Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Prem Chand Yadav vs Union Of India on 18 August, 2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
Original Application No.687 of 2007
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 18th day of August, 2016
Mr. A.K. Patnaik, Judicial Member
Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
Prem Chand Yadav, No.3545,
S/o Shri Bhagwan Deen Yadav,
Aged about 45 years, R/o 333,
Indrapuri Colony, Yadav Farm House,
Kishanganj, Mhow, District Indore,
Posted as Tailor, HQ the Infantry School Mhow,
District, Indore (MP) -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri N.S.Ruprah)
V E R S U S
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. HQ of MOD (Army)
Dte Gen of Mill Trag (MT-7)
General Staff Branch,
Army Headquarters,
DGO PO New Delhi-110001.
3. Commandant, The Infantry School,
Mhow, Distt. Indore - 453 441
4. Establishment Officer,
Establishment Office,
The Infantry School, Mhow,
Distt. Indore-453 441 -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.P.Singh)
[Date of reserving the order : 27.06.2016]
O R D E R
By G.P.Singhal, AM.-
By filing this Original Application, the applicant, who was working as Tailor in Infantry School, Mhow has challenged communication dated 27.7.2007 (Annexure A-1), by which his request for fixation of pay and grant of upgraded pay scale has been rejected. He also seeks direction to the respondents to extend him the benefit of letter dated 15.10.1984 issued by the Ministry of Defence, with all consequential benefits including monetary in nature with interest.
2. The applicant was appointed as Tailor in October, 1983 in the pay scale of Rs.210-290 (Annexure A-2) and posted at Bhopal. In April 1991, he was transferred to Guards Regimental Centre, Kamptee (MH). Subsequently in 1998 he was transferred to Headquarters Infantry School Mhow vide order dated 31.3.1998. His grievance is that Tailors (Non-industrial) similarly placed to the applicant have been granted the benefits of letter dated 15.10.1984 upgrading their pay scale, which benefit has not been extended to him. He basically seeks direction to the respondents to grant him pay in scale of Rs.260-400 (revised to Rs.950-1500 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and further revised to Rs.3050-4590 w.e.f. 1.1.1996). It is stated that the pay scale of Tailor in terms of Third Pay Commission was fixed at Rs.200-250. Subsequently, vide letter dated 22.8.1988 said pay scale was upgraded to Rs.210-250 and thereafter to Rs.260-400 by a special committee. Vide Ministry of Defence letter dated 15.10.1984 the revised pay scale of Rs.260-400 was granted to certain posts including the post of non-industrial Tailor. Though he was granted benefits of the Third Pay Commission but he has not been extended the benefit of Ministry of Defence letter dated 15.10.1984. He had made a representation dated 16.1.1999, which remained unattended. Thereafter, he had filed many representations which were ultimately rejected vide impugned communication dated 27.7.2007.
3 This matter was earlier heard and dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 30th June, 2009. Relevant paragraphs of the said order read thus:
(2). The facts as stated are that he was appointed as Tailor in October, 1983 in the pay scale of Rs.210-290 (A-2) and posted at Bhopal. In April 1991 he was transferred to Guards Regimental Centre Kamptee (MH). Subsequently in 1998 he was transferred to Headquarters Infantry School Mhow vide order dated 31.3.1998 wherein he continues to function even on date.
(3). His grievance is that Tailors (Non-industrial) similarly placed to the applicant have been granted the benefits of letter dated 15.10.1984 upgrading their pay scale, which benefit has not been extended to him. He basically seeks direction to the respondents to grant him pay in scale of Rs.260-400 (revised to Rs.950-1500 w.e.f.1.1.1986 and further revised to Rs.3050-4590 w.e.f. 1.1.1996). It is stated that the pay scale of Tailor in terms of Third Pay Commission was fixed at Rs.200-250. Subsequently, vide letter dated 22.8.1988 said pay scale was upgraded to Rs.210-250 and thereafter to Rs.260-400 by a special committee. Vide Ministry of Defence letter dated 15.10.1984 the revised pay scale of Rs.260-400 included the post of non-industrial Tailor. Though he was granted benefits of the Third Pay Commission but he has not been extended the benefit of Ministry of Defence letter dated 15.10.1984. He had made a representation dated 16.1.1999, which remained unattended. Thereafter he had filed many representations which were ultimately rejected vide impugned communication dated 27.7.2007.
