Delhi High Court
Amit Jain vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 March, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.1304/2010
% Date of Decision: 16.03.2010
Amit Jain .... Petitioner
Through Ms.Shikha Sapra, Advocate.
Versus
Union of India & Anr .... Respondents
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th November, 2009
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in O.A No.3142/2009 titled as Amit Jain v. Union of India & Anr
dismissing his original application seeking a direction to the
respondents to grant him arrears of pay and allowances with effect from
1st August, 1989 or 7th August, 1989 at par with other similarly
situated officers.
The petitioner had joined the Customs Department as an
Appraiser after his selection by UPSC through Civil Service
Examination, 1982 and was placed at the minimum scale of Rs.650-
1200/-. The petitioner was not given benefit of protection of pay last
drawn by him in United India Insurance Company Ltd.
The Department of Personnel and Training had issued an O.M
dated 7th August, 1989 contemplating extension of benefit of protection
of pay (pay plus dearness allowance) to the persons working in public
sector undertakings, Universities, semi Government institutions and
autonomous bodies, on their appointment as direct recruits.
While appointing the petitioner as an Appraiser in the Customs
Department since his pay in the United India Insurance Company Ltd
was not protected, a representation dated 23rd August, 1995 was filed
which was declined on the ground that the O.M was applicable only
from 1st August, 1989.
Aggrieved by the decision not to grant pay protection under the
O.M dated 7th August, 1989, the petitioner had filed an Original
Application No.1146/1996 before the Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai
seeking refixation of his pay and grant of the benefit of protection of
emoluments drawn by him with United India Insurance Company, his
previous employer.
The Original Application filed before the Mumbai bench of the
Administrative Tribunal was decided by order dated 13th June, 2001
holding that the petitioner is entitled for grant of benefit of refixation in
terms of O.M No.12/1/88- Estt. (Pay-I) dated 7th August, 1989 effective
from 1st August, 1989, however, directed that the petitioner would be
entitled for arrears of pay and allowances on refixation from 1st
November, 1995, one year prior to the date the original application had
been filed by the petitioner.
A writ petition was filed against the order of the Tribunal dated
13th June, 2001 by Mumbai bench and during the pendency of the said
writ petition, it had transpired that the benefit under the said O.M was
given with effect from 1st August, 1989 to some other officials who were
similarly placed as petitioner.
The petitioner also came to know about the benefits granted to
some other officials from the date they joined service and therefore, he
made representations on 24th June, 2008 and 9th September, 2008. The
writ petition filed in the Mumbai High Court against the order of the
Tribunal dated 13th June, 2001 was also dismissed on 22nd September,
2008. The order of the Tribunal dated 13th June, 2001 therefore,
became final as neither the respondent nor the department filed any
Special Leave Petition against the said order of Bombay High Court
dismissing the writ petition on 22nd September, 2008.
The representations filed by the petitioner dated 24th June, 2008
and 9th September, 2008 were also rejected by order dated 16th April,
2009 declining to grant said benefit to the petitioner on the ground that
the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal had allowed the benefit of payments
of arrears of pay and allowances from 1st November, 1995 only and
subsequently the benefit could not be granted from 7th August, 1989
and consequently the original application filed before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi was dismissed.
The Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application on the
ground that the issue of grant of benefit from 7th August, 1989 and
other points were raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal, Mumbai
bench and he cannot be allowed to raise the same issues again by filing
another petition after several years.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that the
other employees similarly situated were granted benefit even from the
date they joined the services and so the petitioner cannot be
discriminated and he is also entitled for benefit under the O.M, not from
1st November, 1995 but from the earlier date.
This cannot be disputed that the petitioner had raised these pleas
in his Original Application being O.A No.1146/1996 before the Mumbai
bench and his original application seeking similar relief was decided by
order dated 13th June, 2001. If certain facts had come to the notice of
the petitioner then the same should have been agitated by him in the
writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court against the order dated
13th June, 2001 which was also decided by order dated 22nd September,
2008. The order dated 13th June, 2001 decided by Mumbai bench of the
Administrative Tribunal and the order dated 22nd September, 2008 of
the Bombay High Court became final as the petitioner did not file a
Special Leave Petition challenging the said orders. Consequently the
order dated 13th June, 2001 which had become final granting the
petitioner benefit from 1st November, 1995 and not from an earlier date
cannot be re-agitated. The said order could not be reviewed or modified
in another original application filed by the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out any
grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 5th November,
2009 dismissing his original application seeking benefit of OM from a
date earlier to 1st November, 1995. In the circumstances for the
foregoing reasons, there is no such illegality or irregularity in the order
of the Tribunal which would require interference by this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is without any merit, and it is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
MARCH 16, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
