Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Chain Singh S/O San Bhola Singh vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(Circuit Bench at Jammu)
Date of order: Jammu, this the 27th day of July , 2012
CORAM:HONBLE SMT. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER(A)
1. O. A. NO. 411/JK/2012 & Caveat No. 6/12.
1. Chain Singh s/o San Bhola Singh, R/o Garhi, Tehsil & District Udhampur, Age 55 years.
2. Bansi Lal s/o Sh. Nand Lal, R/o Mand Tehsil & District Udhampur, age 58 years.
3. Jagdish Dutt s/o Sh. Dina Nath, R/o Job P/o Jib, District, Udhampur age 53 years.
APPLICANTs
BY ADVOCATE: Mrs. Surinder Kaur with Mr. Rajiv Gorka
Versus
1. Union of India, through Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Engineer-in-Chiefs Branch, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer, Northern Command, C/o 56 APO.
4. Chief Engineer, Udhampur Zone, Udhampur.
5. Commander Works Engineers 5238, presently CWE, Udhampur.
6. Garrison Engineer (South), Udhampur.
7. Garrison Engineer (Utility), Udhampur.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI RAMESH ARORA PROXY FOR MRS. PRATIBHA MAHAJAN
2. O.A. No. 412/JK/2012 & Caveat No. 7/12, M.A. No. 559/2012
1. Munshi Ram s/o Sh. Des Raj, r/o Vill. Dhonri, P.O. Salmarihi, Teh. & District Udhampur, age 56 years.
2. Shamshu Din, s/o Sh. Ghulam Mohd., R/o Vill Choprashop, P.O. Gari, Tehsil & District Udhampur, age 53 years.
3. Bansi Lal s/o Sh. Pandhu, r/o Vill & P.O. Salmiri, Tehsil & District, Udhampur. Age 50 years.
4. Banarsi Dass s/o Sansar Chand, R/o Vill. Dhanloni, P.O. Salmarihi, Teh. & District Udhampur age 49 years
5. Rattan Lal s/o Sh. Krishan Lal, R/o Vill. & P.O. Chack, Teh. & District Udhampur, age 59 years.
6. Sita Ram s/o Sh. Krishan Lal, R/o Vill. Chakhar, Teh. & District Udhampur age 56 years.
Applicants.
BY ADVOCATE: Mrs. Surinder Kaur with Mr. Rajiv Gorka
Versus
1. Union of India, through Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Engineer-in-Chiefs Branch, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer, Northern Command, C/o 56 APO.
4. Chief Engineer, Udhampur Zone, Udhampur.
5. Commander Works Engineers 5238, presently CWE, Udhampur.
6. Garrison Engineer (South), Udhampur.
7. Garrison Engineer (Utility), Udhampur.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI RAMESH ARORA PROXY FOR MRS. PRATIBHA MAHAJAN
3. O.A. No. 413/JK/2012 Caveat No. 8/123 & M.A. No. 557/12
1. Madan Lal MES No. 507271 s/o Sh. Ram Chand, R/o Vill. Rehni P.O. Garhi, Teh. & District Udhampur, age 51 years.
2. Raj Kumar MES No. 364660 s/o Sh. Chandu Ram, R/o Vill & P.O. Garhi, Teh. & Dis. Udhampur, age 57 years.
3. Joginder Kumar MES No. 505782 S/o Sh. Lali, R/o Vill. Rehni, P.O. Garhi, Teh. & District Udhampur, age 50 years.
Applicants.
BY ADVOCATE: Mrs. Surinder Kaur with Mr. Rajiv Gorka
Versus
1. Union of India, through Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Engineer-in-Chiefs Branch, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer, Northern Command, C/o 56 APO.
