Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Harishchandra Hojraj Pandi vs Canteen Stores Department on 12 December, 2019
1 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
Original Application No.642/2015
along with
163 Connected Original Applications
This the 12th day of December, 2019
CORAM:- R.N. SINGH, MEMBER (J)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.642/2015
Lakshmi S (PN-2808),
R/o: 52, Lakshmi Nivas,
Near Chamundeshwari Temple,
Doddabommasandra,
Vidyaranyapura P.O.
Bangalore-560097.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.19/2017:
Smt. Manju Bala (PN-2834)
R/at. House No.32, Park Avenue, Deep Nagar,
Jalandhar Cantt.- 144 005.
Working as Upper Division Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department,
1, Porus Road, Nr. Jalandhar Club
Jalandhar Cantt. - 144 005.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.20/2017
Rajesh Kumar Jain (PN-2785)
R/at:- C-8, Gangotri Colony,
Roorkee road,
Meerut Cantt. - 250 001.
Working as Storekkepr-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
49, BC Lines,
Meerut Cantt. - 243001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.21/2017
2 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Ashok Kumar Singh (PN-2763)
R/at:- CSD Complex,
49, BC Lines,
Meerut Cantt. - 250 001.
Working as Storekeeper-III
Canteen Stores Department,
49, BC Lines,
Meerut Cantt.-250001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.22/2017:
Laxmi Narayan (PN-2719)
R/at:- House No.EB-145,
Kazi Mohalla,
Jalandhar City - 144001.
Working as Upper Division Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department,
1, Porus Road, Nr. Jalandhar Club,
Jalandhar Cantt 144005.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 23/2017:
Sharishti Raman (PN-2721)
R/at.House No. 37/6,
Mohalla No. 26, Sadar Bazar,
Jalandhar Cantt.- 144 005.
Working as Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
1, Porus Road, Nr. Jalandhar Club,
Jalandhar Cantt.- 144 005.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.24/2017:
Anil Kumar Singh (PN-2997)
R/at:- House No.453,
Sadar Bazar,
Bareilly Cantt.- 243001.
Working as Storekeeper- III
Canteen Stores Department,
Station Road, Sarvatra Bhavan,
Bareilly Cantt. - 243001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.25/2017:
3 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Umakant Bajpai (PN-2905)
R/at:- 231, Mohalla Chaudhary,
Gulab Nagar,
Bareilly-243001.
Working as Storekeepr-III
Canteen Stores Department,
Station Road, Sarvatra Bhavan,
Bareilly- 243001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.26/2017:
Harvinder Singh (PN-2823)
R/at:- House No.184-A,
Sadar Durga Bari,
Meerut Cantt. - 250001.
Working as Storekeeper-III
Canteen Stores Department,
49, BC Lines,
Meerut Cantt. - 250 001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.27/2017:
Raj Kumar Gupta (PN-2854)
R/at:- Quarter No.P/39/6,
CSD Complex, 61, EC Road,
Dehradun Cantt - 248003.
Working as Storekeeper III
Canteen Stores Department,
Araghar, 61 EC Lines,
Dehradun cantt 248003.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.28/2017:
Smt. Kruna Sharma (PN-2858)
R/at:- House No.7, Near Best Prize
Sardhana By-pass,
Meerut Cantt - 250 001,
Working as Upper Division Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department,
49, B.C. Lines,
Meerut Cantt - 250 001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.29/2017:
4 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Anup Hazarika (PN-8009)
R/at:- Qr. No.2, CSD Residential
Complex, Jail Road,
Lucknow Cantt. - 226002.
Working as Selection Grade clerk,
Canteen Stores Department,
Jail Road,
Lucknow Cantt. - 226002.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.30/2017:
Ranjit Biswas (PN-2828)
R/at:- Qr. No. B-2, CSD Residential
Complex, Theatre Road,
Jabalpur - 482001.
Working as Storekeeper - III,
Canteen Stores department,
Theatre Road,
Jabalpur 482001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.31/2017:
Trilochan Singh (PN-2877)
R/at:- House No.495,
Sunderwala Ladpur, Raipur Road,
Dehradun - 248001.
Working as Lower Division Clerk (S)
Canteen Stores Department,
Araghar, 61, E.C. Road,
Dehradun Cantt.- 248003.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.32/2017:
Vijay Kumar (PN-2608)
R/at:- House No.131,
Bharat Nagar,
Bhathinda - 151 001.
Working as Storekeeper-III
Canteen Stores Department,
Thimayya Marg,
Bhathinda 151004.
5 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.33/2017:
Dhananter Singh (PN-2845)
R/at:- VPO - Katwalt,
Thsil - Ramnagar,
Dist. Udhampur - 182122.
Working as Storekeeper-III
Canteen Stores Department,
1, Porus Road, Nr. Jalandhar Club,
Jalandhar Cantt.-144005.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.34/2017:
Dinesh Panwar (PN-2845)
R/at:- 425/1,
Somdutt Vihar, Garh Road,
Meerut - 250 004,
Working as Storekeeper-III
Canteen Stores Department,
49, BC Lines,
Meerut Cantt.- 250 001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.35/2017:
Smt. Sunita Sharma (PN-2791)
R/at:- 190, Sadan Puri,
Tilak Chowk, Kankerkhera,
Meerut Cantt.-250001.
Working as Upper Division Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department,
19, B C Lines,
Meerut Cantt.-25 0001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.36/2017:
Ashok Kumar (PN-2852)
R/at:- House No.280,
Sadar Bazar, Azad Mohalla,
Bareilly Cantt. - 243001.
Working as Storekeeper III
Canteen Stores Department,
Station Road, Sarvatra Bhavan,
Bareilly Cantt. 243001.
6 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.37/2017:
Lallan Kumar Rao (PN-8005)
R/at:- Quarter No. P/39/8,
CSD Complex, 61 E.C. Road,
Dehradun Cantt - 248003.
Working As Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
Araghar, 61, E.C. Lines,
Dehradun Cantt. 248003.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.38/2017:
Smt. Vijay Laxmi P. Sumbli (PN-2658)
R/at:- House No.56, Lane No.1
Block B, Roop Nagar Enclave,
Jammu - 180 013.
Working as selection Grade Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department,
B.D. Bari, Bari Brahmana,
Jammu 181133.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.39/2017:
Sarvesh Kumar. (PN-2886)
R/at:- Quarter No.20,
CSD Depot Residence,
Mandalay Lines,
Khadki, Pune 411020.
Working as Storekeeper-III
Canteen Stores Department,
Mandalay Lines, Range Hills,
Khadki, Pune 411020.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.40/2017:
Smt. Radhamani D. (PN-2809)
R/at:- A-68, Gangotri Colony,
Roorkee Road, Meerut Cantt - 250001.
Upper Division Clerk (Retd.)
Canteen Stores Department,
49, B.C. Lines,
7 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Meerut Cantt. - 250001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.41/2016:
Davinder Singh(PN-2795)
R/at 132, Punjabi Bagh,
Gali No. 4, Kardhan Road,
Ambala Cantt.- 133 001.
Working as Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
Barrack No.2, Alienby Lines,
Ambala Cantt. - 133 001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.42/2017:
Anwar Ali (PN-2814)
R/at:- House No.103,
Lisari Road, Bhumiya Pull,
Meerut Cantt - 250001.
Working as Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
49, B C. Lines,
Meerut Cantt- 250001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.61/2017:
Smt. Tapasi Mukherjee (PN-2739)
R/at. Nabin Pally, Ward No.3,
Babu Block, Kanchrapara,
Dist.24 Parganas (North)-743 145.
Working as Upper Division Clerk
Canteen Stores Department,
Fort William,
Kolkata-700 021.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.62/2017:
Pranab Mukhopadhyay (PN-2874)
R/at.74/131/13, Rahara Uttar Para,
PO-Rahara,
Kolkata-700 118.
Working as Upper Division Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department,
8 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Fort William,
Kolkata-700 021.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.63/2017:
Tushar Kanti Das (PN-2753)
R/at Staff Mess, CSD Depot Complex,
Army Supply Road,
Dimapur-797 112.
Working as Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
Army Supply Road,
Dimapur-797 112.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.64/2017:
Smt. Kusam Gupta (PN-2674)
R/at. Charitable Trust,
08, Ganga Road,
Jalandhar Cantt.-144 005.
Working as Accountant,
Canteen Stores Department,
1, Porus Road, Near Jalandhar Club,
Jalandhar Cantt. 144 005.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.65/2017:
Anand Kumar (PN-2720)
R/at. House No.37/209,
Nagla Bhurisingh, Bindukatra,
Agra-282 001.
Working as Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
Station Road,
Agra Cantt. 282 001.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.67/2017:
Prasanta Chakraborty (PN-8100)
R/at.86, Indralok, Road No.3,
H.B.Town,
Kolkata-700 110.
Working as Upper Division Clerk,
9 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Canteen Stores Department,
Fort William,
Kolkata-700 021.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.68/2017:
Swapan Das (PN-2803)
R/at. 7/44, Said Nagar,
Dhakuria,
Kolkata-700 031.
Storekeeper-III (Retired)
Canteen Stores Department,
Fort William,
Kolkata-700 021.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.70/2017:
Ashish Chakraborty (PN-2860)
R/at. Staff Mess, CSD Depot Complex,
Army Supply Road,
Dimapur-797 112.
Working as Lower Division clerk (S),
Canteen Stores Department,
Army Supply Road,
Dimapur-797 112.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.73/2017:
Chitta Ranjan Das (PN-2900)
R/at. Chandrapur, Panchanantala
PO-Digna,
Dist.24-Parganas (North)-743 248.
Upper Division Clerk (Retired)
Canteen Stores Department,
fort William,
Kolkata-700 021.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.74/2017:
Ravindra S. Ujal (PN-2945)
R/at.A-5/102 Swapannagri,
Talegaon Chakan Road,
Talegaon Railway Station,
10 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Maharashtra-410 507.
Working as Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
Mandalay Lines, Range Hills,
Khadki, Pune-411 020.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.75/2017:
Samir Pal Choudhury (PN-2664)
R/at.H,Block 'B', Temple View Complex,
LIC Road, Madhyamgram,
Kolkata-700 129.
Working as Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
Fort William,
Kolkata-700 021.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.76/2017:
Jayanta Basak (PN-2792)
R/at."Gitanjali", Opp.J.T.S.Club,
Hakimpura, PO.Siliguri,
Dist. Darjeeling-734 001.
Working as Lower Division Clerk(S),
Canteen Stores Department,
P.O.Baghdogra,
Dist.Darjeeling-734 422.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.77/2017:
Bhubaneshwar Ganguly (PN-2824)
R/at.Arabinda Arena, Block-F,
Flat No.12/2, 2nd Floor, PO Rahera,
Kolkata-700 118.
Working as Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
Fort William,
Kolkata-700 021.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.78/2017:
Ananda Kirtania (PN-2859)
R/at. Dakshin Kathulia,
11 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
PO-Kalirhal, PS.Dhupguri,
Jalpaiguri-735 210.
