Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Balwinder Singh Matharoo S/O S. Gurdev ... vs Union Of India on 3 August, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH O.A. No. 338/PB/2012 Decided on: 03.08.2012 Coram: Honble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand, Member (J) Honble Mr. Ranbir Singh, Member (A)
1. Balwinder Singh Matharoo S/o S. Gurdev Singh, H.No.1715/28, Street No.10, Shimla Puri, Ludhiana, posted as Superintendent HQ, Audit Branch, Central Excise Commissionerate , F.Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.
2. Roop Singh S/o S. Mohinder Singh R/o Village Saidpura, P.O. Raipur Majri, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib, posted as Superintendent, HQ, Anti Smuggling Branch, Customs & Central Excise Commissionerate Jammu.
3. Kulwant Singh S/o S. Sarwan Singh R/o H.No.1693, Phase-5 Mohali posted as Superintendent Central Excise Range-III, Central Excise Commissionerate , Chandigarh-I, Central Revenue Building, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
4. J.A.S. Ghuman S/o S. Gian Singh Ghuman, R/o Sanipur Road, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib posted as Superintendent Central Excise Range-II, Rajpura, Central Excise Division Patiala, Central Excise Commissionerate Chandigarh-II, Central Revenue Building, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
5. Surjit Singh s/o Sh. Faquir Chand, 64, Krishna Square-2, Posted as Superintendent HQ, Technical Branch, Customs Preventive Commissionerate , The Mall, Amritsar.
.Applicants Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
..Respondents Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, counsel for the applicant Mr. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the respondents Order (Oral) BY HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER(J)
1. Counter filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.
2. The learned counsel for the applicants is not inclined to file a rejoinder.
3. The learned counsel for the parties are inclined to argue the case on AS IS WHERE IS BASIS.
4. The following facts surfaced during the course of hearing.
5. The applicants are officers from the Customs and Central Excise Department who were occupying the post of Inspectors in various zones including Delhi Zone. They, however, applied for their transfer to Chandigarh Commissionerate on inter -Commissionerate transfer basis. Their plea was allowed but with a rider, rigorous in character, denying them the benefit of the service rendered by them in the parent Commissionerate . Few officers of Delhi zone raised a challenge to the above rider by filing an O.A. before the Principal Bench of the CAT which (OA No 651/1997) came to be allowed, vide order dated 26.08.1997. That order came to be affirmed in Judicial Review challenge by the Delhi High Court, vide order dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure A-1). An SLP filed against the order of Delhi High Court came to be negatived by the Honble Apex Judicial Dispensation, vide order dated 12.12.2011(Annexure A-2).
6. Faced with the factual predicament aforementioned, learned counsel for the respondents states that the benefit of the inter- Commissionerate transfer had been ordered to be withdrawn by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on the basis of a policy decision communicated, vide its letter dated 27.10.2011(Annexure A-1). In elaboration, the learned counsel for the respondents informs that the policy decision came to be taken after taking into account all relevant factors(Court cases, representation, DOPT instructions, Administrative exigency and present cadre structure).
7. In the prevalent system of Judicial Dispensation, it is the law laid down by the Apex Judicial Dispensation which rules the roost. Any administrative instructions to the contrary would require to be invalidated. If the respondents had any reservations about its finality of the opinion in the case of Order (Annexure A-2), it was for them to have filed a petition for review before the Honble Apex Judicial Dispensation for the review of the relevant order. No such review plea or a curative petition concededly came to be filed before the Honble Apex Court. In that view of things, there can be no dispute that the averred proposition that the controversy in this OA is squarely covered by a decision rendered in OA No. 651/1997, which came to be affirmed by the Delhi High Court in judicial review challenge vide order dated 18.02.2009 in WP(C) 4005/1997 along with connected matters and the view obtained by the Delhi High Court attained finality with the seal of approval thereupon by the Honble Apex Court, vide its order dated 12.12.2011.
8. We would, accordingly, allow this O.A., uphold the entitlement of the applicants to the service rendered by them in their parent Commissionerate and direct the respondents to grant them the relevant benefits within two months from the date a copy of this order is presented in the office of the competent authority.
9. The parties shall bear their own costs of cause in the facts and circumstances of the cause.
(JUSTICE S.D. ANAND) MEMBER (J) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER (A) PLACE: Chandigarh Dated: 03.08.2012.
mw
- 5- O.A. No. 338/PB/2012