Allahabad High Court
The Union Of India Through General ... vs Mohammad Mustaquim @ Mustkeem And ... on 5 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:19368-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1375 of 2024
Petitioner :- The Union Of India Through General Manager North Estern Railway Gorakhpur U Pin 273012 And 5 Others
Respondent :- Mohammad Mustaquim @ Mustkeem And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Sharma,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Sharma
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The writ petition is filed assailing the orders dated 18.07.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 235 of 20223.
3. The first respondent herein has filed the original application before the second respondent questioning the order dated 20.04.2021, by which the applicant's request for grant of Over Time Allowance for the duty performed by him as Gateman from 30.09.1995 to 31.01.2017 in excess to eight hours duty per day i.e. four hours extra duty per day has been rejected.
4. In the aforesaid claim petition, as per the direction of the petitioners herein, the applicant continuously worked at Gate No. 16-B for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours from 30.09.1995 till 10.03.2008. Subsequently, he was transferred to Gate No. 59-C, which was situated at different locality and there also he has worked from 11.3.2008 till his retirement i.e. 31.01.2017 for 12 hours duty per day. In the identical facts and circumstances, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 643 of 2015, has allowed the original application by granting relief to the applicants therein. The said judgment was assailed before the High Court of Delhi in Writ C No. 8628 of 2018 (Union of India Vs. Hari Ram and others), which was dismissed. The respondents have not filed any appeal against the said order and it attained finality.
5. Initially, the first respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna by filing Original Application No. 43 of 2021, which was disposed of giving liberty to the first respondent to prefer representation to the appropriate authority within earliest possible time and on such filing, the same shall be considered by the said authority and pass appropriate orders.
6. Accordingly, the first respondent has submitted his application/representation before the authority concerned. The same was considered and rejected vide order dated 20.04.2021. In view of the same, the respondent has preferred the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad. The same was considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal following the observations made by High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid writ petition and passed the following order:
"19. Thus, after going through the entire judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as have been quoted wherein the case of Om Prakash (supra) and other cases which have similar facts and circumstances as the instant case of the applicant, it leaves no doubt that the applicant is liable to be granted the benefit as claimed. This is especially when the judgment of Om Prakash (supra) and other similar cases have been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court on more than one occasion. Thus, the instant original application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. Impugned order dated 20.04.2021 is hereby set aside. The competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to grant the benefit of Over Time Allowance to the applicant as has been claimed in the OA. The said exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without fail. "
7. Aggrieved by the said order, present writ petition has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as liberty given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Original Application No. 43 of 2021, the first respondent has not furnished full particulars of work done by him, hence, the same was rejected by the petitioners. Apart from the above, the respondent has not made request at the appropriate point of time, his request is belated based on the relief granted to other identically situated persons and the first respondent has filed the same with a delay of a decade as he is not entitled for the same relief.
9. As far as the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to laches as the respondent did not come to press this matter is concerned, the first respondent has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in the year 2021 and liberty has been given in the said petition. Accordingly, petitioners could not be able to show laches on the part of the first respondent.
10. Considering the submissions so advanced and also perusal of record, the fact remains that as observed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in the instant application that identical reliefs granted to other persons, who were similarly situated and the said orders were also implemented. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner could not able to distinguish the facts involved in Writ C No. 8628 of 2018 filed before the Delhi High Court and the present writ petition. In view of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ C No. 8628 of 2018 in similarly placed persons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned herein.
11. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.2.2024
Noman