Working as Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
P.O.Baghdogra,
Dist.Darjeeling-734 422.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.79/2017:
Laxmi Narayan Rajak (PN-2765)
R/at. Staff Mess, CSD Depot Complex,
Army Supply Road,
Dimapur-797 112.
Working as Storekeeper-III,
Canteen Stores Department,
Army Supply Road,
Dimapur-797 112.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.80/2017:
Sukharajan Nath (PN-2725)
R/at."Janani", 1, By Lane, J.C.Bose Road,
Subhas Pally, PO-Siliguri,
Dist.Darjeeling-734 001.
Working as Upper Division Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department,
P.O.Baghdogra,
Dist.Darjeeling-734 422.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.82/2017:
Sucharit Chatterjee (Chattopadhyay
(PN-2890)
R/at.Namrata Mansion, Rabindra Nagar,
Netaji Pally, PO-Siliguri,
Dist. Darjeeling-734001.
Working as Lower Division Clerk (S)
Canteen Stores Department,
PO: Baghdogra,
Dist.Darjeeling-700 021.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 83/2017:
12 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Nalini Ranjan Roy (PN-8111)
R/at. Vill- Deshbandhu Para,
PO Naxalbari, Dist. Darjeeling -734 429.
Upper Division Clerk (Retired)
Canteen Stores Department, P.O. Baghdogra,
Dist. Darjeeling - 734 422.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 87/2017:
Mahavir Paswan (PN-8026)
R/at. Quarter No.3, CSD Residential Complex,
Post: Baghdogra, Dist. Darjeeling -734 422.
Working as Storekeeper-III, Canteen Stores
Department, Р.О. Baghdogra,
Dist. Darjeeling - 734 422.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 96/2016:
Ms. Pranali Kunal Dhotre (PN-2894),Age 53 years
presently working as a Accountant,
Canteen Stores Department,
R/o: Room No.1, Urja Sankalp, C-Wing, NNP General
Arun Kumar Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (East)
Mumbai- 400 097.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 97/2016:
Ramesh Bhuvad (PN 5616),
Age 54 years, Occ. working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No. 401, C-2,
Ramratan Society, Ramdev Park,
Mira Road, Thane- 401 107.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 98/2016:
M.L. James Nathan (PN No. 12272),
aged: 54 years, Occu. LDC,
Canteen Stores Depot, Ahmedabad
R/O. B/3, Staff Complex, CSD Depot,
Near Sadar Bazar,Opp.Green Cinema,
Ahmedabad Cant. 380004.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 99/2016:
Amar Nath Sharma (PN 2710)
13 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
aged: 54 years, Occu. SKIII,
Canteen Stores Depot, Ramgarh Cantt.
R/O. C-900, Rajendra Nagar,
Awasvikas Colony
Bareily, Uttar Pradesh.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 100/2016:
Balaram Jadhav (PN 4966)
Age 56 years, Occ. working as Liftman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No. 1174-A,
Shivaji Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Ambarnath (E), Thane-421 501.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 101/2016:
Ganpat Medge (PN 6003),
Age 57 years, Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No.3, Devashi Prajapati Chawl,
Infront of Namaskar Mandal, Behind Bharat Gas Shop, Agra Road, Lal Chowki,
Kalyan (W)- 421 301.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 102/2016:
Dnyaneshwar Walunj (PN 5976),
Age 52 years, Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi,Mumbai-400 020
R/O. R. No.8, Parijat Building, CSD Estate,
Golibar Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai- 400086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 103/2016:
Shivaji Shankar Mane. (PN No.5996),
ged: 53 years, Occu. Mali
Canteen Stores Department, Adalfi, Mumbai-400 020
R/O-Village Khatap,
District Satara, pincode 415105.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 104/2016:
Baban Tambe (PN 5576),
Age 51 years, Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Base Depot/Adelphi,
Mumbai. R/O. R. No.15, Kalpana Bldg.,
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
14 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai- 400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 105/2016:
Arunkumar Mistry (PN 2700)
aged: 51 years, Occu . SKIII,
Canteen Stores Depot Ramgarh Cantt.
R/O Pochra Colony, Barkhana,
Hajari Baug Jharkhand-829102.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 106/2016:
Ms Ruchita Ravindra Manjrekar (PN-2839),
Age 53 years, Retired as a Upper Division Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department, Adalfi, Mumbai.
R/o: 508, Sai Mangal CHS, Sector No.8, Charkop.
Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 107/2016:
Shivram Gorule (PN 6122),
Age 52 years, Occ. working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No. 190, Jai Ambika Nagar,
Sundar Bag, Kamani,
Kurla, Mumbai- 400 070.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 108/2016:
Ashok Yeshwant Kasare (PN-5347), Age 53 years
presently working as a Peon in Head Office
of Canteen Stores Department, Adalfi,
Mumbai 400 020.
R/o: 16, Kalpana Building, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 109/2016:
Rabhaji Phaphale (PN 5358), Age 50 years,
Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Base Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No.5, Chawl No. 2,
Roopsangam CHS Ltd., Kajupada, Bhatwadi,
Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai- 400 084.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 110/2016:
15 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Ramchandra Kadam (PN 4879)
Age 55 years, Occ. working as UDC in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi
Mumbai-400 020.
R/O. A-18, Niramaya Bldg., Old Katrap Area,
Badalapur(E), Thane- 421603.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 111/2016:
Rajkumari W/o Late Ram Manohar Teli (PN 5969)
Age 42 years,Occ. Housewife,
R/O. R. No.306, B Wing, Ambar Residency,
Kamlakar Nagar, Khojgaon,
Ambarnath (W), Thane- 421 501.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 112/2016:
S. Mohammed Basha, (PN No.2602),
aged: 50 years, Occu. SKIII,
Canteen Stores Depot, Secunderabad
R/O. 16/144, Madha Nagar Colony
Trimulgherry, Secunderabad -500015.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 113/2016:
Suresh Ambekar (PN-6009),
Age 53 years, Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi,
Mumbai-400 020.
R/O. R. No.606, Siddhivinayak Chs,
Kopri Colony, Thane (W)-400603.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 114/2016:
Atmaram Tonwalkar (PN 6175),
Age 51 years, Occ. working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Area Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No.11, Vikas Bldg., CSD Estate,
Golibar Road, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai- 400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 115/2016:
Bhaguji Shinde (PN 5998),
Age 59 years, Occ. working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi, Mumbai.
16 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
R/O. R. No.604, Sector No. 6,
Koparkhairne, Navi Mumbai- 400 709.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 116/2016:
Ms. Minakshi Nitin Khunte (PN-2907), Age 52 years
presently working as a Upper Division Clerk
Canteen Stores Department, Khadki Depot, Pune
R/o: 625, Narayan Peth, Near Lokhande Talim,
Om Sairam Apartment, Pune-411030.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 117/2016:
Ms Elsy Rajan, (PN No.2885),
aged: 52 years, Occu. UDC
Canteen Stores Depot, Secunderabad
R/O. Flat No.20, Misha Towers,
Trimulgherry, Secunderabad -500015.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.121/2016:
Vishnu Paswan (PN 5355),
Age 52 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in
the Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R.No.12, Vishram Bldg.,
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.122/2016:
Vasant Dhas (PN-5982)
Age 49 years,
Occ. Working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O.R.No.B-403, Yash Residency,
Plot No.12, Sector-4, Kalamboli,
Tal.PAnvel, Dist.Raigad.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.123/2016:
Rambahaddur Manandhar (PN-5973)
17 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Age 50 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Base Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O R.No.404, Navddep Appt.,
A Wing, Nilegaon, Nalasopara (W),
Tal Vasai, Dist.Palghar-401 203.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.126/2016:
Sanohar Teli (PN-5988)
Age 50 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O.Uttar Bhartiya Welfare Society,
Jaihind Nahar, Sonapur,
Mankhurd, Mumbai-400 043.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.127/2016:
Vijay Sonawane (PN 5981),
Age 52 years,
Occ.working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O R.No.71/10/18, A Colony,
Near Zende Garden, Gautam Nagar,
Govandi (W), Mumbai-400 043.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.128/2016:
Ganpat Jadhav (PN-5974)
Age 55 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Area Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O.R.No.02, Parvati Road,
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.130/2016:
18 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Ramsukh Kori (PN-5985)
Age 51 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Area Depot,
Mumbai 400 010.
R/O.R.No.25 ½ Ganesh Nagar,
Salt Pan Road, Wadala (E),
Mumbai-400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.131/2016:
Tanaji Jadhav (PN-5985)
Age 49 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O.CSD Estate, Opp. Sarvodaya Hospital,
Golibar Road, Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai-400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.136/2016:
Kashinath Shende (PN-4992)
Age 57 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Area Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O.R.No.11, Parijat Bldg.,
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.137/2016:
Ashok Waradkar (PN-5620)
Age 54 years,
Occ. Working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Area Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai-400 010,
R/O.R.No.10, Parijat Bldg.,
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.138/2016:
19 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Raju Prasad (PN-5413)
Age 53 years,
Occ. Working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
R/O.Vikas Nagar Guwshala,
Ramgarh Cantt, Jharkhand.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.139/2016:
Gunvant Patel(PN-5718)
Age 51 years,
Occ. Working as LDC in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O.Bldg No.22B, Raj Narayan Chawl,
B.N.Dube Road, Ambewadi,
Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400 068.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.140/2016:
Suresh Gamre (PN-5790)
Age 59 years,
Occ. Working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Base Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O.R.No.404, Jai Saideep Apartment,
Near N.G.School, Samarth Nagar,
Barrage Road, Badlapur (W), Thane.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.141/2016:
Pandurang T. Sutar (PN-5760)
Age 54 years,
presently working as Carpentor,
in Head Office of Canteen Stores
Department, Adalfi, Mumbai-400 020,
R/o. 1st Floor, Suloshia Building, CSD
Estate, Golibar Road, Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai-400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.142/2016:
Bathini Raju (PN-2861)
20 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Age 55 years,
Occ. SKIII,
Canteen Stores Depot,
Vishakhapattanam,
R/O.Door No.40-53/11,
Sanjeeviah Colony,
Thadichatla Palem,
Visakhapatnam-530 007.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.143/2016:
Amerika Prasad (PN-8001)
Age 54 years,
Occ. LDC
Canteen Stores Depot, Ramgarh Cantt
R/O.Vill.Barkidundi,
PO.Karma, Via-Marar, Ramgarh,
Jharkhand, Pin-829137.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.144/2016:
Anant Babu Shibe (PN-5590)
Age 49 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai 400 020.
R/O.R.No.587,
Sainath Rahivasi Sangh,
Antophill, Mumbai-400 037.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.145/2016:
Surendra Kumar Bajaj (PN-2729)
Age 52 years,
Occ. Accountant,
Canteen Stores Depot Bareilly,
R/O. H.No.100A, Greater Akash Colony,
Near Hartman College, Izatnagar,
Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243 122.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.146/2016:
Rambilash Singh (PN-5407),
21 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Age 54 years,
Occ. Working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
R/O.Village Vikash Nagar,
PO Ramgarh Cantt, Dist. Ramgarh,
(Jharkhand).
