Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mes No. 373382 Jaspal Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 20 January, 2009
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta, Nirmaljit Kaur
Civil Writ Petition No. 12167-CAT of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
--
Civil Writ Petition No. 12167-CAT of 2004
Date of decision: 20.01.2009
MES No. 373382 Jaspal Singh and others ........Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Longia, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate
Central Govt. Standing Counsel
for the respondents
-.-
Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral)
The petitioners, who are having I.T.I. Diploma in different Trades, filed Original Application No. 1066-PB of 2003 before the Central Administration Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, wherein it was ordered that the petitioners are entitled for the higher pay scale of Rs.950- 1500/- applicable to the skilled category. This plea of the petitioners was accepted by the Tribunal, while relying upon the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No. 279 of 1996 titled as 'Shyam Sunder and others v. Union of India and others,' decided on 14.05.1999.
While deciding the case of the petitioners, the Tribunal has restricted the claim for the arrears of the petitioners for a period of 18 Civil Writ Petition No. 12167-CAT of 2004 2 months, reckoned from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. on 05.11.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although he is satisfied with the judgment of the Tribunal in granting the higher pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-, but is aggrieved with the restriction of the claim of the petitioners regarding arrears to a period of 18 months only, as no reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal, while doing so.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the period for paying the arrears to the petitioners may be restricted to 38 months prior to the date of filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that there is no reasons as to why the benefit of arrears should be paid to the petitioners for a period of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal, and not restricted to a period of 18 months, as the limitation for filing the Original Application before the Tribunal, is one year.
The petitioners have been agitating the matter for the grant of higher pay scale right from 1993 onwards. In 'Jai Dev Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another,' 1997 (5) SLR 401 (SC), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has restricted the payment of back wages to a period of 36 months prior to the filing of the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and held that the Tribunal was not right in invoking Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for restricting the difference in back wages by one year.
In view of the above, we uphold the judgment dated Civil Writ Petition No. 12167-CAT of 2004 3 22.04.2004 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, vide which directions were issued to the respondents to extend the benefits of the judgment rendered in the case of Shyam Sunder and others (supra) to the petitioners and placed them in the grade of Rs.950- 1500 as per the Recruitment Rules of 1971 from the date of their initial appointment. However, direction of the Tribunal vide which the claim of the petitioners regarding arrears were restricted to a period of 18 months, to be reckoned from the date of filing of the O A, i.e. 05.11.2003, is modified and directions are given to the respondents to restrict the claim regarding arrears of the petitioners to a period of 36 months, to be reckoned from the date of filing of the Original Application No. 1066-PB of 2003 i.e. 05.11.2003. The aforesaid directions be complied with by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order .
The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
[Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge [Nirmaljit Kaur] Judge January 20, 2009 mohan