Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
V Lakshmanan vs M/O Railways on 29 January, 2024
1 OA/757/2015 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA No.310/00757/2015 Dated Monday the 29" day of January Two Thousand Twenty Four CORUM: HON'BLE MR. MANISH GARG, MEMBER(J) & ; HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER(A) 1) V.LAKSHMANAN, S/o M.VELLAISAMY. 2) R.MANIVANNAN, S/O V.S.RAMASAMY. 3) N.MADHANAGOPAL, S/O (LATE) R.NAGARAJAN. 4) JAYALAKSHMI SRIVATSAN, W/O SRIVATSAN, 5} L.NALINA, W/O S.DHARMARAJAN. 6) P.MANOHAR, S/O A.D.PITCHAI PILLA. 7) 1. MOHAMED NAZIM, S/O ISMAIL. 8) J. JOSEPH ANANDARAN, S/O J.JOHN. 9} V.GUNASEKAR, S/O R.VAITHILINGAM. 10} P.GANAPATHY, S/0 P.PALANIAPPAN, 11) E.AYYAPPAN, S/O A.ESAKKI. 12) T.SUKUMAR ,S/O. P.THIRUMALAI. 13) S.SIVAKUMAR, 8/0 S.SOMASUNDARAM. 14) L.ROBERT, S/O M.INNASI. 15) ROOPA ANTO, W/O J.ANTO 16) A.SSAMUEL DINAKARAN, S/O A.ALBERT JEGANNATHAN. 17) R.CRUZ ELANGO, S/O A.RAJENDRAN. 18) NIRMALA LAKSHMIPATHY, W/O K.LAKSHMIPATHY. 19) M.S.RAJAN, S/O LATE M.S.SANTHANAM. 20} PU KANNAMA, D/ O C.PUNNIA MOORTHY. 21) R.HEMALATHA, W/O K.R RAJKUMAR. 22) USHASANTHANAKRISHNAN, W/O.R.SANTHANA KRISHNAN. 23) PRABHA SURENDRAN, W/O V.SURENDRAN. 24) K.RAMACHANDRAN,S/O R.KRISHNAMURTHY RAO. 25) M.PARTHASARATHY, S/O.MUNISAMY. 26) M.IRUDAYARAJ,S/O S.MARIA DOSS. 27) MUMTAJ MOHAMED NAZIM, W/O ILMOHAMED NAZIM. 28) VASANTHI KARUNANITHY, W/O P.KARUNANITHI. 29) ALISTAIRE V. WESTON S/O. P.WESTON. 30) O.NATESAN, $/O P.OMANDHU. 31) S.BALASUBRAMANIAN, S/O P.SANGILY. 32) SAANTHONY MANOHARAN,S/0O.S.SEVARAJ. 33) P-THENRAMIL PAVAI, D/W/O.P.PECHIAPPAN. 34) UMA GOPINATH, W/O S.GOPINATH. 35) LEKHA RAMAKRISHNAN, W/O K.RAMAKRISHNAN. 36) P.KANAGAVALLI, D/O K PALANIYANDI. 37) P.GOVINDARAJAN, S/o C, PONNUSAMY GOUNDAR. 38} J.MILTON $/OA.S.JOHN JOSEPHI. 39} A.BALASUBRAMANIAN, S/O P.S.ANNAMALAI. 40) R.MUTHAMIL SELVAN, S/o V-RAMALINGAM PILLAI. 41) P.N.KUMAR, S/O P.K.NATESAN. 42) SASIKALA MOHAN, W/O M.CHANDRA MOHAN. 43) LALITHA GOPALAN, W/O N.GOPALAN. 44) M.SETHU ANDIAPPANI, S/O V.MUTHUKUMARU. 45) SULOCHANA. AR RAJ, W/O R.ARPUTHA RAJ. 46) FARHAT SAHINA BEGUM, W/O H.M.AHMADULLA. \™ o 2 OAITS1/2015 , 47) S.BASIL ANTONY, $/OD.SUNDARA RAJ. 48) JHANSI JAMES, W/O AJAMES. 49) R.PUNNIA KUMARI, D/O R.RAJA RETHINAM. 50) K.RAVIKUMAR, S/O M.KRISHNAMOORTHY, 51) R.SUNDAR, S/O.S.RAJAGOPALAN. 52) K.R.RAVI CHANDRAN, S/O K.RAMALINGA ASARI. 53) V.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN, S/o M. VEERARAGHAVAN. 