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.147/2016:
Prakash Shrungare (PN-5972)
Age 50 years,
Occ. LDC in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Base Depot, Mumbai 400 020.
R/O.Row House No.17,
Mhada Colony, Phase-3,
Near Ashvini Hospital,
Badlapur (E), Thane.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.148/2016:
Shankar Karkee (PN-5588)
Age 50 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Area Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O.R.No.06, Poornima Bldg.,
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.149/2016:
Laxman Koneri (PN-5712)
Age 50 years,
Occ. Working as Cleaner in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Base Depot, Mumbai.
R/O.R.No.403, 4th Floor,
Raigad Bldg. No.27,
Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, CHS,
Mankhurd Mumbai-400 088.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.150/2016:
22 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Lalsingh Puransingh Rajput (PN-6190)
Age 48 years,
Occ. LDC
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai 400 020.
R/O.Room No.8, Kalpana Bldg.,
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.154/2016:
Padmakar Ghanekar (PN-5626)
Age 72 years,
Occ. Retired from the
Canteen Stores Department,
Area Depot, Mumbai 400 010.
R/O.R.No.108 Ashtavinayak Bldg,
1st Floor, Umar Khadi, Ganesh Chowk,
Sand Hurst Road, Mumbai-400 009.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.155/2016:
Anjaneyalu Mohan Venkat Raman (PN-2892)
Age 54 years,
Occ. SKIII
Canteen Stores Department,
Secunderabad,
R/o.Flat No.502, Sai Jyothi Towers,
Srinagar, Reddy Hospit Road,
Visakhapatnam-530016.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 156/2016:
Ashok Kumar T. Gupta(PN-6176),
Age 46 years, presently working as Mazdoor
in Head Office of Canteen Stores Department,
Adalfi, Mumbai- 400 020,
R/o: 602, "B" Wing, Sinhagad CHS Ltd,
Belasis Bridge Low Level, Tardeo,
Mumba- 400 034.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 157/2016:
23 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Sharad Bhaskar Abhyankar (PN 5351),
aged: 51 years, Occu. Presently working as Peon,
in the Head office of Canteen Stores Department,
Adalfi, Mumbai-400020.
R/O. Ganesh Bhawan, Nageshwar Mandir Marg,
Near Ganga Pharmaceuticals, Gopchar Pada, Virar
(East), Tal.Vasai Dist. Palghar- 401 305.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 158/2016:
Maruti Parab (PN 5750), Age 56 years,
Occ. working as Mazdoor in the Canteen Stores
Department, Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No403, A Wing, Shraddha Appt, Shivaji
Nagar, Waliv, Vasai (E), Dist. Palghar- 401 208.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 161/2016:
Gangaram Hira Shinde (PN No.5269), aged : 52 years,
Occu. Mazdoor Canteen Stores Department,
Adalfi Mumbai-400 020.
R/O. Om Aarti Bldg. Room No.003, Badlapur-Katrap
Road, Near Chaitanya Vidyalaya, Badlapur (East),
Dist. Thane-421504.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 162/2016:
Bhaskar Gavkar (PN 6019), Age 55 years,
Occ. working as Peon in the Canteen Stores
Department, Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No. 115, Swami Sadan, Sitaram Jadhav Marg,
Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400 013.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 163/2016:
Deepak Vishnu Kharat (PN No.6236), Aged: 46 years,
Occu. LDC Canteen Stores Department, Adalfi, Mumbai-400 020.
R/O. Kalpana Bldg., R.No.1, CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai - 86.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 164/2016:
Varsha W/o Late Dashrath Nalawade (PN 6000),
Age 45 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/O. R. No.105, C Wing,Sai Prasad Bldg.,
Dipali Park, Marali Gaon,
Badlapur(W), Thane- 421 503.
24 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 165/2016:
Ms Soundari Mohan,(PN-2796)
aged: 54 years, Occu. SKIII,
Canteen Stores Depot, Secunderabad.
R/O. Flat No.502, Sai Jyothi Towers
Srinagar, Reddy Hospital Road,
Visakhapatnam -530016.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 166/2016:
Dilip Golatakar(PN 5863),
Age 54 years,
Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No. 3, Sai Nivas Chawl,
Gavdevi Tekdi, Sarvodaya Nagar,
Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400 078.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 167/2016:
Ramchandra Ghanekar (PN 5975),
Age 49 years,
Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No.207, Nilegaon, Nalasopara(W),
Tal. Vasai, Dist. Palghar- 401 203.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 168/2016:
Namdev Shinde (PN-6133),
Aged: 61 years,
Occ Retired from the Canteen Stores Department,
Area Depot, Mumbai-400 010.
R/O. R. No. 16, Gopal Shetty Chawl,
Nemil Road, Kurla(W), Mumbai-400 070.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 169/2016:
Nandankumar Ghosh (PN 2713)
aged: 51 years, Occu . SKIII,
Canteen Stores Depot Ramgarh Cantt.
R/O Loco Colony, Barkhana,
Ramgarh, Jharkhand-829102.
25 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 170/2016:
Mohd. Saleemuddin, (PN 2747),
aged: 54 years, Occu. SKIII
Canteen Stores Depot,
Secunderabad
R/O. House No.12-2-875/2,
Aasif Nagar, Zeba Bagh
Hyderabad 500015.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 171/2016:
Mahadev Kokate (PN 5669),
Age 54 years,
Occ. working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai
R/O. R. No. 2, Baburav Manjrekar Chawl,
Near Saibaba Mandir, Rangayya Chawl, Bhatwadi,
Ghatkopar(W),Mumbai-400086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 172/2016:
Mohan Bavkar (PN 5597),
Age 49 years,
Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. Om Sai Kripa Rahivasi Sangh,
Kashinath Patil Wadi, Mukti Nagar,
Waman Tukaram Patil, Marg,
Ghatla, Chembur, Mumbai- 400 071.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 173/2016:
Rajana Naga Varaha Satyanaryana, (PN 2615),
aged: 55 years, Occu. SKIII, Canteen Stores
Depot, Vishakhapattanam
R/O. Door No.58-1-235/161,
Sri Anjenaya Residency
Shanthi Nagar, NAD Kotha Road,
Visakhapatnam-530 009.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 174/2016:
Chedilal Jaiswar (PN 5753)
26 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Age 55 years,
Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Area Depot/Adelphi,
Mumbai-400 010
R/O. Behind Sion Dalda Company,
Sion, Mumbai - 400 022.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 175/2016:
Deepak Sitaram Tambe(PN 5578)
Age 50 years,
Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi,
Mumbai-400 020
R/O.Wardan Chawl No. 54, R.No. 11,
Sant Sawata Path No. 3,
Byculla (E), Mumbai-400 027.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 176/2016:
Ramdayal Kori (PN 5984)
Age 50 years,
Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Area Depot,
Mumbai-400 010
R/O. R. No.25 12 Ganesh Nagar,
Salt Pan Road, Wadala(E), Mumbai- 400086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 177/2016:
Popat Kadam (PN 5360)
Age 50 years,
Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi,
Mumbai-400 020
R/O. Bldg. No. 185, R. No. 1753,
2nd floor, Sector-5, CGS Colony,
Antop Hill, Mumbai-400 037.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 178/2016:
Vilas Shankar mane, (PN-4762),
Age 61 years, Retired as a Mazdoor
from Head Office of Canteen Stores Department,
Adalfi, Mumbai- 400 020,
R/o: R No, 576, Behind Hanuman Temple,
Shivaji Nagar, Ambarnath(E),
27 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Thane 421501.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 179/2016
Prakash Narayan Makre (PN 2655),
Age 54 years,
Occ. working as Mason in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai
R/O. Room No.1, Pankaj Building, CSD Estate,
Opp. Sarvoday Hospital, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai - 400086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 180/2016
Vithoo @ Vitthal Chalu Harer (PN-5977),
Age 50 years, presently working as a LDC in Head Office, Canteen Stores
Department, Adalfi,Mumbai
R/o: A/14, Katra Devi, Near Rajkamal Studio,
Dr.S.S.Rao Marg, Parel,
Mumbai-400012.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 181/2016
Ramchandra Bandbe (PN 5761)
Age 53 years,
Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Area Depot/Adelphi,
Mumbai-400 010
R/O. B/101, Yashoda Sadan No.1,
Saraswati Nagar, Navghar Road,
Bhaynder (E), Thane- 401105.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 183/2016
Kerbhau Pawar (PN 5105)
Age 58 years,Occ.
working as Mazdoor in the Canteen Stores Department, Area
Depot/Adelphi,Mumbai-400 010,
R/O. R. No. 1, Bldg No. 93, Sec. 07,
New Panvel (W), Raigad.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 184/2016:
Kodarbhai Gandhi (PN 6105)
Age 54 years,Occ.
working as Mazdoor in the Canteen Stores Department,
28 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Ahmedabad Depot.
R/O. R. No. B-5, CSD Staff qtrs.,
Opp. Green Cinema, Near Camp Sadar Bazar
Ahemadabad Cantt.- 380003.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 185/2016:
Laxmi Paswan (PN 5410),
Age 51 years,
Occ. working as Carpenter in the
Canteen Stores Department,
0.7/3, CSD Residential Complex
Ramgarh Cantt, Jharkhand.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 186/2016:
Ms Smitha Venugopal, (PN No.2669),
aged: 55 years, Occu. UDC,
Canteen Stores Depot,
Secunderabad R/O. Flat No.16,
Second Floor, Misha Towers
Opposite Football Ground,
Tirumulgherry, Secunderabad - 500015.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 187/2016:
Ms. Ashwini Ashok Kosambia (PN-2703),
Age 55 years, presently working as a Upper Division Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department, Mumbai
R/o: Rook Avenue, C/404- E- Plot, Near
Hindustan Naka, Kandivali (West)
Mumbai- 400 067.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 188/2016:
Malluram Kori (PN 5598)
Age 48 years, Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department, Area Depot,
Mumbai-400 010
R/O. R. No.25 12 Ganesh Nagar,
Salt Pan Road, Wadala(E), Mumbai- 400086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 189/2016:
Prabhakar Wagh (PN 5754)
Age 54 years,
Occ. working as Mazdoor in the
29 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Canteen Stores Department, Base Depot,
Mumbai-400 010.
R/O. R. No.2, Parijat Building, CSD Estate,
Golibar Road, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai- 400086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 190/2016:
Laldhari Pandit (PN5798),
Age : 54 years,
Occ. working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
R/O. P.D.Karai Area, CSD Depot,
Ramgarh Cantt, Jharkhand.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 191/2016:
Solomon Lucas (PN No.2616),
aged: 54 years, Occu. SKIII,
Canteen Stores Depot, Secunderabad
R/O. House No.30-79/10/21,
Shiva Nagar, Kanaji Guda,
Trimulgherry, Sikandrabad-500015.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 192/2016:
Jagdish Hanumant Naik (PN No.5717),
aged: 50 years, Occu. LDC, Canteen Stores
Department, Adalfi, Mumbai-400 020
R/O. 4, Parijat Building, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 193/2016:
Vishvas Waradkar (PN 5622)
Age 54 years,Occ.working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Area Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai-400 010,
R/O. R. No. 3, Pankaj Bldg.