(4). Mrs.Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel vehemently urged that the respondents action in not extending the benefit of Ministry of Defence letter dated 15.10.1984 is arbitrary, illegal and infringes the fundamental rights of the applicant. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Strong reliance was placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwan Sahai & ors. Vs. Union of India & another, AIR 1989 SC 1215, which had been reiterated in Prabhu Lal & another Vs. Union of India & ors (Writ Petition No.492/1991 decided on 3.10.1991). The petitioners therein were Boot Makers, which post had been upgraded from semi skilled to skilled w.e.f. 15.10.1984. The respondents contention that Boot Makers belong to two categories and the petitioners therein were non-industrial cadre were not entitled to benefits, had been rejected holding that: distinction between non-industrial and industrial workmen belonging to same trade is not shown to have existed earlier when the benefit was granted to certain employees, including the petitioners of the aforesaid two earlier cases. Thereafter a mandamus was issued to the Union of India to grant him benefit of skilled grade of Rs.260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981 to those who were in service then. It was further observed that: the department should grant the benefit uniformly to all those trades which were to be upgraded after the Deputy Secretarys letter dated October 15, 1984. Their Lordships further observed that: we do hope that they will not be driven to court to receive the benefit of which they are entitled as per the interpretation but by this Court in Bhagwan Sahais case (supra). Further reliance was placed on Balbir Singh & another Vs. Union of India and others (Writ Petition (Civil) No.484/1998 decided on 4.12.2001) (A-12) where the petitioners were Boot Maker and Tailor respectively. Following earlier judgment in Prabhu Lal (supra), said writ petition was allowed and due benefits were directed to be extended to the petitioners as well. Our attention was drawn to communication dated 5.2.002 (Annexure P-13) to contend that aforesaid direction in Balbir Singhs case (supra) had been implemented and the pay of non-industrial Tailor (second petitioner therein) was revised w.e.f. 11.5.1983 i.e. the date of his appointment and further revised from time to time. Said communication was addressed to the Chief of the Army Staff. In the above backdrop, learned counsel vehemently contended that the reasons advanced by the respondents in their impugned communication holding that the Tailor in Army do not come under the skilled grade and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to upgraded pay scale of Rs.260-400 from the date of his appointment in October,1983, is unsustainable in law. The applicant being a Tailor, similarly placed to said Shri Inderjeet Singh, second petitioner in Balbir Singhs case (supra) is entitled to be treated at par and not differently. Learned counsel also pointed out that the respondents in their reply have failed to address the basic reliance placed on Prabhu Lal and Balbir Singhs cases (supra), wherein identically placed persons, including persons holding the same trade i.e. Tailor have been allowed the upgraded pay scale of Rs.260-400 in terms of Dy. Secretarys letter dated 15.10.1984.
(5). Per contra, by filing reply, it was stated that respondent nos. 3 & 4 had processed the case in June,1984 and September 1992 for grant of upgraded pay scale from semi-skilled grade to skilled grade w.e.f. 16.10.1981 in respect of various categories including the Tailor in terms of recommendations made by the Third Pay Commission for the industrial/ non-industrial workers. Thereafter, OA No.349/1994 was filed by one Mason, Tailors and the Tradesmen of Infantry School, Mhow seeking upgradation of their pay scale from semi-skilled to skilled grade, which matter was referred to the expert committee for comparison of the job contents vide order dated 10.1.1996 (R-6). The Expert Committee recommended for up-gradation of pay scales to those trades including the trade of Tailor as well as another trade of copper smith. Various persons belonging to non-industrial trades, namely, boot maker, blacksmith, carpenter grade-II and I, coppersmith, painter grade II & I and tinsmith in GS and QMS Branch were granted skilled grade. Similarly in IAF Tailors who were granted skilled grades are not at par with Tailors in Army Headquarters as the Tailors in IAF were granted skilled grade based on Board of Arbitration Award. 5th CPC also did not recommend the Skilled Grade to the Tailors in the Army Headquarters. In the above backdrop it was forcefully contended by Shri A.T.Faridee, learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant is not entitled to any relief and the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality.
