Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Kulwant Singh And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1397 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 27th November, 2001. The applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the respondents herein, had claimed parity with the applicants in O.A. 133/1991 before the Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal which directed the respondents to upgrade the posts of Material Checkers held up the applicants before it to the higher grade of Material Checking Clerks. The said order of the Lucknow Bench had been appealed against before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition and thus the order of the Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal became final.

2. The foundation of the pleas of the respondents was that the respondents i.e. the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and the applicants in O.A. 133/91 before the Lucknow Bench were placed in the same seniority list of Material Checkers. It is also contended that while the judgment of the Lucknow Bench has been complied with, but it has been restricted only to the applicants before the Lucknow Bench of the CAT and the benefit thereof has been denied to the applicants before the CAT, New Delhi, who were similarly situated to the applicants before the Lucknow Bench. It is thus contended that since the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court, consequently the issue involved in that case cannot be re-opened. The petitioner took a stand that the order of the Lucknow Bench was not binding as certain orders of the Railway Board has been ignored and the dismissal of the S.L.P. by the Supreme Court did not make it law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Consequently the order affirmed by the Supreme Court was decided to be implemented only for those persons who had filed the O.A. before the Lucknow Bench and none else.

3. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment found that it was not even the case of the respondent that the applicants were not placed in the same seniority list as those before the Lucknow Bench. In fact some of the respondents herein were shown as senior to the appellants before the Lucknow Bench. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Lucknow Bench and held as under:-

"Applying the said principles...

the applicants are entitled to count their seniority from the date they were so upgraded and placed in the same pay scale and their seniority will be countered from that date. Those who are Material Clerks before that, obviously will rank senior to them but those who become Material Checkers subsequent to their gradation and placement in the same scale, will rand junior to them and accordingly this application is allowed to the extent that the order dated 19.4.1991 is quashed and the respondents are directed to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and give promotions to the applicants in accordance with their seniority and placement without requiring them to undergo written test or viva-voce for the post of Material Clerks."

4. The Tribunal further found that even before the Lucknow Bench, the letter dated 6th July, 1978 was relied upon by the applicant and had been relied upon before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi too. The Tribunal further held that the judgment of Lucknow Bench had attained finality and had been admittedly implemented by the Union of India and therefore following the law laid down in Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi (SLR 1975 (1) 153 at 169) and Girdhari Lal v. Union of India and Ors. the Appellant/Union of India ought to have treated alike all persons similarly situated. The Tribunal had noticed that the Railway Board's letter relied upon by the applicant/respondent itself, clearly states that for the upgraded posts of Material Clerks, no arrears will be paid prior to 1st August, 1978. Consequently the full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal directed that the applicants were entitled to have their pay re-fixed from the relevant date in the grade of Material Checkers and Clerks and the consequential benefits will be subject to law of limitation.

5. It is this order of the Full Bench dated 23rd October, 2001 along with the consequent order of the Division Bench dated 27th November, 2001 which is challenged in this Writ Petition before us and the learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that since the order of the Tribunal, Lucknow did not state that the similarly situated persons shall be given benefit, it could not be given to the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi as it was not a precedent and the treating the order of the Tribunal, Lucknow as a precedent will open the flood gates. Besides making this sweeping statement no detail or particular of any kind whatsoever was averred in the writ petition or even urged in arguments before us. Infact, it turned out that the phrase 'Flood gates' had been used rather liberally and inappropriately particularly when enquiries revealed that there were only 8 respondents. Learned counsel has further relied upon the plea that the Material Checker's post were project based and they cannot claim the effect of any upgradation policy.

6. We have considered the pleas of the petitioner and are satisfied that the writ petition is without merit. While there is no dispute that the judgment of Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had not made it universally applicable, yet it is not in dispute that most of the respondents figure in the same seniority list as the applicants before the Lucknow Bench. The respondents' plea was based on the fact that the similarly situated persons who figured in the same seniority list and were even senior to the applicants before the Lucknow Bench cannot be treated differently by the respondent, particularly when the Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Lucknow Bench and the principles laid down therein. We are satisfied that there is no merit in the plea of the respondent and the Central Administrative Tribunal was entirely justified in granting the benefit entitling them to have their pay refixed in the grade of Material Checkers and Clerk as was done in the case of the applicants before the Lucknow Bench. Irrespective of the fact that whether the Lucknow Bench order was universally applicable, those figuring in the same seniority list as the applicants and those other similarly situated as the applicants before the Lucknow Bench are entitled to similar benefits particularly when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the order of the Lucknow Bench. We are satisfied that the respondents' plea deserved to be accepted and the petitioner had unduly delayed the implementation of the benefits granted by the Lucknow Bench Central Administrative Tribunal for no valid reason. Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition.

7. We must also note that even though the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal laid down the principles governing dispute by its judgment dated 23rd October, 2001 and the Division Bench consequently granted benefits in accordance with the Full Bench judgment by its order dated 27th November, 2001. The writ petition in this Court was filed only in August, 2002. The petition consequently suffers from inordinate and unexplained laches also and the petitioners have ignored the time bound direction of the Tribunal dated 24th November, 2001 directing implementation of the judgment within three months from the date of the receipt of the order. The period of more than 9 months have passed before the writ petition was filed and taken up for hearing on 14th August, 2002. Apart from the fact that we find no merit in the writ petition it also suffers from unexplained laches and warrants dismissal on this ground also.