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai- 400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 194/2016:
Ramesh Agaiah Dandem (PN No.6237),
Aged: 48 years, Occu. Mazdoor
Head office of Canteen Stores Department,
Adalfi, Mumbai-400 020
30 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
R/O. Pankaj Bldg., R,No.7, CSD Estate,
Golibar Road, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai -400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 195/2016:
Sangam Umesh Kumar, (PN 2820)
aged: 54 years, Occu. SKIII
Canteen Stores Depot,
Secunderabad
R/O. House No.12-2-875/2,
Aasif Nagar, Zeba Bagh,
Hyderabad - 500015.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 196/2016:
Vinod Mohite (PN 6177),
Age 58 years,
Occ. working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Base Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No.8, Vikas Bldg
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai- 400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 197/2016:
Bathina Augustine (PN 2914),
aged: 49 years, Occu. SKIII,
Canteen Stores Depot,
Vishakhapattanam
R/O. Quarter No.151,
Siddhartha Nagar, Old ITI Junction,
Visakhapatnam-530 007.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 198/2016:
Gautam Mohite (PN 5125),
Age 54 years,
Occ. working as Mukadam in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Base Depot/Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/O. R. No.5, Parijat Bldg.,
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai- 400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 199/2016:
31 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Tukaram Vithal Kale, (PN 5000)
Aged: 71 years,
Occ: Retired as Mazdoor from the Base Depot,
Canteen Store Department, Mumbai
R/O. R. No.1/9, CGS Colony, L.B.S. Road,
Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.200/2016:
Muktabai W/o. Vishnu Landge (PN-6308)
Age 54 years,
Occ. Sweeper, Base Depot, Mumbai
R/o.: R.No.107, First Floor, Hira Apartment,
Mahagiri Koliwada,
Near Ekvira Mitra Mandal,
Thane (W)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.201/2016:
Khandu Shinde (PN-5970)
Age 56 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/o. R.No.07, Vishram Bldg.,
CSD Estate, Golibar road,
Ghatkopar (W) Mumbai 400086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.202/2016:
Harishchandra Bhojraj Pandi (PN-5762)
Age 56 years,
Occ. Peon,
Canteen Stores Department,
Adalfi, Mumbai 400020.
R/o. 301, 3rd floor, Sai Harsh Apartment,
Amarnath Belavli Road,
Opposite Bhopi Bunglow,
Badlapur (West), Dist. Thane- 421503.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.203/2016:
Ulhas Ranpise (PN-6183)
32 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Age 45 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/o. R.No.8, CSD Estate,
Opp. Sarvodaya Hospital, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 4000864.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.204/2016:
Ms. Koyadda Tulasi (PN-8014)
Age 55 years,
Occ. SGC,
Canteen stores depot.,
Secunderabad, R/o. 1-9-53/3,
Near Prashamesha Hospital,
Alwal, Secunderabad - 500010.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.205/2016:
Dolat Rathod (PN-5601)
Age 49 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/o. R.No.203, Mangal Kutir, A Wing, Opp.
Old Viva College, M.B. Estate Road,
Virar (W), Tal. Vasai,-Dist-Palghar-401303.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.206/2016:
Bhiresh Kumar Limbhu (PN-6104)
Age 54 years,
Working as Mazdoor in the Canteen Stores Department,
Ahmedabad Depot.,
R/o. R.No.B-6, CSD Staff Qtrs.,
Opp. Green Cinema, near Camp Sadar Bazar,
Ahmedabad Cantt - 380003.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.207/2016:
Siddharth B. Sawant (PN-5847)
Age 50 years,
33 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Occ. Working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen stores Department, Area Depo,
Mumbai 400010.
R/o. R.No.10, Shriniwas Bldg. Grampanchayat Vichambe,
New Panvel, Raigad.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.208/2016:
Bajirao Wani (PN-5980)
Age 49 years,
Occ. Working as LDC in the Canteen Stores Department,
Area depot/Adelphi, Mumbai,
R/o. R.No. BMK Compound, shivshakti Chawl,
Old Bull Market, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400070.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.209/2016:
Rachakonda Venkata Naga
Lakshminarayana Dinkar (PN-2893),
Age 53 years,
Occ. SKIII,
Canteen Stores Depot,
Secunderabad R/o. Door. No.50-22-4,
Flat No.301, Sri Sai Srinivasam,
Apartments, Seethamadhara,
Visakhapatnam - 530013.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.210/2016:
Sureshchandra Pal (PN-5983)
Age 48 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Area Depot/ Adelphi, Mumbai.
R/o. R.No.4, Shree Ganesh Krupa Chawl No.2,
Shree Krupa Nagar,
Diva (E), Thane 400 612.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.211/2016:
Deepak Tambe (PN-5577)
Age 50 years,
34 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, Mumbai 400020.
R/o. Wardan Chawl No.54, R.No.11,
Sant Sawata Path No.3,
Byculla (E), Mumbai 400027.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.212/2016:
Mr. Koyadda Laxmaiah, (PN-8015)
Age 51 years,
Occ. SKIII,
Canteen Stores Depot,
Secunderabad R/o. 1-9-53/3,
Near Prashamesha Hospital,
Alwal, Secunderabad - 500010.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.213/2016:
Narsayya Rammayya Koneri (PN-5983)
Age 58 years,
Occ. Mazdoor,
Canteen Stores Department
BASE Depot, Mumbai 400033.
R/o. Room No.109,
Vighnar Raghunath Maharak
Road No.3, Masjid, Mumbai 400 003.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.214/2016:
Shrikrishna Budukale (PN-4877)
Age 59 years,
Occ. Working as Peon in the
Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi,
Mumbai 400020.
R/o. A-3/205, Srinagar Complex,
Near Mahaganpati Temple,
Titwala (E), Thane 421605.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.215/2016:
Ajay Kumar Saxena (PN-2801)
Age 49 years,
35 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Occ. SKIII, Canteen Stores Depot., Mumbai.
R/o. Qtr. No.1, New Married Accomodation,
CSD Estate, Golibar Road,
Ghatkopar, Mumbai 400086.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.216/2016:
Jayram Kondiram Jadhav (PN-5979)
Age 49 years,
Occ. Watchman
Canteen Stores Department, Adalfi,
Mumbai 400020.
R/o. 3rd Floor, Dharanidhar Apartment,
Plot No.304, B Cabin Road,
Near Anand Park,
Ambernath (East), Dist Thane.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.217/2016:
Dyandev Ramchandra Kamble (PN-6001)
Age 57 years,
Occ. Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adalfi, Mumbai-400020.
R/o. 505, Jai Ambe Mata Society,
Near High Way, Chembur,
Mumbai 400071.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.218/2016:
Ms. Pendyala Shobha (PN-5983)
Age 54 years,
Occ. Accountant,
Canteen Stores Depot, Secunderabad,
R/o. House No.12-251, Telephone Colony,
RR Hyderabad-500097.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.219/2016:
Suryakant Ghag (PN-5570)
Age 50 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
36 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Area Depot, Mumbai-400 010.
R/o. R.No.6, Vikas Building, CSD estate,
Golibar Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400086
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.220/2016:
Raghunath Chogule (PN-5847)
Age 50 years,
Occ. Working as Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Area Depo, Mumbai.-400010.
R/o. R.No.9, Shriniwas Building, Grampanchayat Vichambe.
New Panvel, Raigad
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.221/2016:
Anant Saitawadekar (PN-5990)
Age 52 years,
Occ. Working as Watchman in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adalphi, Mumbai-400020.
R/o. R.No.172, Ahire Gaon,
Jyoti Nagar, Dombivali (E), Thane 421201.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.222/2016:
Keshav Narayan Mali (PN-5656)
Son of Narayan Mali, Age 43 years,
Occ. Mazdoor, Canteen Stores Department,
Mumbai-400033.
R/o. R.No.3, Chawl No.2, Tulinj Road, Baba Niwas,
Nalasopara (East), Dist Thane.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.223/2016:
Madhukar Laxman Patil (PN-5983)
Age 58 years,
Occ. Mazdoor in the
Canteen Stores Department,
Adalphi, Mumbai. 400020.
R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Antophill Soalt,
Pen Road, Room No. F N G 36 and half
Opp. Manisha Chitrashala,
37 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Wadala (E) Mumbai 400037.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.225/2016:
Ms Sarada Padmanabhan (PN-2930)
Age 54 years,
Occ. SKIII
Canteen Stores Department,
Secunderabad,
R/o. Flat No.502, Sai Jyothi Towers,
Srinagar, Reddy Hospital Road,
Vishakhapatnam 530016.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.230/2016:
Ms. Chaya Shamsunder Kadam (PN-8020)
Age 59 years,
Presently working as a Selection Grade Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department, Mumbai.
R/o. Pandurang Krupa Apartment,
Ground Floor, Tisai Mandir Road,
Tisgaon, PO Katemanivali,
Tal. Kalyan, Dist. Thane 421306.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.643/2015
Geeta K.(PN-2745), Age 54 years
presently working as Lower Division Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department, J.P.Nagar,
7th Phase, Bangalore.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.644/2015:
S. Raghu(PN-2920), Age 53 years,
presently working as Lower Division Clerk,
Canteen Stores Department, Bangalore.
R/o: Qrt No. 1, CSD Residential Complex,
Trinity Church Road, Agram P.O.
Bangalore- 560 007.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.645/2015:
Tamil Selvan T (PN-2696)
38 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
Age 51 years,
Presently Working as
Lower Division Clerk
Canteen Stores Department, Banglore,
R/o:- No.7, 'E', 1st Cross,
Ulsoor Post, Bangalore-560008.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.646/2015:
Agatha Marshal (PN-2856)
Age 52 years,
Presently Working as
Lower Division Clerk
Canteen Stores Department, Banglore,
R/o:- No.3, 3rd Cross, Maddamma Garden Extn.
Benson Town PO
Bangalore 560007.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.647/2015:
Chanderkanta Koul (PN-8037)
Age 48 years,
Presently Working as
Lower Division Clerk
Canteen Stores Department, Banglore,
R/o:- 402, Mayflower Garden Apartment,
Nagaver Palaya, Main Road,
C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore-560093.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.648/2015:
P.K. Vijayan (PN-2864)
Age 50 years,
Presently Working as
Lower Division Clerk
Canteen Stores Department, Banglore,
R/o:- B-09, Golden Enclave 2,
5th Cross, 2nd Main, Soundarya Nagar,
Sidedahalli, Bangalore-560073.
...Applicants.
(By Advocate : Shri R P Saxena, Shri Anurag R. Saxena, Ms.L.B. Patne, Shri
39 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
S.R. Atre and Shri Vicky Nagrani in OA Nos. 643, 644 of 2015).
Versus.
1. General Manager,
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, 119, M.K. Road,
Mumbai- 400 020.
2. Joint General Manager,
Canteen Stores Department,
Adelphi, 119, M.K. Road,
Mumbai- 400 020.