4. Chief Engineer, Udhampur Zone, Udhampur.
5. Commander Works Engineers 5238, presently CWE, Udhampur.
6. Garrison Engineer (Utility), Udhampur.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI RAMESH ARORA PROXY FOR MRS. PRATIBHA MAHAJAN
4. O.A. No. 414/JK/2012 Caveat No. 9/12 & M.A. 560/12
1. Parbhat Chand s/o Sh. Phinu Ram, R/o Vill & P.O. Gandala Teh. & Dist. Udhampur, age 56 years.
2. Kaka Ram s/o Sh. Shambhu, R/o Vill. Suntha Sattani Teh. & Dist. Udhampur, age 58 years.
3. Prem Singh s/o Sh. Ram Chand, R/o Karowa P.O. Jaganoo, Teh. & Duistrict, Udhampur, age 56 years.
4. Bodh Raj s/o Sh. Badri Nath, R/o Vill. Rathvan P.O. Rathvan, Teh. & Dist. Udhampur age 57 years.
5. Mansa Ram s/o Sh. Ganga Ram, r/o Vill & P.O. Gandala, Teh. & Dist. Udhampur, age 57 years.
6. Harbans Kour w/o late Sh. Mazdoor Singh r/o MES Quarter Chopra Shop, Udhampur age 57 years.
7. Krishan Lal s/o Sh. Kirpa Ram, r/o Vil & P.O. Jib The. & Dist. Udhampur, age 57 years.
8. Prem Nath s/o Sh. Devi Chand, r/o Vill Taplad, P.O. Jonu Teh. & Dist. Udhampur, age 61 years.
Applicants.
BY ADVOCATE: Mrs. Surinder Kaur with Mr. Rajiv Gorka
Versus
1. Union of India, through Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Engineer-in-Chiefs Branch, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer, Northern Command, C/o 56 APO.
4. Chief Engineer, Udhampur Zone, Udhampur.
5. Commander Works Engineers 5238, presently CWE, Udhampur.
6. Garrison Engineer (South), Udhampur.
7. Garrison Engineer (Army), Udhampur
8. Garrison Engineer (Utility), Udhampur.
9. Garrison Engineer (North), Udhampur.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI RAMESH ARORA PROXY FOR MRS. PRATIBHA MAHAJAN
5. O.A. No. 415/JK/2012 (Caveat No. 10/12)
1. Tarlok Singh s/o Sh. Dhani Ram, r/o Vill. Tihurowan, Teh. & Dist. Udhampur, age 56 years.
2. Mangu Ram s/o Sh. Solu Ram, r/o Suntha Dhar Road, Udhampur, age 57 years.
3. Hukum Singh s/o Sh. Hari Ram, R/o Rathian Udhampur Teh. & District, Udhampur, age 56 years.
Applicants.
BY ADVOCATE: Mrs. Surinder Kaur with Mr. Rajiv Gorka
Versus
1. Union of India, through Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Engineer-in-Chiefs Branch, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer, Northern Command, C/o 56 APO.
4. Chief Engineer, Udhampur Zone, Udhampur.
5. Commander Works Engineers 5238, presently CWE, Udhampur.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI RAMESH ARORA PROXY FOR MRS. PRATIBHA MAHAJAN
6. O.A. No. 502/JK/2012 & M.A. 558/12
1. Bodh Raj s/o Sh. Mangat Ram, R/o Vill & P.O. Jib, Teh. & Dist. Udhampur age 56 years. ]
2. Parma Nand s/o Sh. Thakur Dass, R/o Vill. Chakhar, Teh. & Diustrict Udhampur, age 55 years.
3. Om Parkash s/o Sh. Bindra Nath, R/o Vill. Himbada, Teh. & Dist. Udhampur age 63 years.
4. Sat Pal s/o Sh. Amar Nath, R/o Vill. Dhnori, P.O. Salmarhi, Teh. & Dist. Udhamopur age 53 years.
5. Som Raj s/o Sh. Paras Ram, R/o Vill. Bharya P.O. Khraya The. & Dist. Udhampur, age 59 years.
6. Mohan Lal s/o Sh. Dina Nath, R/o Vill & P.O. Malhar, Teh. & District Udhampur age 61 years.
Applicants.
BY ADVOCATE: Mrs. Surinder Kaur with Mr. Rajiv Gorka
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Engineer-in-Chiefs Branch, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer, Northern Command, C/o 56 APO.
