particulars provided in the OA.
3. Hon'ble Judicial Member has pronounced the order on 10.03.2023 and the operative portion of the order reads thus:
"8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the MA filed by the five applicants praying to permit them to join together and file a single OA is rejected. | Consequently, the OA stands closed with liberty to the applicants to file separate OAs in accordance with law."
4, Hon'ble Administrative Member has pronounced the order separately on 10.03.2023 and the operative portion of the said order reads thus:
"14. In view of the foregoing discussions, MA 466/2021 for joining the 5 applicants together is allowed.
15. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Shri M. Kishore Kumar, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondents, Q-
5 MA No.466/2021 IN OA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH who receives notice for the respondents shall file counter within 6 weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within 3 weeks thereafter. Case be listed before the Registrar's Court."
5. Learned Counsel Shri M.Mohanarangam appearing for the applicants inviting the attention of the Bench to the service particulars of the applicants furnished at Annexure Al to the OA argued that all the particulars of the applicants have been furnished. Department of Posts vide letter dated 06.11.2019 has called for the inputs/report from the Chief Post Master General and other concerned offices inasmuch as on the following points:
i. Number of Assistant Superintendent (Posts) / Inspector Posts, who have completed 4 years service on or after 01.01.2006 in the GP of Rs.4800/- of PB-2™ or 7500-
12000 (pre-revised) or in the corresponding revised Pay Matrix Level-8.
ii. Number of retired Assistant Superintendent (Posts) / Inspector Posts, who had completed 4 years service on or after 01.01.2006 in the GP of Rs.4800/- of PB-2™ or 7500- 12000 (pre-revised) or in the corresponding revised Pay Matrix Level-8.
os a 6 MA No.466/2021 IN OA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH iii. Total financial implications involved, if the benefit for granting Grade Pay Rs.5400/- in 6" CPC or the corresponding Pay Matrix Level-9 in 7" CPC is extended to the officers covering under (i) & (ii) above.
(Note: Assistant Superintendent (Posts) who were officiated/are officiating in Postal Service Gr.B cadre, should also be counted as ASP while furnishing above information) In response, the service particulars of the applicants have been furnished by the Chief Postmaster General. The issue on merit being covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others ¥s. M.Subramaniam in Civil Appeal No.8883/2011 (DD: 10.10.2017), the applicants are entitled to similar reliefs. Placing reliance on Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules, learned Counsel submitted that the applicants have to be permitted to file a single application having regard to the cause and nature of the relief prayed for that they have common interest in the matter. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the orders passed by various Benches of this Tribunal to substantiate his yy arguments.
7MA No.466/2021 IN OA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH
6. ' Learned Counsel Shri M.Kishore Kumar representing the respondents submitted that five applicants have joined together to file this application. The relief claimed is to quash the order dated 09.08.2021 issued by the 2 Respondent which pertains to
- Applicant No.1. No representations submitted by the applicants other than the Applicant No.1 and no orders passed in respect of other applicants except Applicant No.1 are placed on record. The service particulars said to have been furnished are inchoate and the same does not disclose the date of retirement and the Division etc. Placing reliance on the order passed by the C.A.T., Chennai Bench in OA No.693/2021, learned Counsel submitted that no single application is maintainable and a direction may be issued to the applicants to file separate OA individually to render justice, concurring with the order passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Member.
7. Learned Counsel further argued that provisions of the CPC and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 referred to, by the Hon'ble Administrative Member in the differing order are not applicable to the case on hand.
y Ane ee See eee ere Et fn Ye 8 MA No.466/2021 IN CA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH
8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9, The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether MA No.466/2021 filed by the applicants seeking permission to join together and file a single application is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case?
10. Rule 4(5){a) of the Rules reads thus:
"(5)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) to (3), the Tribunal may permit more than one person to join together and file a single application if it is satisfied, having regard to the cause and the nature of relief prayed for, that they have a common interest in the matter."
11. The present OA has been filed by five applicants jointly. Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules confers power on the Tribunal to permit more than one person to join together and file a single application subject to the condition that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the cause and the nature of relief prayed for, that they have a common interest in the matter. The cause herein, certainly varies with respect to the particulars of the engagement/appointment/ Z-
9MA No.466/2021 IN OA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH absorption and the Post Office/Division in which the applicants have worked. Unless these particulars are made available in the OA, it would be difficult for the respondents to file common reply with respect to all the applicants. Even on the legal principle, if the matter is covered by judicial pronouncements, the implementation of the orders passed by this Tribunal would be difficult to the department to implement/comply with it, unless the particulars of the individual applicant is available on record. As could be seen, the service particulars so placed on record by the applicants do not indicate the date of retirement, particulars of Post Office/Division in which they have worked as all the applicants are shown as retired in the cause title and their residential addresses are given in the cause title. In terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules, allowing of single application not being automatic and in the absence of the relevant service particulars relating to each applicant not being available, moreover placing reliance on one representation and order relating to Applicant No.1, claiming common relief is not maintainable. With great respect, I disagree with the order pronounced by the Hon'ble Administrative Member, wherein reference has been made x Sy co "ah At a eae 10 MA No.466/2021 IN OA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH to Order-1 Rule 8 of the CPC and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Section 22 of the Act specifically deals with the powers of Tribunals. In Sub Section (3) of Section 22, it has been enumerated under what circumstances, for the purpose of discharging the functions under the Act, the Tribunal has the powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, while trying a suit. Considering of the single application does not come within the matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (i) therein. No doubt the power to permit a single application is vested with the Tribunal under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules in respect of more than one person to join together, the said power has to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the same is not automatic. No mathematical precision or hard and fast rule can be laid down. Such satisfaction of the Tribunal as enumerated in Rule 4(5)(a) depends on facts and circumstances of each case. At present, we are not dealing with the merits of the matter. The issue is now confined to the maintainability of the 2--
11MA No.466/2021 IN OA No.938/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH single application. Orders relied upon by the applicant deals with the merits of the case.
13. In the background of the case as discussed above and having regard to the order passed in MA No.319/2021 in OA No.693/2021 referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondents, I concur with the decision taken by the Hon'ble Judicial Member.
- 14, In the result, MA filed by the applicants praying to permit them to file a single application is rejected with liberty to the applicants to file separate OAs in accordance with law. The point framed for consideration is answered accordingly.
ay