3. Union of India, through
Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi- 110 001.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate : Shri R.R. Shetty)
Reserved on : 10.10.2019.
Pronounced on: 12.12.2019.
ORDER
PER: R.N. SINGH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) The present OAs were filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for a direction to the Respondents to produce the record and proceedings and after examining the same, to direct the Respondents to grant the first and second financial upgradation to the applicants under the A.C.P. Scheme in the appropriate pay scale w.e.f. 1995 and 2007 respectively, after counting the casual service of the applicants from the date of initial appointment, i.e. October, 1983 and further to direct the respondents to re-
fix the pay scale of the applicants according to the Scheme of ACP.
40 OA Nos.642 of 2015and 163 other connected OAs.
Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to grant interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of arrears of pay arising out of grant of first and second financial upgradation w.e.f. 1995 and 2007 respectively. Further, declaration has been sought to the effect that the applicants are entitled for being considered for grant of the benefits from the date of their initial appointment for grant of all consequential benefits and also to the effect that the applicants are entitled to get benefits of A.C.P. Scheme on the basis of taking into account their services on casual basis and also counting the total period of service along with arrears and interest. The applicants have further prayed for direction to the respondents to grant the benefits as were granted by the Tribunal in O.A. No.58/1997.
2. The OAs were heard by a Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Shri R. Vijaykumar, Member (A) and Hon'ble Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Member (J).
There being a difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Members, the OAs have been referred to me as third member. The Hon'ble Member (A) has dismissed the OAs vide order dated (Nil) and the operative paras thereof read as under:-
"81. In our preliminary discussion on the aspect of limitation, we had considered various rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court whereby limitation would not apply for adopting a judgment that had been passed in rem and no discrimination could be made despite the fact that fence-sitters like the applicants came with their claims well after the beneficiaries in the previous judgment. As we have now discovered, there are no judgments available that can serve as precedents for the present set of applicants. Therefore, the disability of limitation applies squarely to the cases of the applicants and invites dismissal of the OA on that ground alone. Even on the aspect of merits, we have examined all their legal pleas and found them lacking in substance or relevance. When the circumstances of the initial recruitment of the applicants on casual, daily-rated basis and their continuance in service on fixed pay and then their regularization through the medium of an examination on the dates after which they passed those examinations have become 41 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
clear, could they ever have possessed any rights or legitimate expectations de hors the statute governing recruitment for regularization or make any other claim of parity with regular recruits during the period from initial appointment until regularization? These questions immediately invite an answer in the negative considering the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umadevi supra followed by the principles of Umadevi as itemized by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mrs. Seema Bansal supra. It is plain and evident that the applicants were appointed without reference to rules and regulations in an arbitrary and plainly unconstitutional manner and in response to their repeated representations including perhaps of their sponsors in the respondent department, they were regularized based on their having completed 240 days of service in the period in question from 1977 to 1986. Therefore, even on merits, the applicants have failed to make any useful case.
82. As we have observed above, after the Union of India through the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Personnel and Training had established a system of recruitment through the Staff Selection Commission in 1977, the respondents merrily continued to recruit people at their will and pleasure from their local area and without even attempting to refer to the Employment Exchange and then when the matter came before various Tribunals, the facts of their original employment were not brought to light either in their submissions in reply or in their arguments. Even at the present moment, despite summoning the documents, only some bare information has been provided but the details of correspondence between the Board Office in Delhi, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Personnel, and the Department of Labour have not been produced or facts disclosed. This Tribunal managed to secure an understanding of what actually transpired by looking at a host of previous orders of this Tribunal from a variety of Benches and has perhaps partially gained some knowledge of the truth. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things to direct, the Department of Personnel and Training and the Ministry of Defence, by way of a copy of this judgment sent to their Secretaries in name cover, to consider initiating a vigilance inquiry into the manner in which the respondents named in this application have conducted themselves with consequent impacts on the exchequer.
83. The OA is accordingly dismissed. Considering the venality of the applicants, costs of Rs. 10,000/- are imposed on each of them for payment to the respondents within two weeks of receipt of a certified copy of these orders and if they default, Respondents are at liberty to collect the amounts by any means known to law.
3. However, the Hon'ble Member (J) has partly allowed the OA and the operative paras thereof read as under:-
"17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Official Liquidator(Supra), Ajit Babu(supra), Sub Inspector Roop Lal(supra), once the issue of extension of 42 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
benefits of counting of past services of similarly placed persons has been decided by various benches of this Tribunal and has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Courts, the same should have been implemented by the respondents. It would be against the judicial discipline and against the decision of the coordinate Benches and of Hon'ble High Courts in series of cases including in the Karan Anant Purao(supra), if we take different view in the case of applicants who are similarly placed.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that the OA deserves to be partly allowed with directions to the respondents to extend the benefit of the services rendered by the applicants as casual employees in the post of LDC prior to the date of their regularization for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under the ACP scheme. However, the applicants shall not be entitled for interest on the arrears of pay etc. on the grant of the benefits of financial upgradation. The respondents are directed to comply with the directions within four months of the receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs.
4. Further, there is also difference in dissent amongst the Hon'ble Members in the matter of points/issues framed by them. The notes exchanged by the Hon'ble Members for the dissent order/judgment have also been endorsed to me. The note dated 26.04.2019 of the Hon'ble Member (J) reads as under:-
"Respected Sir, I have carefully gone through the proposed Judgment authored by your good self and put up before me for approval. With due respect, I beg to differ and do not concur with the same as it appear to be contrary to the settled proposition of law.
Your good self has mentioned at Para 10-11 Para 6 (a) of the proposed judgment that the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.58/97 titled B. Saikumar and others vs. CSD granted financial benefit to the applicants therein , while placing reliance on the case of Lachit Hazarika vs. UOI (O.A.No.169/1990). Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP No.32410/1999 upheld the said order of the Tribunal. The matter was taken by the respondents to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide C.A.No.5121/2005. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.3.2010 dismissed the Civil Appeal, making observations that the impugned judgment shall not operate as a precedent in future. So even if we ignore the judgment of Ernakulam Bench in the case of B. Saikumar the other judgment relied upon by the applicants, which have been discussed in the proposed judgment from page 13 to 18 cannot be ignored.
It is also observed that in O.A.No.193/2011 i.e. Kalan Anant Perao and ors vs. UOI and Another decided on 12.09.11, in similar set of facts, financial benefits were granted to the applicants, while observing that the regularisation of the 43 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
applicants was in continuance of the previous service rendered by them, therefore this period was entitled to be counted for the ACP Scheme. In this case, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.755/2000 All India Naval Clerks Association vs. UOI and others decided on 20.09.2002. Review Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala was dismissed relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dwijeu Chandra and Matuivanan. It is further noted that the judgment in the case of Karan Anant Purao has been followed by several other benches , such as Chandigarh, Punjab, J&K and Haryana. It is observed that the representations filed review before the Hon'ble High Court in same matter. In W.P.No.10951/2017 etc the review petition was disposed off while referring the judgment of this bench in Karan Anant Purao (supra) and the respondents were directed to implement the directions of the Tribunal as set out in the orders. Thus, in the circumstances, with utmost respect, I submit my dissent note in brief, with a request to reconsider the entire case in the light of the judgment referred above.
Sd/-
(Ravinder Kaur) Member (J) Dt.26.04.2019
5. Thereafter, Hon'ble Member (A) has replied to the above note vide his note/clarifications dated 07.05.2019 & 08.05.2019, which reads as under:-
"Dated 07.05.2019 In your notings above on the proposed orders, you have highlighted the following:
a). Although the Ernakulam Bench in its orders and the Hon'ble High Court judgment may be ignored, the other judgments relied upon by the applicant cannot be ignored.
b). OA No. 193/2001 of Karan Anant Purao Vs. UoI & Anr relates to a similar set of facts.
Further that financial benefit granted treating the regularization of those Applicants as in continuation of previous casual service rendered, which was then entitled to ACP.
c). The Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala was dismissed relying on Hon'ble Apex Court in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar & Ors. Vs. UoI & Anr. This issue is not clear since the Writ Petition filed against OA.No.58/1997 (B. Sasikumar & Ors) before the Hon'ble High Court of Ernakulamin OP No. 32410/1999 dt. 04.08.2003did not discuss any precedent judgments. Presumably, your notings referred to an appeal against the Ernakulam Bench in OA No.755/2000 of All India Naval Clerks 44 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
Association Vs. UoI decided on 20.09.2002 since that OA referred and relied on this particular judgment. Perhaps too, the reference may be to OA No. 420/2006 discussed at para 68 but that case is also not useful for the Applicants.
d). The orders of this Bench in OA No. 193/2011 as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay have been followed by several Benches and as mentioned in the proposed order, some SLPS are pending for decision.
These aspects are responded below:
a). No precedents have been referred in the Ernakulam Case either before the Bench as recorded in its order orders or by the Hon'ble High Court as recorded in its judgement. In fact, neither the order or the judgment relied on any precedents and are very cryptic. Since the Hon'ble Apex Court has declared those decisions to be in personam, we would have to look for a ratio that could reasonably be drawn from those orders/judgments. However, as noted in proposed orders, the reliance by that Bench on previous orders of the Guwahati Bench were plainly wrong in reading the relevant facts and there was nothing to be drawn in the orders passed in equity by the Guwahati Bench for an unrelated issue of getting a second chance for writing the qualifying test. This has been fully discussed. Fortunately, issues judicial discipline arise from ignoring the Ernakulam Bench orders considering that they are devoid of any ratio as may be seen at Pages 86-88 these orders. However, we have only stopped at the point of stating that we are not able to rely on the orders of Ernakulam Bench or any of its contents and have not proceeded beyond because those orders have become final notwithstanding any issues of similarity facts (not law). Regarding the other Tribunal orders/judgments cited by the applicant in support, these have been discussed in great detail and the orders/judgments concerned are available in the case of OA.No.193/2011. The discussion on those cases is contained at Page 14-17, 24-28, 89-105 of which at Page 100, the case decided by a Full Bench (3 Members) of OANos.434/1989 & 609/1989 which was the precedent for OA No. 755/2000 has been discussed by reference to the original orders contained in the case record of OA No. 193/2011.
b). As we have clearly set out, the applicants had claimed and their claim was accepted, that they were not back-door entries and had come through the employment exchange in the case of OANo.193/2011 Karan Anant Purao decided by this Bench. In the present case, the same claim made but we have verified the facts and found that it was patently false. In the cases of persons who are not back-door entries and who are regularized, the law would evidently be different. In the 45 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
case persons who are clearly back-door entries appointed irregularly and illegally de hors the Recruitment Rules, the applicable rulings and orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will be different. Therefore, the facts in our case, as presented, lead to a different set of outcomes. It is another matter if, on this basis, we then proceed to examine as Division Bench, the aspect of whether fraud or constructive fraud took place in OA.No.193/2011, and if the issue of recall would arise. If recall is not required, the orders would continue be final for those applicants. If recall is necessary, then the present orders would apply if the applicants are placed on the same pedestal i.e. brought down from their alleged regular status to back-door status.