(6). We have heard learned counsel of parties, perused the pleadings and other material placed on record very carefully.
(7). We may note that the issue raised in the present OA is no more res integra as the precise issue raised in present OA had been considered by Full Bench of this Tribunal in R.Anniappa Vs. Union of India, 2004 (1) ATJ 4 wherein applicant belonging to the trade of Civilian Tailor as industrial employee in the Madras Engineering Group and Centre, Bangalore sought revised pay scale of Rs.260-400 on the strength of Bhagwan Sahai (supra) and Prabhu lal (supra). After detailed examination of facts, Expert Classification Committee and apex Court judgment in Bhagwan Sahai (supra) and Prabhu Lal (supra) besides Full Bench Judgment of this Tribunal at Mumbai in Prakash Dundappa Mogli Vs. Union of India and others, in OA No. 735/1999 decided on 20.6.2001, who were also working as Tailors under the Ministry of Defence, concluded as follows:
Even the said findings of the Supreme Court did not in any way prescribe that all semi-skilled persons should be treated as skilled persons for the purpose of scales. It provided and held that the department should grant the benefit uniformly to all those trades which were to be upgraded after the Deputy Secretarys letter dated 15.10.1984. There is no upgradation so far as the applicants are concerned. The two decisions of the Supreme Court clearly show that it was merely held that the contention of the counsel for the Union of India that since Boot Makers belong to the category of non-industrial, the petitioners therein belong to the non-industrial category and the benefits should not be accorded to them can not be read so as to claim that there has to be parity of pay scales. Consequentially the contention in this regard of the applicants learned counsel necessary must fail. It clearly shows that the decision rendered by this Tribunal at Bangalore in the case of T.V.Ramachandran (OA.No.937/1999 decided on 31.8.2000) was the correct interpretation and the other decision which takes a view to the contrary has already been over-ruled and in other words to be more precise, we overrule the said decisions being to the contrary.
14. For these reasons, we answer the questions referred to this Full Bench as under:
(1) Keeping in view the decision of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prakash Dundappa Mogli and others v. Union of India and others and also reasons which are recorded above, we approve the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.937/99 entitled T.V.Ramachandran v. Union of India and overrule the other decision to the contrary mentioned in question No.1 referred to this Full Bench.
(2) The civilian tailors in the respondent organization would not be entitled to the benefit of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter and others Vs. Union of India and another and Prabhulal and another Vs. Union of India and others (supra).
(3) We make it clear that overruling of certain decisions will not have the effect of taking away the benefit that may have been accrued to those concerned applicants.
(4) Resultantly OA No. 239/02 is dismissed. No costs.
(emphasis supplied) Aforesaid Full Bench decision in R.Anniappa (supra) being a legal precedent and is binding upon us. We do not find any justification to take a different view then what has been recorded hereinabove. We may note at the cost of repetition that the facts and issues raised before aforesaid Full Bench are pari materia. We may also note that in Balbir Singh (supra) there is no discussion on merit, apart from following Prabhu Lal decision (supra). It has not been established or even pleaded that the post of Tailor had been upgraded in terms of Deputy Secretarys letter dated 15.10.1984. In this view of the matter, we do not find justification in the contention raised by the applicant.
