Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Shri Kulwant Rai Gupta And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1492 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. Whether the decision of a Tribunal can be implemented by imposing any condition, is the question involved in this writ petition.

2. The respondents herein were working as Junior Engineers upon re-designation. They were promoted as Superintendent (E/M) Grade II in the revised scale of Rs. 1400-2300. The holders of the said posts claimed parity with the Junior Engineers of CPWD wherefor Original Applications being No. OA 1337, 1364 to 1375/94 had been filed before the Bangalore Bench. The said applications were allowed. The petitioners were directed to grant higher scale of pay as paid to the Junior Engineers in CPWD bearing the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 as and when they complete five years of service in the grade w.e.f. 1st January 1986 and upon completion of 15 years to the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 1st January 1991. The petitioners herein filed an application for grant of Special Leave before the Apex Court which was dismissed by an order dated 9th April 1996. The OAs filed by the Superintendent Grade II in the afore-mentioned directions for the similar reliefs were also allowed. It is not in dispute that the respondents, while implementing the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench by letter dated 24th April 1996 allowed the said scales of pay to all the similarly situated persons. Sanction had also been accorded of higher scales to individual Superintendents by a presidential letter dated 25th April 1996 as a result whereof the respondents became entitled to the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 after five years as they were recruited as Superintendents in 1983 on the ground that they are entitled to the first higher scale of Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f. 19th August 1998. The said benefit was extended by an order dated 30th September 1996. The said employees were not subjected to any departmental examination. Employees similarly situated who had completed 10 years of service had been given both the scales of pay after a gap of 5 and 15 years respectively. Furthermore, the pay of the respondents herein had also been revised as per the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 1st January 1996.

According to the respondents, they became entitled for second ungradation of pay of Rs. 2000-3500 upon completion of 15 years of service but they were denied the same.

It is not in dispute that the Superintendents I and II had also been redesignated as Junior Engineers. The respondents, however, had been deprived from the second revision on the ground that they did not pass the MES departmental examination and as such, they are not entitled to the said scale of pay. Questioning the same, the Original Applications were filed which, by reason of the impugned judgment, have been allowed.

3. Before the learned Tribunal, an order of Jammu & Kashmir High Court was produced wherein it was held that the Grade I and Grade II having been merged, the holders of the posts were entitled as a matter of right to be redesignated as Superintendents. The learned Tribunal directed:

"11. Having regard to the discussion made above and the reasons recorded we set aside the letters issued at Annexures P-1 and direct the respondents to release to the applicants the higher pay scale of Rs. 2000 - 3500 as revised to Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. August 1998 when they had completed the requisite 15 years of service and also to grant them all the arrears and other benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The O.A. is allowed in the above terms, but without any order as to costs."

4. Mr. D.K. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would contend that the learned Tribunal committed an error is passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that by reason of the judgment rendered by Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner herein had not been prohibited from imposing a condition that for the purpose of getting the benefit thereof, they will have to pass the examination.

5. We have examined the judgment of the learned Tribunal and are of the opinion that the same cannot be faulted with. It is not in dispute that the posts of Superintendents have been redesignated. The petitioners had not disputed the fact that the respondents were entitled to the first pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in Grade II Superintendent. In terms of the decision of the Bangalore Bench, a policy decision, as noticed hereinbefore, has been taken. It is now a well-settled principle that any deviation from the policy decision would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, it has not been disputed that the respondents herein as well as the applicants before the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal stand on the same footing.

6. The petitioners herein not only implemented the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, as noticed hereinbefore, it has been upheld by the Apex Court. Once it is held that those applicants and others who had been granted the same benefit, are similarly situated to those of the respondents, in our opinion, no discrimination can be made by directing that the respondents must pass a departmental examination. If any difficulty was being faced by the petitioners herein to implement the judgment of the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, they should have filed an application for review or clarification thereof. It, by itself, without obtaining such leave from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, could not have treated persons similarly situated differently by directing that they would have to pass an examination and that too after passing the order of re-designation of two posts.

7. Furthermore, the matter might have been different if the judgment of the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had not been implemented. It is beyond any pale of doubt that the same has been implemented.

8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.