On the aspect of ACP Scheme where this Bench in OA.No.193/2011 had ventured to examine the philosophy of the Scheme, we have discussed the views of the Hon'ble Apex Court at Pages 32-34 and Pages 42-44 wherein such liberties were not available to the Tribunal. This Bench has to be guided by the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court and not to perpetuate errors in previous orders of this Tribunal or of judgments of lower courts as noted at Page 41. Further, in pages 47-48 and 50-51, the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court are binding this Bench and the argument of judicial discipline cannot be employed to override the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
c). In regard to the reliance of this Bench in OANo.193/2011 on the decision in OA No.
755/2000 and certain other decisions these have been discussed at length in these orders. In this connection, please refer page 29 of the orders wherein the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the aspect of judicial discipline has been considered. It is plain that High Courts including this Tribunal cannot ignore the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court without any tangible reason. The Hon'ble Apex Court found that various Benches had either ignored or by passed the ratio of the judgments and therefore, reiterated the rule judicial discipline. In the present case, once distinguish the present set applicants by having discovered the true facts of their being back-door entry, the relevance of OANo.193/2011 vanishes. Even we attribute the same facts and circumstances to the applicants in OA No. 193/2011, it would then follow that the orders in that OA ignored two major rulings the Hon'ble Apex Court in a) Umadevi b) Aghore Nath Dey (page 45) the latter had distinguished and clarified the judgment in Official Liquidator supra. If this Bench is compelled to follow OA No. 193/2011, we would be falling into the vice of disobeying the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex court in the above two judgments. This is perhaps a graver alternative. The fact that there is no ambiguity in the ACP Act as had been found in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar as discussed in Pages 89-
92, and that the provisions relevant to the cases of these two persons ((Dwijen
and Mathivanan) had already been incorporated as para 46 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
14 of the ACP Guidelines compels this Bench then follow the prescriptions for strict construal at page 32 & 33 of the proposed orders (para 18-19).
d). It is of course discomfiting that many Benches of this Tribunal including this Bench in some previous OAs have followed the orders of this Bench in OA No. 193/2011. Perhaps, all those applicants had claimed that they were regularly employed back-door appointees. Some of those cases may have become final by today. However, they would have to be considered on par with OA No. 193/2011 and in that sense, their facts differ from our facts as found in the present case and the applicable laws in their case will differ from the applicable laws in the present case. In the present case, not only from the aspect of limitation and the non-availability of any judgments in rem, the shadow of Umadevi is cast deep and rules out any relief for the applicants.
In the event that you would still like to record a dissent, as per the practice in such cases, your specific dissent may be brought out so that it may be considered in a regular Division Bench sitting and referred to the Chairman for nominating a third Member to examine the specific point (s) of dissent.
Sd/-
(R. Vijaykumar) Mamber (A) Dt.07.05.19"
xxxxxxxxxx "Dated 08.05.2019.
Regarding your mention of 240 days as being treated as regular, this was the Puthuparmbil judgment of the 1990s which has been discussed in the orders after which it is mentioned that Umadevi considered this wrong. That applies from the start although it may not affect cases that become final prior to 2006. the Ernakulam case straddles that period and I can only presume that the Supreme Court quietly applied Art 142 rather its own judgment. Ernakulam order of CAT & judgment of the High Court discuss no laws and perhaps have followed Puthuparmbil implicitly. Of course, CAT Ernakulam relied on the previous Guwahati order without, it seems, referring on reading to it. For now, not only are applicants fence sitters but the law is clear and Supreme Court has also held that K.C. Sharma cannot be employed to perpetuate illegalities.
Sd/-
(R. Vijaykumar) Member (A) 47 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
M(J-RK)"
********** The aforesaid note dated 07.05.2019 & 08.05.2019 has been responded to by the Hon'ble Member (J) as under:-
"Hon'ble Member (A), I have carefully perused note dated 08.05.2019 from your goodself in response to my dissent note dated 26.04.2019 received by post at Delhi during vacations. With utmost respect, I do not agree with the same. Formal dissent note from me shall follow on receipt of duly signed final proposed judgment authored by your goodself.
Kind Regards Sd/-
(Ravinder Kaur) Member(J) Dt.10.06.2019"
********** " Dated:14.06.19.
POINTS OF DIFFERENCE
1. Limitation:
The applicants were regularized w.e.f. 1.3.1989 and granted ACP whereas these applications have been filed on 22.12.2014. Member (A) has discussed this issue in the context that in case the precedent orders and judgments are held to be in rem', only in such a case can limitation be overcome. Member (J) has expressed the view that the precedent orders of this Tribunal have already granted the benefits claimed to similarly placed persons and therefore, the respondents should themselves have granted the benefits claimed by the applicants.
2. Unfair Grant of Benefit:
That grant of benefits to the applicants would amount to ' Stealing a March' over persons who were recruited regularly through the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) after 26.09.1977. Member (J) has taken the view that since the applicants have not claimed seniority from date of engagement of casual service, this does not arise. Member (A) has taken the view that the ploy of pressing the issue of seniority in the application but withdrawing it 48 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
at the arguments stage cannot deter this Tribunal from considering the effect of any discrimination that will result and grant benefits contrary to the legislative intent in the Parliamentary Legislation that created in SSC. Some of the casual employees who had been employed by the respondents had taken the route of applying for and joining the respondents service by appearing in the SSC. In case the casual employees who were regularized through the written test and typing test in 1999 get benefits of ACP from date of start of casual service, they will gain a higher salary than persons who decided to take the route prescribed by Parliamentary Legislation of the SSC. In other terms, such persons who were in casual service and them entered into regular service through the SSC would not get the benefit of their casual service for ACP in terms of the categorical position of ACP Rules defining ' regular service' and in such a case, will lose benefits in comparison.
3. Application of Umadevi:
On application of Umadevi judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present applicants were regularized after the written test and typing test in 1989. This action of regularization anti- dates the judgment in Umadevi. However, the nature of the present application is to seek an anti-dating of the regularization and, as argued, to the extent of allowing a claim for grant of ACP by counting the service from date of start of casual service and in effect, ante-dating the orders of regularization of the applicants in view of the categorical position of the definition of ' regular service' in the ACP Rules, However, such ante-dating cannot artificially be limited to the aspect of grant of ACP and will have to be extended to claims of seniority etc as viewed from a legal stand point although applicants may now have not pressed this aspect.
4. Judicial Discipline:
The reliance of the orders of this Tribunal in Karan Anant Purao passed by this bench of the Tribunal and which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in W.P.No.1202/2012, as also decisions of coordinate benches required adherence to the principles of judicial discipline, especially since the applicants in all the cases are similarly placed. The determination between conflicting views on this point of difference would also lead to a determination of the character of the precedents as being ' in rem' or ' in personam' and impact thereof on the aspect of limitation.
Sd/-
(R. Vijaykumar) Member (A) Dt.14.06.2019."49 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
6. In reply to the above, the Hon'ble Member (J) has submitted her note dated 25.06.2019, which reads as under:-
" I have gone through the aforesaid proposed points of difference. However, respectfully, I do not concur with the same as on face of it, it appears as if we are justifying one view out of the two. Accordingly, I propose the point of difference for reference as under:
1. When the benefit of counting of past services for the purposes of extending the benefit of ACP/MACP scheme has been granted to several persons, in compliance of directions of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 58/1997, upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP No. 32410/1999 and in compliance of the directions of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 193/2011, upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in W.P. No. 1202/2012 out of a batch of similarly placed 410 persons, the remaining persons of that batch should have been accorded the same benefits by the respondents at their own or not.
2. In case the respondents have not accorded such benefits to the remaining persons and such persons have approached this Tribunal in a group or individually, this Tribunal is bound to grant the same benefits as has been granted by the various Benches including this Bench, affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court(s) and implemented by the respondents in view of the law of precedence and keeping in view judicial discipline and propriety.
3. In case there is delay in approaching this Tribunal by such remaining persons and they have filed applications seeking condonation of such delay with prima-facie bonafide reason, whether this Tribunal shall condone the same or not keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.C.Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 721."
7. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Member (A) has vide his note dated 25.06.2019, referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chairman and the note dated 25.06.2019 reads as under:-
"These issues raised in para 1-3 above have been attempted to be identified as points of difference under the headings ' Limitation' and ' Judicial Discipline' and relevant citation for and against are discussed in the orders proposed in OA and may be considered by the Hon'ble Chairman while ruling on the matter.
We may now refer the orders with above views to Hon'ble Chairman, PB.
Sd/-
(R. Vijaykumar) 50 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
Member (A) Dt.25.06.19."
8. Though, admittedly the basic facts are not in dispute among the parties of the aforesaid OAs or in the order(s) of the Hon'ble Members of the Division Bench of this Tribunal. However, it may precisely be enumerated as under:-
The applicants in the aforesaid OAs along with various others were engaged by the respondents on various dates during the period 1977-1986 to the post of Lower Division Clerk (hereinafter referred to as 'LDC') under the different offices of the respondents on casual basis in the Canteen and Store Department (CSD). The respondents at their own, as a special case, accorded sanction for regularization of these daily rated LDCs who have been working in the department from 1977 to 1986 and such one time sanction was received in respect of about 400 daily rated casual employees/LDCs whose names appeared in the enclosure of the letter bearing No. 3/A-1/1146/5002 dt.20/07/1983 (Annexure A-
3). Such regularization was also subject to passing of the test conducted by the department which consisted of written test and typing test. On being found successful in such test the 400 such casual employees including the applicants were regularized w.e.f. 01.03.1998. Though, the applicants in many of the aforesaid OAs have prayed for regularisation of their services from the date of their initial engagement as LDCs on daily wages basis with consequential benefits of seniority, etc, however, during course of hearing the applicants have not pressed their such prayer and they have claimed only the benefits of counting of their services as LDCs under the respondents prior to their regularisation w.e.f.51 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
01.03.1989 for consideration for grant of ACP/MACP benefits. A few of 13 individuals out of the aforesaid 400 employees regularized LDCs approached Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal vide O.A.No.58/1997, seeking regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment as daily rated LDCs with consequential benefits in the case of B. Sasikumar & Others versus Union of India and Others and the same was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.1999 (Annexure A-4) and after being challenged the same was affirmed by the The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide order/judgment dated 04.08.1999 in O.P. No.32410/1999 (S) (Annexure A-5) and on being further challenged, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP No.5125/2005, however, observed that "However, we direct that the impugned judgment shall nor operate as a precedent in future". As the benefits of the judgment in B. Sasikumar (supra) was not accorded to all the similarly placed aforesaid 400 LDCs, a few of them approached this Bench of the Tribunal vide different OAs, one being O.A.No.193/2011 titled Karan Anant Purao and Others versus Union of India and Others and the same alongwith a batch of four other Original Applications was allowed vide a common order/judgment dated 12.09.2011 (Annexure A-8) with direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of services rendered by the applicants prior to the date of regularisation for the purposes of grant of financial upgradation under the ACP scheme. Following the judgment dated 12.09.2011 of this Bench of the Tribunal in Karan Anant Purao (supra), etc a batch of around 24 Original Applications one being, OA.No.508/2011 titled Mrs Usha V. Ramgade @ Menda & Others versus Union of India and Others were further partly allowed by this Bench of the Tribunal vide a common order/judgment dated 52 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
26.07.2012 holding that the applicants entitled to get the benefit of ACP reckoning of temporary/casual services rendered by them as LDCs prior to their regularisation. Against the aforesaid order/ judgment dated 12.09.2011 and 26.07.2012 various writ petitions were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay and such petitions one being Writ Petition (L) 1202 of 2012 titled Union of India and Another versus Karan Anant Purao was dismissed vide order/judgment dated 24.07.2013 (Annexure A-10). The para 22 of the said judgment dated 24.07.2013 reads as under:-
"22. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the CAT, Mumbai Bench does not cal for any interference, particularly since limited relief of counting the service from initial date of engagement for the purpose of financial upgradation under ACPS has been granted to the respondent employees by taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."