(8). In the result, OA being without merit is dismissed. No costs.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the applicant approached the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by filing Writ Petition No.7449-2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2015 . Relevant paragraphs of the said order read thus:
Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made to an order dated 30/6/2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in a proceedings held before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
(2). The petitioner Premchand Yadav claims to be working as a tailor in the infantry school Mhow and calls in question an order dated 27/7/2007 (Annexure A-1) rejecting his request for granting him the upgraded payscale. It was his case that he was appointed as a tailor in October, 1993 in the then existing payscale of Rs.210-290/-. He was transferred from place to place and finally joined Headquarter of infantry school, Mhow on 31/3/1998 where he was working when the proceedings were initiated before the tribunal. It was his contention that tailor (non-industrial) similarly placed like him were granted the benefit of upgraded payscale i.e. Rs.260-400/- revised to 950-1500 w.e.f. 1/1/1986 and further revised to Rs.3050-4590/- w.e.f. 1/1/1996. He claimed the aforesaid benefit on the basis of the recommendations of third pay commission and certain report of experts committee and a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter and others and ors v. Union of India and ors. AIR 1989 SC 1215 and Prabhulal and others vs. Union of India and others in W.P. No.492/1991 decided on 30/10/1991.
(3). Learned trial went into all these questions and found that the case of Prabhulal and Balbir Singh are different, they pertain to boot makers and therefore, the petitioner who is a tailor cannot claim parity with boot makers. However, thereafter placing reliance on a judgment of the Tribunal at Bombay in the case Prakash Danduppa Mogli vs. Union of India O.A. No.735/99 decided on 26/6/2001 the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the case of one Indaljeet Singh, who are similarly situated like the petitioner and who was also working as a tailor, the benefit of payscale as per Balbir Singh's case has been granted and the same benefit is being denied to the petitioner. When such an assertion was made at the time of hearing of this writ petition on 5/2/2015 this Court found that after orders were passed in the case of Balbir Singh (a non-industrial Boot Maker) by the Supreme Court the order passed was not only implemented in the case of Balbir Singh, but also in the case of Indaljeet Singh (a non-industrial tailor). It was prima facie found that case of the petitioner and that of Indaljeet Singh's case are identical and therefore, the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit indicating as to why the same benefit is not being granted to Indaljeet Singh, who is working as a tailor in Ahmed Nagar may be in a different directorate, but in the same Ministry and as to what is the difference between tailors working in infantry school at Mau and Ahmadnagar. It was pointed out by this Court that pay fixation has been granted to Indaljeet Singh vide orders (Annexures P-13 and P-14) and therefore, the additional affidavit should be filed. The additional affidavit has been filed and on going through the additional affidavit, we find that the respondents have maintained a complete silence with regard to the difference between the case of the petitioner and that of Indaljeet Singh. In the affidavit filed in compliance to the order filed on 5/2/2015 they only say that the Central Administrative Tribunal has decided the matter in the light of Full Bench Judgement of the Bombay Tribunal in the order Annexure P-14 dated 31/8/1992 issued in the case of Indaljeet Singh has not been issued as per the information received by the office. By filing Annexure R-1 a communication dated 22/4/2015 issued by the the Govt. Of India in the Integrated Headquarter Ministry of Defence Army it is said that the order passed in the case of Indaljeet Singh filed as Annexure P-14 dated 31/8/1992 has not been issued and therefore, they that the case of petitioner cannot be compared with that of Indaljeet Singh. However, the affidavit and the reply are completely silent with regard to Annexure P-13 dated 5/2/2002 issued by the Govt. Of India in the Ministry of Defence granting benefit to Indaljeet Singh after the Supreme Court decided the case of Balbeer Singh, a boot maker.
