Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Worker Union Through Gen Secretary ... vs 505 Army Base Wosrkshop on 30 August, 2024
1
Item No. 116/ C- V O.A. No.2366/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No.2366/2023
M.A. No. 2761/2023
This the 30th day of August, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
1. Workers Union, 505 AB Wksp
Delhi Cantt through Gen. Secretary
Sh. Vikas aged 42 years HS Gd II
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal
R/o Papravat, Near Durga Mandir,
Najafgarh, Delhi - 110043
2. Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma aged 40 years Gp 'C'
(Fitter)
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma
R/o 306, Godavari, Anand Ashram Society
Pari Chowk, P-3, Greter Noida,
PIN 201310
...Applicants
( By Advocates: Mr. B L Wanchoo with Mr. Gagandeep
Chawla, Mr. K. J Khashu& Ms. Vaishali Sulkhlan )
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi - 110001
2. Director General EME (Civ.)
TG HQS, Delhi Cantt. - 110010
3. Commander
HQs Base Wksp Group
PIN 900468, C/o 56 APO
4. Commandant
505 Army Base Workshop Delhi Cantt. - 110010
.....Respondents
( By Advocate: Mr. Sanjeev Yadav )
2
Item No. 116/ C- V O.A. No.2366/2023
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) M.A. No. 2761/2023 seeking joining together is allowed and the applicants are permitted to pursue the OA jointly.
2. The present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) To allow the OA, declare denial of Dress Allowance to the applicant arbitrary and unconstitutional in violation of DOP&T and Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OMS dated 31.08.2017 and 02.8.2017 respectively.
b) To direct the respondents to pay the Dress Allowance to the Applicants in terms of the aforesaid OMs w.e.f. 01.07.2017 payable @ Rs.5000/- per annum alongwith interst @ 12% on the arrears.
c) Any other order or direction as deemed fit by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of justice."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants draws our attention to the Order dated 05.06.2020 in OA No. 060/01228/2019 ETC., titled Gurmit Singh vs Military Engineering Service passed by ChandigarhBench of the Tribunal and contends that the present matter is identical to the said OA. He 3 Item No. 116/ C- V O.A. No.2366/2023 further relies on the decision rendered in O.A. No. 278/2023, titled Birbal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 22.07.2024 passed by a single bench of the Tribunal, which has been authored by one of us. He reiterates that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the applicants are entitled for grant of similar benefit.
4. Per contra, pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply thereby vehemently opposing the claim of the applicant. He reiterates the averment made in the counter affidavit and states that after filing of the present OA a speaking order dated 30.10.2023 was passed after consideration on representation of the applicants.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. We find that the representation dated 08.02.2023 of the applicants has already been considered and thereafter rejected by the respondents by way of an office order dated 30.10.2023. The said speaking order has been passed without taking into consideration the decision rendered in the case of 4 Item No. 116/ C- V O.A. No.2366/2023 Gurmit Singh(Supra) and that by itself is a ground for quashing and setting aside the office order dated 30.10.2023 in light of the fact that the applicants are entitled for similar relief. We are also fortified in our aforesaid view by the decision rendered in the cases of Gurmit Singh(Supra) and Birbal (Supra). Accordingly, we dispose of the present OA in terms of para 13 of the decision rendered in Gurmit Singh (Supra), which is as follows :-
13. It is quite surprising that all of a sudden, the respondents have passed the impugned orders conveying that there is not even a decision as yet for grant of Dress Allowance to the category of the applicants and as such the payment of allowance already made may be recovered, as clarified by PCDA, Chandigarh, and as such impugned orders of recovery were passed, that too in violation of the principles of natural justice. A perusal of both reproduced OMs would make it clear that a conscious decision was taken by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi and then DoP&T (Nodal Department), pursuant to implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations, for grant of Composite Dress Allowance, instead of various allowances, which were discontinued, @ Rs.5,000/- per annum. The respondents have also not rebutted the averments made by the applicants that they stopped receiving the washing allowances from the date they started getting Dress Allowance @ Rs.5000/-per annum. Be that as it may, the fact remains that since a specific clarification has already been issued by the nodal Department of Personnel & Training, for grant of such allowance to the entitled categories, therefore, the view taken by respondents in withdrawing the same from the applicants and making recovery thereof cannot be sustained and as such the impugned orders in all these cases are quashed and set aside. The 5 Item No. 116/ C- V O.A. No.2366/2023 applicants are held entitled to grant of Dress Allowance and if any recovery has been made, the same be refunded to the relevant individuals involved in these cases. No costs.
7. Ordered accordingly. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the OA is disposed of. Pending MA, if any, stands disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sm/