9. Further, Writ Petition No.344/2013 titled Union of India and Another versus S. Shanti and Others and batch of writ petitions on the similar issue were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay and the same were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide a common order / judgment dated 26 / 7 / 2013 and such judgment reads as under:-
" P.C.:-
Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petitioners are heard finally.
2. It is agreed by both the parties that these matters stand covered by our order and judgment dated 24th July 2013 in a group of writ petitions the first of which is Writ Petition (Ldg.) No.1202/2012 in case of Union of India v. Karan Anant Purao.
3. In the circumstances, the above writ petitions are dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs."
10. The order of this Tribunal along with the order/judgment of Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay in Karan Anant Rao (supra) was challenged 53 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petition bearing SLP No.10226/2015 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.07.2015. The nine individuals out of the aforesaid 400 employees further approached the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal by filing O.A.No.245/2014 and the same was disposed of by this Tribunal by following its earlier order dated 15.05.2014 in O.A.No.1609/HR/2012. Para 5 to 7 thereof reads as under:-
"5. It is observed that O.A.No.1609/HR/2012 was decided through order dated 15.05.2014 as follows:-
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. The issue is no longer res-integra as the Coordinate Bench of CAT, Mumbai, had disposed of 74 OAs allowing the claim of persons similarly situated to the applicants to count the service rendered by them from the initial date of their engagement for ACP benefits and the Bombay High Court had dismissed the judicial review filed in this regard by the respondents through General Manager, CSD Mumbai who is respondent no.2 in the present OA also. The Courts have held time and again that similarly situated employees have to be allowed the benefit of judicial pronouncements and individual claimants should not have to approach the Tribunal/Courts seeking the same relief order and over again. It is also observed that a similar matter had been decided through order dated 02.08.2013 in OA No.1439/PB/2012 (Annexure A-1), but it appears that the respondents are bent upon opposing the claims of similarly situated employees seeking identical relief. This attitude of the respondent Department is to be deprecated in no uncertain terms.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to complete the action regarding review of the cases of the applicants regarding date from which ACP/MACP benefits are to be allowed to them after counting the period of service rendered by the applicants from the date of their initial engagement in the service of the respondent Department."
7. Hence, the present OA is also disposed of with direction to the respondents to review the cases of the applicants regarding date from which ACP/MACP benefits are to be allowed. Such review may be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order being served upon the respondents and arrears may also be released to the applicants, as 54 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
due to them, within this period. MA No.060/00370/2014 is disposed of as allowed. No costs."
11. Another, similarly placed persons out of those 400 persons approached this bench of the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.453/2014 titled Bharati Uday Vaidya vs. Union of India and Others and following the previous judgment and the order/judgment dated 24.07.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court, the Tribunal disposed of the OA with a direction to grant similar benefits to the applicants by reckoning their services of daily wages for the purposes of ACP / MACP benefits. Various persons out of the aforesaid 400 employees working under the respondents approached this Tribunal by way of OA.Nos.250,251,252,253 & 254/2014 and such original applications were further disposed of by this Tribunal following the judgment of this Tribunal passed in O.A.No.193/2011 and others that is the case of Karan Anant Purao (supra) vide common order/judgment dated 25.11.2016.The common order/judgment dated 25.11.2016 of this Tribunal was challenged in Writ Petition No.10951/2017 and in batch of others writ petitions Titled Union of India & Another vs. Mridula P. Dhonde & Others and the same were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide a common order / judgment dated 18.04.2018. Para 2 to 6 thereof read as under:-
"2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that all these petitions can be disposed of by common order, since the challenge in all these petitions is to the common judgment and order dated 25th November 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai in O.As instituted by the respondents seeking benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme). The impugned judgment and order made by the CAT is in no manner different from similar judgments and orders made by the CAT, in virtually identical matters. The Union of India (UOI) has been selectively challenging some of the judgments and orders and leaving some others unchallenged. Be that as it may, several similar orders made by the CAT were challenged before this court in Writ Petition (L) No.1202 of 2012 and several connected matters. By judgment and order dated 24 th July 2013, the said writ petitions were dismissed. As against the same, the Union of India instituted a special leave petition bearing Special Leave to Appeal (C) Noi.(s).10226 of 2015, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16th July 2015 on the ground of delay.55 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
3. Ms. Lata Patne, learned counsel for the respondents in some of these matters, points out that the UOI, practically throughout India, has accepted and implemented the view taken by the CAT that ad-hoc services followed by regularization is to be counted for purposes of ACP Scheme. She submits that selective challenges, therefore, ought not to be entertained.
4. Since, the issues raised in these petitions are fully covered by the judgment and order dated 24th July 2013 made by this court in Writ Petition (L) No.1202 of 2012 and several connected matters, for the reasons set out therein, we dismiss these petitions as well.
5. However, at the request of Mr. Gole, learned counsel for the petitioner/UOI, we extend the time for implementation of the directions issued by the CAT by period of further 12 weeks from today.
6. Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed. The time for implementation of the directions of the CAT in the impugned judgments and orders are extended by a period of 12 weeks from today."
12. It is also not in dispute that all the aforesaid judgments of this Tribunal are in the OA(s), preferred by the similarly placed persons out of the aforesaid around 400 regularized LDCs. It is also not in dispute that in the OA No.245/2014 (supra) the respondents have raised the issue of the objection of limitation. However, the same has been rejected by the Tribunal. The issue of objection have also been raised by the respondents in OA Nos.250/2015, 254/2015 however, this Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma & Another versus Union of India and others reported in 1998 Vol.1 All India Services Law Journal-54 = (1997) 6 SCC 721 have rejected objections and such common orders of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay vide judgment dated 18.04.2018 and the same has been implemented by the respondents.
13. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, have perused the pleadings on record and also the orders passed by the Hon'ble Member (Administrative) and Hon'ble Member (Judicial) in the aforesaid OAs carefully. In 56 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
the aforesaid background, the learned counsels for the applicants have supported the order passed by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) whereas the learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the order passed by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and has supported the order passed by the Hon'ble Member (Administrative) in the aforesaid original applications.
14. With regard to the 'First Point of Difference 'Limitation'. Learned counsel for the applicants after precisely submitting the aforesaid facts have made submissions on the points of difference between the Hon'ble Member (Administrative) and Hon'ble Member (Judicial). It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that once the judgment of this Tribunal in Karan Anant Purao (supra) has attained finality after dismissal of the writ petition by the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay, dismissal of the SLP filed against the same and being implemented by the respondents, it was incumbent upon the respondents to extend the similar benefits to all the similarly placed aforesaid 400 regularized LDCs including the applicants herein and not to compel each and every one of them to approach the various benches of this Tribunal, particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma (supra). They have further contended that even in the subsequent case including O.A.No.245/2014, when the respondents have raised the point of objection of limitation the same has been rejected by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 27.08.2014 and similarly this Bench of the Tribunal has rejected such objections of the respondents in the common order/judgment dated 25.11.2016 in the aforesaid O.A.Nos.250/2014 to 254/2014 by relying upon the law laid down by the five judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma (Supra) and common order dated 25.11.2016 has not been only been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide order dated 18.04.2018 but has also been implemented by the respondents. They further rely 57 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 347 to contend that "Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit".
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents, Shri Shetty vehemently opposes the same and submits that the applicants have been fence sitters and therefore their claim is barred by limitation and they have also not brought good and sufficient reasons to seek indulgence of this Tribunal for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid original applications. He also places reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra). I have considered the facts and circumstances and also the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties on the point of limitation and I am of the view that this aspect has not only been considered and rejected by a Division Bench at Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal as noted above but also by Bombay Bench of this Tribunal vide common order/judgment dated 25.11.2016, referred to hereinabove and such common order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Moreover, in a similar facts and circumstances, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M.V. Sheshagiri vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13001 wherein it has been ruled as under:-
"22. The counsels for the Respondents have also countered the present petition on the ground that there has been a delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching the Court. The judgment of this Court in Naveen Kumar Jha (supra), was challenged by the Respondents before the Supreme Court. The challenge could not be sustained and the petition was dismissed. We are informed that Respondents have since implemented the aforesaid decision. On 58 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
this issue, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 has held as under:
"23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the Appellants as well as the Respondents, can be summed up as under:
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit.
Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment W.P(C) 6275/2016 & connected matter Page 11 of 12 rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India (supra)). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor 59 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
23. In view of the aforesaid decision, since the Petitioners are claiming parity with Naveen Kumar Jha (supra), we would not like to deny them the relief on account of delay in approaching the Court. A writ of mandamus is issued to the Respondents directing them to notionally re-fix Petitioners' seniority with reference to his merit position in the select list in their respective examinations, that is, with those who have joined the CRPF pursuant to the said examinations. Petitioners shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits, except for back wages.
24. Respondents are also directed to treat the Petitioners as members of the old pension scheme that was in force till 31st December 2003."
16. In view of such facts and circumstances and the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court(s), I am of the view that the MA filed by the applicants seeking condonation of delay deserves to be allowed and the objection of limitations being raised by the respondents against the claim of the applicants deserves to be rejected. I, therefore, order accordingly.