4. Chief Engineer, Udhampur Zone, Udhampur.
5. Commander Works Engineers 5238, presently CWE, Udhampur.
6. Garrison Engineer (North ), Udhampur.
7. Garrison Engineer (Utility), Udhampur.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI RAMESH ARORA PROXY FOR MRS. PRATIBHA MAHAJAN.
ORDER
HONBLE SMT. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER(J):-
Heard.
2. Since, in all these six Original Applications an identical point of law and facts are involved, therefore, these are being disposed of by a common order.
3. All these cases pertain to payment of pay scales as being paid to the skilled workers Valveman/Caneman. The applicants are claiming skilled grade of Rs. 260-400/- w.e.f. October 16,1981 as has been paid to the other similarly situated Valveman/Caneman who had approached the Court of law from time to time. The decision given by the Tribunal was upheld upto the Honble Supreme Court as claimed by the applicants.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants has particularly referred to SLP in the case of Bhagwan Sahai & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 1215. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that out of these aforesaid cases in the case of Chain Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. and Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs. UOI the respondents have passed order to grant the aforesaid pay scale to the applicants but the same has been restricted for 18 months from the date of filing of original application by them earlier, whereas these benefits have been granted to the similarly situated persons w.e.f. October 16, 1981. Therefore, the speaking order passed by the respondents is not passed in terms of the directions given by the Court in the earlier O.A. which was also upheld by the Honble High Court.
5. In remaining cases the learned counsel for the respondents have informed that since their cases are pending in the High Court no relief can be granted at this stage.
6. In reply to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that when the speaking order was passed in these three cases of Mohan Lal Baya & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors, Prabhat Chand & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors and Budh Ram & ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. one case was pending in the Honble High Court titled Union of India Vs. Amar Nath which now stands decided vide Annexure A-4. Therefore, the respondents are bound to grant them the appropriate relief as being granted in the Amar Nath case also, as they are similarly situated persons.
7. In the O.A. No. 415/JK/2012 filed by Tarlok Singh & Ors. despite three opportunities granted since 27.4.2012, the respondents have not filed reply. In this case also the applicants have sought directions to the respondents to grant them similar relief of pay scale of skilled category of Rs. 260-400/- as has been granted to the similarly situated persons.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents has requested this Court to give some more time to file reply in Bodh Raj case ( O.A. No.502/JK/12 ) also, however, taking into consideration that issue involved in these cases is no longer res-integra and legal point has already been set at rest by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter & ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1989 1215, therefore, we are of the view that instead of seeking more time to file reply, which we have not granted, the respondents are duty bound to consider the case of the present applicants in terms of the observations and directions given by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai (Supra) and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. decided on 19.8.2010 (Annexure A-4) wherein it is categorically mentioned by the Honble Supreme Court in the concluding paras 43 & 44 that :-
43. Since, the Government itself has accorded sanction for implementation of judgments and directions of the various Courts and Tribunals including this Court as reflected in the above communications, there shall be no impediment in upgradation of the respondents grade to skilled category in the scale of Rs. 260- 400/- as prayed for.
44. In consideration of the above and having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, we are of the view that the respondent, who are undisputedly also performing their duties as are assigned to the skilled workers, are entitled to skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16,1981, in the light of the principle of equal pay for equal work, which itself is a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9. After careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that since the Honble Apex Court has granted the aforesaid pay-scale w.e.f. October 16,1981 to the similarly situated persons the present applicants cannot be deprived of this benefit in violation of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. Thus, in the conspectus of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants for grant of the pay scale of Rs. 260-400/- with arrears from the date it has been granted to the similarly situated persons as discussed above and pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicants, if it is so required. Needful as above, be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With these directions as above, the above O.As, M.As and Caveat stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
(RANBIR SINGH) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
Place: Jammu.
Dated: July 27, 2012
`SK
1
(OA No.411/JK/2012 & 5 other
Connected O.As.)