54) G.NASEERUDDIN, S/O M.GULAM KHADAR. 55) K.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O C.KARUPPIAH. 56} S.GOPINATH, $/O G.SRIRAMULU. 57) MARGRET JASON, W/O CHRISTOPHER JASON. 58) B.RAGHAVAN S/O N.BUSHANAM. 59) JOHN DONAL, S/O A.S.JOHN JOSEPH. 60) G.BHAVANI, W/O S.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN. 61) E.RAVI, $/O P.V.EASWARAN. 62) N GANESAN, S/O A.NAGASWAMY. 63} S.SSURENDRAN, $/O B.SAMUEL PAKIAM. 64) K.STEPHENRAJ, S/O A.KULANDAISAMY. 65) V.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O K.S. VENKATARAMAN. 66) MARY GEORGE, W/O GEORGE JOSEPH. 67) A.VIJAYA, W/O R.ARULDOSS. 68} K.SATHIAMOORTHY, S/O M.KUPPAMUTHU. 69) K. VAIKUNDAVASAGAM, S/O V.KANDAN. 70) S.PRAKASH, S/O D.I.G.SAMSON. 71) RJAYACHANDRAN, S/O V.RAMASAMY. 72) S.RAMAN, S/O K.SIVASANKARAN NAIR. 73) D. BALAKUMAR, S/O V.DURAIRAJ. 74) R.PADMA, D/O N.RAJAGOPAL. 75) D.ARUL VANI, W/O.S.DURAI SAMY. 76) M.GANESAN, $/O G.MURUGAIYA. 77) SPUGALANTHI, S/O R.SHANMUGANANDA VADIVELU. 78) R.RADHA, W/O P.RAGHAVENDRA RAO. 79) B. NATARAJAN, S/O M.BALUSAMY. 80) G.RAMANATHAN, S/O V.GANAPATHY. 81) W.BASTIN RAJASEKARAN S/O M.WILLIAM. 82) K.MANIVANNAN, S/O KASTHURI RENGAN. 83} R.NAGARAJAN,S/OV.RAJU. 84) M.AABDUL LATHEEF, S/O $.S.AZIZULAA. 85) MU.HARIKARTHIGA, D/O S.MUTHURAMAN. 86) S.RAGHAVENDRAN, S/O N, SRINIVASAN. 87) AMARGASAHAYAM, S/O E.P.ADIYAPATHAM. ... Applicant By Advocate M/s. S. Kala Vs 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP, BY THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI - 110001. 2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI - 600 003 .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. R. S. Krishnaswamy 3 OA/T57/2015 ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J)) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
"i) Set aside the impugned order of the 2" respondent in P.535/HO/Admn/Court Case/Jose Sebastin, dated 26.12,2014, and
i) direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary for the revised pay from 01.01.1996 till 19.02.2003, as per the tabular column in paragraph 4(7) pursuant to the representation, dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure A-4 Series).
iii} to pay all consequential benefits such as interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the due date till actual payment and
iv) issue such further and other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon. Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and award costs and thus render justice."