(4). We have considered the rival contentions and we find that the tribunal in the impugned order passed has simply referred to the judgment of the Bombay Bench in the case of Prakash Dundappa Mogli and rejected the claim. However, while doing so the benefit granted to Shri Indaljeet Singh based on the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Balbeer Singh has not been taken note of. The Tribunal has simply said that the case of Balbeer Singh pertains to a boot maker and therefore, the petitioner being a tailor cannot be compare his case with that of a boot maker. Except for this, the tribunal did not consider the question involved in its right perspective. In the order Annexure P-13 passed by the Govt. Of India, Ministry of Defence is taken note of. It would be seen that after the Supreme Court passed an order in the case of Balbeer Singh vs. Union of India vide Annexure P-12 on 4/12/2001, the Ministry of Defence in its order dated 5/2/2002 Annexure P-13 implemented the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbeer Singh not only in the case of Boot Maker Balbeer Singh, but also in the case of tailor Indaljeet Singh, who was working then in 506 Army Workshop, Agra Camp. Indaljeet Singh, by this order has been granted the benefit of revised payscale in the scale of Rs.260-400/- further revised to 950-1500 w.e.f. 1/1/1986 and again to 3050-4590 w.e.f. 1/1/1996. There is no explanation from the respondent as to why the same benefit as has been granted to Indaljeet Singh cannot be extended to the present petitioner. That apart, Annexure P-14 is the order giving benefit of pay fixation to Indaljeet Singh. Even though respondents say that no such order has been issued. They do not come out with material to say as to on what basis such an assertion is made. From the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that even though the petitioner has filed all these documents before the Tribunal and it was a specific case that he is also entitled to the similar benefit as has been granted to Indaljeet Singh, but except for referring to such an assertion in the pleadings after considering the same from para 7 onwards the tribunal goes to decide the matter and without referring to the benefit granted to Indaljeet Singh by only saying that the case of Bhagwan Sahai will not apply in the case of petitioner because it pertains to a boot maker, the claim is rejected. However, the benefit granted to Indaljeet Singh is not at all considered and the documents and assertion made by the petitioner in this regard before the Tribunal has not been adverted to or considered. Taking note of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the tribunal has not decided the matter properly inasmuch as the comparison claimed by the petitioner with Indaljeet Singh and the implementation of the order in the case of Balbeer Singh by the department has not been taken note of. That being so, it is a fit case where the order impugned should be quashed and the matter remanded back to the tribunal to consider all these aspects and take a fresh decision in the matter after evaluating claim for parity made by the petitioner in comparison with Indaljeet Singh.
(5). Accordingly, we direct the tribunal to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh with regard to parity claimed with Indaljeet Singh and decide it accordingly by a speaking order preferably within a period of six months.
(6). With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
5. Heard the learned counsel of both sides and carefully considered the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith. We have also gone through various judgments relied upon by the learned counsel of both sides.
6. The short issue now remains to be considered and decided in terms of the aforementioned Honble High Courts order is whether the applicants claim is liable to be granted on parity with that of Indaljeet Singh.
7. While hearing the matter on 14th January 2016, the Tribunal observed that since this is the remanded matter for the reason that no comparative analysis have been made while deciding the issues between Indaljeet Singh and Balbeer Singh and their respective cases, an opportunity was given to the parties to file affidavit clearly delineating the comparison between these two cases as mentioned by the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In compliance of the said direction of this Tribunal the respondents have given the comparative analysis in their affidavit dated 12th March, 2016, relevant paragraphs 4 to 10 of which read thus:
(4) That the Directorate General of EME (Civ), Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) has intimated that there were two types of Tailors; Industrial Tailor and Non-Industrial Tailor in the Corps of EME and that Industrial Tailor was merged with Upholster vide Directorate General of EME letter No. B/03391/RR/EME Civ-2 dated 04 May 2006 and hence ceases to exist. EME (Civ) has also stated that further case for inclusion of Tailor in Artisan Staff is under process in the Ministry of Defence.