17. The 'second point of difference' amongst the Hon'ble Members is 'unfair grant of benefits'. On such issue, the learned counsels for the applicants argue that the applicants are not seeking any relief to steel-march over the persons who are recruited regularly through Staff Selection Commission (SSC) after 26.09.1997. In this regard, the learned counsels for the applicants submit that the applicants have not claimed seniority over and above any of such persons on account of their casual / ad hoc services under the respondents prior to their being regularized w.e.f. 01.03.1989 and, therefore, there is no question of getting unfair grant of benefits if the applicant's prayer for grant of benefit of the judgment in the case of Karan Anant Purao (supra) is allowed. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents summits that the applicants have not been appointed through the nodal recruiting agency i.e. Staff Selection Commission by qualifying the 60 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
competitive examination and even if they don't claim seniority they may start getting higher salary than the persons appointed after 26.09.1977 through Staff Selection Commission in case the applicants are allowed to reckon their casual services rendered under the respondents prior to their regularisation w.e.f. 01.03.1989 for grant of the benefit of ACP and this will not create only anomalous situation but would also lead to unfair grant of benefits to these persons. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. I am of the view that the applicants who have been appointed on casual / ad hoc basis initially and thereafter continued as such for many years and thereafter keeping in view the the facts and circumstances the government has taken a conscious decision to regularize them, as one time measure, and that too subject to their qualifying the requisite written and skill test belong to a class apart and the persons who are appointed after 26.09.1977 through SSC who may be in their schools and colleges when the applicants have started working under the respondents, though on casual / ad hoc basis do not belong to same class and are naturally not similarly placed. Moreover, the grant of benefit of ACP / MACP Scheme is personam and is keeping in view the stagnation of the employees on a particular post for certain years and therefore, the persons appointed after 26.09.1977 through Staff Selection Commission cannot be compared with the applicants who have been regularized w.e.f. 01.03.1989 by the respondents after undergoing the written / skill test as prescribed by the respondents as one time measure and that too when majority of similarly place persons have been accorded such benefits in view of various orders of this Tribunal, affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court (s) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted hereinabove. In view of such facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that grant of benefits of reckoning the service by the applicants on casual/ ad hoc basis prior to 61 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
their regularisation under the respondents w.e.f. 01.03.1989 cannot be construed as unfair grant of benefits to them.
18. The 'Third Point of Difference is 'application of Uma Devi'. This point of difference has been framed keeping in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 keeping in view that though the engagement of the applicants on casual / ad hoc basis to the post of LDCs and their subsequently regularization is pre Uma Devi (supra). However, indirectly the applicants in the aforesaid OAs are seeking antedating of their regularization by claiming reckoning of their casual/ad hoc service prior to their regularisation w.e.f. 01.03.1989 for grant of benefit of ACP/MACP Scheme though the applicants have not claimed seniority. However, such antedating cannot be artificially limited to the extent of grant of ACP and will have to be extended to the claims of the seniority etc as viewed from the legal stand point though the applicants have not pressed this aspect. In this regard, I may refer to para 44 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) which reads as under:-
"44. We also clarify that the regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but three should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that once the applicants have not claimed seniority keeping in view their casual/ad hoc service prior to their regularisation w.e.f. 01.03.1989 and their regularization has been done by a conscious decision of the Government of India as one time measure that too after the applicants complied with the requirements of passing the requisite written/skill test, etc mere counting of their such casual /ad hoc services for the purposes of grant of benefits under the ACP/MACP Scheme shall not be in any 62 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
manner in violation of law laid down in by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra). In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that in the present facts and circumstances of the case there is no application of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Moreover, my such view is further strengthened by the view of the findings of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in order / judgment dated 24.07.2013 in Karan Anant Purao (supra) wherein the Lordships of Hon'ble High Court have noted in para 14 of the judgment of the finding of the Mumbai and Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal and also the finding of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala that the applicants have not secured employment through back door but were candidates sponsored from the Employment Exchange and they had worked continuously without interruption or in some case with artificial break. My such view is further strengthened in view of the admission at the end of the respondents that the applicants in the present OAs are similarly placed as those in the case of Karan Anant Purao (supra), etc and also from the fact that the respondents have taken a decision to regularize them vide a common conscious decision finding all around 400 similarly placed.
19. The 'Last point of difference is with regard to 'judicial discipline'. It is noted under such points of difference that reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the common order/judgment of this Tribunal in Karan Anant Purao (supra) upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the Writ Petition No.1202 of 2013 vide order/judgment dated 24.07.2013 and also decisions of various co-ordinate benches since all the cases are similarly placed. It further records that the determination between the conflicting views on this point of difference would also lead to determination of character of the precedence as being in 'rem' or being in 'personam' and the impact thereof on the aspect of limitation. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the judgment of 63 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
Hon'ble High Court dated 24.07.2013 in Karan Anant Purao (supra) is a binding precedent inasmuch as the same has been passed taking into account not only the nature of employments of the applicants, the manner of their regularization by the respondents but also keeping in view to the findings of the Ernakulam Bench and this Bench of the Tribunal as well as that of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala wherein the provisions of requirements of regular services under the ACP Scheme have also been considered. Moreover, the case of Karan Anant Purao (supra) is in the matter of a batch of similarly placed persons out of a group around 400 similarly placed persons, the same has been followed by various benches of this Tribunal including this Bench, these judgments of this Tribunal have been affirmed by other Hon'ble High Court(s) and Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the same have been implemented by the respondents. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that mere dismissal of the SLP against the Karan Anant Purao (supra) will not make the judgment as precedent in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunhayammed & Others vs. State of Kerala & Anothers, reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359 and also in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Oxford University Press etc vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2001 (1) Supreme 357 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled in Para 59 as under:-
"..............well-settled rule of construction that where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the legislature, the court may modify the language used by the legislature or even' do some violence' to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction................................"
20. He also places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur vs. M/s Swaraj Developers & Ors reported in 2003 (3) Supreme 729 to contend that " It is well settled principle in 64 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent" Mr. Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents further places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar & Others versus Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Another reported in 2000 SCC (L&S) 845 to contend that "The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals, other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh & Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed.............". Lastly, he places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of W.B. And Others vs. Aghore Nath Dey & Others, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 371. Para 21 to 23 thereof reads as under:-
"21. We shall now deal with conclusions (A) and (B) of the constitution bench in the Maharashtra Engineers' case, quoted above.
22. There can be no doubt that these two conclusions have to be read harmoniously, and conclusion (B) can not cover cases which are expressly excluded by conclusion (A). We may, therefore, first refer to conclusion (A). It is clear from conclusion (A) that to enable seniority to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation, the incumbent of the 65 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
post has to be initially appointed 'according to rules'. The corollary set out in conclusion (A), then is, that 'where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority'. Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A) expressly excludes the category of cases where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules, being made only as a stop-gap arrangement. The case of the writ petitioners squarely falls within this corollary in conclusion (A), which says that the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for counting the seniority.
23. This being the obvious inference from conclusion (A), the question is whether the present case can also fall within conclusion (B) which deals with cases in which period of officiating service will be counted for seniority. We have no doubt that conclusion (B) cannot include, within its ambit, those cases which are expressly covered by the corollary in conclusion (A), since the two conclusions cannot be read in conflict with each other."
21. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the submissions made by the parties , I am of the view that there cannot be any quarrel about the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases referred to and relied by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, the facts remains that in the present OAs the Tribunal is not required to consider grant of seniority to the applicants on the basis of their casual / ad hoc services before their regularization. The applicants have also not claimed equality on the ground of similarly placed persons having got anything illegally. Similarly, this Tribunal is also not considering interpretation of any statutory provision inasmuch as the applicants have themselves submitted in no uncertain terms that they are not claiming seniority on the basis of their services of casual/ad hoc basis under the respondents. The provisions of ACP has been considered by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, referred to by this Bench of the Tribunal in Karan Anant Purao (supra) and further the same has been considered and at length by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Karan Anant Purao (supra) and in the subsequent writ petitions. The applicants are seeking the extension of the benefits which have been accorded to majority of the persons similarly placed out of a 66 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
group of 400 persons noted above in view of the consistent judgments of various benches of this Tribunal and affirmed Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Karan Anant Purao (supra) and in many cases admitted by the respondents that the claim of the various persons approaching the Tribunal are identical. In such view of the matter the reliance of the learned counsel for the respondents in the aforesaid case laws is of no help to the respondents and the same also do not support the view taken by the Hon'ble Member (A).
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Ajit Babu and Others versus Union of India and Others reported in 1997 SCC (L&S) 1520 has ruled that decision given by the Tribunal unless reviewed or appealed against attains finality. It is not in dispute that judgment of this Tribunal in Karan Anant Purao (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same has been affirmed and the directions of this Tribunal has been implemented. The Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled in Para 6 therein which reads as under:-
"6. Consistency, certainty and uniformity in the filed of judicial decisions are considered to be the benefits arising out of the "Doctrine of Precedent". The precedent sets a pattern upon which a future conduct may be based. One of the basic principles of administration of justice is, that the cases should be decided alike. Thus the doctrine of precedent is applicable to the Central Administrative Tribunal also. Whenever an application under Section 19 of the Act is filed and the question involved in the said application stands concluded by some earlier decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal necessarily has to take into account the judgment rendered in earlier case, as a precedent and decide the application accordingly. The Tribunal may either agree with the view taken in the earlier judgment or it may dissent. If it dissents, then the matter can be referred to a larger bench/full bench and place the matter before the Chairman for constituting a larger bench so that there may be no conflict upon the two Benches. The large Bench, then, has to consider the correctness of earlier decision in disposing of the later application. The larger Bench can over-rule the view taken in the earlier judgment and declare the law, which would be binding on all the Benches (See Jhon Lucas (supra)..........................."67 OA Nos.642 of 2015
and 163 other connected OAs.
23. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sub Inspector Rooplal & Another vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi & Others reported in 2000 SCC (L&S) 213 has held in para 12 and 13 which reads as under:-
"12. At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, [1968] 1 SCR 455 while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of the same court observed thus:
"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was binding upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J., in Pinjare Karimbhai's case and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas `s case did not lay down the correct Law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it Our system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C.J. observed in Lala Shri Bhagwan and Anr, v. Shri Ram Chand and Anr.
"It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be re- considered, lie should not embark upon 68 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."
13. We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment thereby creating a judicial uncertainty in regard to the declaration of law involved in this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and parties to this case have been put to considerable hardship."
24. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943 has ruled as under:-
"90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass root will not be able to decide as to which of the judgment lay down the correct law and which one should be followed.
91. We may add that in our constitutional set up every citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and operating various constituents of the State and who take oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and uphold the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the Constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to 69 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law."
25. In view of the law settled in these three cases that is K. Ajit Babu and Others, Sub Inspector Rooplal & Another and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others (supra), it is no more Res integra that once the judgment of this Tribunal in Karan Anant Purao (supra) affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by various benches of this Tribunal, as well as the Hon'ble High Court (s) in series of cases as noted above in the matter of majority of identically placed persons out of the aforesaid 400 persons under the respondents are binding upon this Tribunal and the judicial discipline requires me to respectfully follow the same.
26. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, I respectfully disagree with the view and order of Hon'ble Member (Administrative) in the aforesaid Original Applications and I respectfully concur with the view and order of Hon'ble Member (Judicial) in the aforesaid Original Applications and accordingly, partly allow the aforesaid OAs with directions to the respondents to extend the benefit of the services rendered by the applicants as casual employees in the post of LDC prior to the date of their regularization for the purposes of grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. However, the applicants shall not be entitled for interest on the arrears of pay etc. on the grant of the benefits of financial upgradation. The respondents are directed to comply with the directions within four months of the receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(R.N. Singh) Member (Judicial) amit/-
70 OA Nos.642 of 2015and 163 other connected OAs.