2. The learned counsel for the applicants would contend that the issue raised in the OA is squarely covered by the decision, dated 09.04.2010, rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna, in W.P. (C)No.11452 of 2005. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
"We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter, and entirely disagree with the approach of the learned Tribunal. Threat of strike, and the consequent agreement, cannot be a valid basis for such a discriminatory treatment. We consider it to be a most unsound basis which can never be said to provide reasonable differentia with the object sought to be achieved. No logic has been advanced that the category of employees of Accounts Establishment have to be differently treated, say, for example, nature of duties and functions, in absence of which we have no hesitation in holding that this category of employees has been subjected to hostile discrimination. It was open to the respondents to gwe notional benefit to the employees of the Accounts Establishment, provided 4 OA/TS 7/2015 Cc the same principle were applicable to all categories of employees, in the absence of which it falls foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, we set aside the order, dated 30.6.2005, passed in O.A. no. 925 of 2003, and the orders, dated 7.3.2009 and 16.6.2004 (Annexures- 3 and 9), stand modified. We take this writ petition to be in a representative category for all employees of the Accounts Establishment of the Indian Railways. All of whom shall get the benefits of appropriate pay-scales w.ef. 1.1.1996, with payment of arrears of salary, but without the obligation of payment of interest. It goes without saying that the post-retirement benefits of such employees, who have already superannuated, shail be revised, apart from payment of arrears of salary."
3. She further contends that a similar issue, covered under OA 527 of 2015 with batch of cases, came up before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, which dismissed the OAs. The said matter was taken up before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) 1523 of 2016. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi set aside the order of the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed SLP( C)13818 of 2020, wherein the following order has been passed:
"In the facts and circumstances of the present cases, we are not inclined to entertain these special leave petitions. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
We, however, leave the question of law open. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of."
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the claim of the applicants for implementation of the improved pay scales on actual basis from 01.01.1996 to 18.02.2003, was rejected by the impugned order, dated 26.12.2014, on the sole ground that the claim is applicants are identical to the case decided by the Hon'ble High 5 OA/TS7/(2015 barred by limitation. She has also submitted that the case of the Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 1523 of 2016.
4. respondents referred to Paras 5 & 6 of the judgment, dated 28.02.2022, of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C)No.3008 of 2022.
With regard to the limitation, the learned counsel for the The same reads as follows:
3.
decision, dated 19.04.2023, of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.A.Nos.1124 to 1132 or 2016, wherein, the relief sought by the "9. AS observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action.
6. Even otherwise on merits also, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The High Court has rightly refused to grant any relief which as such was in the form of specific performance of the contract, No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation."
The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the Writ Petitioners was rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
6 OA/757/2015
6. Heard the learned the counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. We have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the parties.
7. We find that against the orders of the Hon'ble Patna High Court, the Union of India filed SLP © Nos.. 1587-1588 of 2014 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The special leave petitions are dismissed. However, the relief granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as affirmed by the High Court shail be confined to the parties before the Tribunal as weil as before the High Court. This is without prejudice to the rights of other claimants which will be adjudicated on its own merit as and when any such claim is raised."
8. The applicants were waiting with a fond hope that the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna will be implemented and the benefits will be extended to all, however, the Hon'ble Apex Court restricted the judgment only to the petitioners. Thus, it is evident that the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Patna High Court with regard to the merit and justification of the claim of the applicants is upheld and retained. When there is a direct and clear precedent in this regard with respect, to the same issue, the respondents cannot sit over the same and defy the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In other words, the issue involved and the merits of the claim of the applicants are protected in the above orders. Therefore, even at the belated stage, the applicants are entitled to the relief.
"ar 7 OA/757/2015
9. Taking note of the above, we set aside the impugned order, dated 26.12.2014. The competent authority among the respondents is directed to pass appropriate orders, as in the case of the All India Railway Accounts Staff Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, the respondents are directed to grant the applicants the revised pay scale in question from 01.01.1996 when the recommendations of the 5" CPC became operational. The order, dated 07.03.2003, of the Railway Board to the extent that it limits the actual benefit of the revised pay scale by granting the same from the 2™! February, 2003, and not from the 1" January, 1996, is hereby set aside. We further clarify that the arrears now to be granted to each of the applicants shail be paid within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay simple interest at 6% per annum thereon, till the date of actual payment.
10. The OA is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.