(5) It is respectfully submitted that the Skilled grade of Rs. 260-290-390-400 awarded to Shri Inderjeet Singh, Non-Industrial Tailor vide Govt. of India Ministry of Defence letter No. B/3418/464/EME/Civ-2/9(1)/2002/D(Civ.1) dated 05 Feb 2002 (Annexure A-13) is an individual case and hence not applicable to the Tailors of Cat A Training Establishments under Directorate General of Military Training. In this connection a copy of Govt. of India Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) General Staff Branch Directorate General of Military Training/MT-7 letter dated 20 Jan 2016 is annexed as Document No.1. The Applicant cannot claim parity with Shri Inderjeet Singh.
(6) It is further submitted that Tailor has not been given skilled grade in the Ministry of Defence letter dated 15 Oct 1984 (Annexure R-5). It is clear that the grant of skilled grade of MIRC does not have approval of Ministry of Defence/D (Civ-1), and therefore it cannot be a ground for the grant of such benefits to Infantry Schools Tailors. The wording relating to differences between tailors of MIRC and Infantry School in Military Training-7 (MT-7) letter dated 14 Aug 2007 (Annexure R-14) to Infantry School cannot be the ground for grant of skilled grade to Tailors of Infantry School. The averments made in MT-7 letter dated 14 Aug 2007 (Annexure R-14) are besides the essential point of there being no authorization by Ministry of Defence for grant of skilled grade to Tailors by Ministry of Defence. MT-7 has no authority to sanction skilled grade to Tailors of MIRC or Infantry School Mhow. That authority rests with Ministry of Defence.
(7) It is submitted that there is no legal ground for awarding skilled grade to Tailors in Army Establishments as no such authorization has been given by Ministry of Defence/D(Civ-1). The manner in which this lack of authorization has been communication by MT-7 in its letter dated 14 Aug 2007 (Annexure R-14), does not in any way authorize the grant of skilled status to Tailors of Infantry School or to MIRC Ahmednagar because MT-7 has neither authorised skilled grade to MIRC or to Infantry School nor does it have the power to do so. In this connection a copy of Directorate General of Military Training/MT-7 Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) letter dated 15 Apr 2015 is annexed as Document No.2.
(8) It is submitted that Directorate General of Mech Forces/MF(Pers) under their Note dated 15 Apr 2015 has stated that the letter No. 89550/Pay/MF(Pers) dated 31 Aug 1992 (Annexure A-14) was not issued by their office. It is therefore apprehended that letter dated 31 Aug 1992 (Annexure A-14) cited by the Applicant is fake. In this connection a copy of Directorate General of Military Training/MT-7 Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) letter dated 22 Apr 2015 alongwith a copy of MF (Pers) Note dated 15 Apr 2015 is annexed as Document No.3.
(9) It is further submitted that Ministry of Defence has intimated that in 1983, an Expert Classification Committee (ECC) was constituted to assess the job profiles of various trades, for their placement in Semi-Skilled/Skilled/Highly Skilled Grades. On the basis of the recommendations of ECC, semi-skilled grade was granted to the Tailors. No specific recommendations have been made subsequently by the VI CPC in its Report, and replacement scale has been given to Tailors on implementation of VI CPC Report. In this connection a copy of Directorate General of Military Training/MT-7 Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) letter dated 14 May 2015 is annexed as Document No.4.
(10) In view of the above submissions it is respectfully submitted that the Applicant is not entitled for any relief as claimed and the Original Application is liable to be dismissed. The OA is devoid of any merits and substance therefore, kindly be pleased to dismiss the OA in the interest of justice.
8. The above analysis clearly shows that the Government of India, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) General Staff Branch, Directorate General of Military Training/ MT-7 vide their letter dated 20th January, 2016 has specifically mentioned that the skilled grade of Rs.260-290-390-400 awarded to Shri Inderjeet Singh, Non-Industrial Tailor is an individual case and hence was not applicable to the Tailors of Category A Training Establishment under DGMT. Since no authorization was given by the Ministry of Defence for awarding skilled grade to Tailors in Army Establishments no right accrued in favour of the applicant for grant of the same benefits.
9. We may also observe that the issue raised in the present Original Applicant has already been considered by Full Bench of this Tribunal in R.Anniappa Vs. Union of India, 2004 (1) ATJ 4 wherein applicant belonging to the trade of Civilian Tailor as industrial employee in the Madras Engineering Group and Centre, Bangalore sought revised pay scale of Rs.260-400 on the strength of Bhagwan Sahai (supra) and Prabhu lal (supra). After detailed examination of facts, Expert Classification Committee and apex Court judgment in Bhagwan Sahai (supra) and Prabhu Lal (supra) besides Full Bench Judgment of this Tribunal at Mumbai in Prakash Dundappa Mogli Vs. Union of India and others, in OA No. 735/1999 decided on 20.6.2001, who were also working as Tailors under the Ministry of Defence, the Full Bench concluded as follows:
Even the said findings of the Supreme Court did not in any way prescribe that all semi-skilled persons should be treated as skilled persons for the purpose of scales. It provided and held that the department should grant the benefit uniformly to all those trades which were to be upgraded after the Deputy Secretarys letter dated 15.10.1984. There is no upgradation so far as the applicants are concerned. The two decisions of the Supreme Court clearly show that it was merely held that the contention of the counsel for the Union of India that since Boot Makers belong to the category of non-industrial, the petitioners therein belong to the non-industrial category and the benefits should not be accorded to them can not be read so as to claim that there has to be parity of pay scales. Consequentially the contention in this regard of the applicants learned counsel necessary must fail. It clearly shows that the decision rendered by this Tribunal at Bangalore in the case of T.V.Ramachandran (OA.No.937/1999 decided on 31.8.2000) was the correct interpretation and the other decision which takes a view to the contrary has already been over-ruled and in other words to be more precise, we overrule the said decisions being to the contrary.
14. For these reasons, we answer the questions referred to this Full Bench as under:
(1) Keeping in view the decision of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prakash Dundappa Mogli and others v. Union of India and others and also reasons which are recorded above, we approve the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.937/99 entitled T.V.Ramachandran v. Union of India and overrule the other decision to the contrary mentioned in question No.1 referred to this Full Bench.
(2) The civilian tailors in the respondent organization would not be entitled to the benefit of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter and others Vs. Union of India and another and Prabhulal and another Vs. Union of India and others (supra).
(3) We make it clear that overruling of certain decisions will not have the effect of taking away the benefit that may have been accrued to those concerned applicants.
(4) Resultantly OA No. 239/02 is dismissed. No costs.
10. In the matters of Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455 the Honble Supreme Court has held that it is the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible. (Vide Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of India 1984 Supp SCC 457 : 1984 SCC (Tax) 225 : AIR 1984 SC 1772 Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 2 SCC 589 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 408 and Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India(2009) 15 SCC 705 ). It has further been held by their lordships that thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745 : AIR 1995 SC 705, Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. (1996) 7 SCC 426 : AIR 1996 SC 540 Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh (1999) 3 SCC 494 : AIR 1999 SC 1347 State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh(2000) 9 SCC 94 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 845 : AIR 2000 SC 2306, Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 SCC 309 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 707 : AIR 2001 SC 1877, Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346 : AIR 2003 SC 1241, Union of India v. International Trading Co.(2003) 5 SCC 437 : AIR 2003 SC 3983, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164 : AIR 2005 SC 565, K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581 : AIR 2006 SC 898 and Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K (2008) 9 SCC 24 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 783).
11. Thus, in view of the aforementioned discussions and the settled legal proposition on the subject, we are of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled for the same relief of grant of higher pay scale, as has been granted to Indaljeet Singh on the ground of parity, as the case of Indaljeet Singh has been treated by the respondents as an individual case, and there was no decision of the Government of India to upgrade all the Tailors in the Army to skilled grade.
12. In this view of the matter, the present Original Application is liable to be and is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (A.K.Patnaik) Administrative Member Judicial Member
rkv
19
Sub:-Grant of higher pay scale to Tailor in MOD OA No.687/2007
Page 19 of 19