Uoi & Ors vs Vinod Kumar & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 7206 Del

       THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 17.12.2012

+       W.P.(C) 7805/2012

UOI & ORS                                                      ... Petitioners

                                        versus

VINOD KUMAR & ORS                                              ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners          : Mr Rajinder Nischal
For the Respondent           : Mr Padma Kumar S.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

CAV 1269/2012

The learned counsel for the respondents is present.

The caveat stands discharged.

WP(C) 7805/2012 & CM 19648/2012

1. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 15.05.2012 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in

OA 3178/2011, which was allowed by the said Tribunal.

2. There were 13 petitioners before the Tribunal in the said OA. Two

out of the 13 persons were Data Entry Operators Group 'D' and the other

11 persons were Data Entry Operators Group 'B'. The post DEO 'B' is

the feeder group for DEO 'D'.

3. The post of DEO 'D' was placed in the scale of ` 5500-9000 (pre-

revised). The respondents were claiming that the revised scale ought to

be ` 6,500-10,500/-. The persons who were functioning as DEO 'B' are

also interested because they have been given the financial upgradation

under the ACP scheme and, therefore, they are also claiming the scale of

` 6,500-10,500/-.

4. It may be pointed out at this stage itself that earlier five persons,

who were holding the post of DEO 'D', had filed an Original Application

under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 claiming the

scale of ` 6,500-10,500/-. Those persons were granted that scale by the

Tribunal by virtue of an order dated 03.02.2005 in OA 1288/2004.

Thereafter, another set of persons, which included three persons who

were in service and other retired persons, filed OA 1574/2005 claiming

the same scale of ` 6,500-10,500/- insofar as the post of DEO 'D' was

concerned. That Original Application was also allowed by the Tribunal

by virtue of its order dated 07.04.2006. It is pertinent to note the

observations of the Tribunal in OA 1574/2005 decided on 07.04.2006,

which are to the following effect:-

"Applicants are, therefore, similarly circumstanced as applicants in those cases. In view of the Coordinate Bench decision with the matter of Sh. M. Krishnamoorty (supra) and that of the Apex Court in K. C. Sharma and ors. Vs. UOI 1987 (3) ATC 1177 they cannot be denied the similar benefits as accorded to identically situated persons. Respondents as such will be well advised to extend the benefit of the aforesaid judgments to the similarly placed applicants and they should not have driven them to seek redressal of their grievance before the Tribunal."

5. The said order dated 07.04.2006 was not challenged by the

petitioners and was implemented. Once that was the position, the

petitioners ought to have extended the benefit of the said decisions of the

Tribunal in OA 1288/2004 and OA 1574/2005 to similarly circumstanced

individuals. But the petitioners did not do so, as a result of which the

respondents were compelled to file the said OA 3178/2011 which has

been allowed by the Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal noticed that as a result of the inaction on the part of

the petitioners to extend the benefits of the said two decisions to all

similarly circumstanced individuals, persons holding the same post have

been categorized into two categories carrying different pay scales, though

both were at par in all other respects. The Tribunal also noticed that out

of ten posts of DEO 'D', eight individuals were getting a pay scale of

` 6,500-10,500/-, while the remaining two (respondent Nos. 1 and 2

herein) were getting the pay scale of ` 5,500-9,000/-. The Tribunal also

noticed that the other respondents (respondent Nos. 3-13 herein), who had

been granted ACP, have been placed in the pay scale of ` 5,500-9,000/-

instead of ` 6,500-10,500/-. After noticing this anomaly, the Tribunal

quashed the order dated 31.03.2011, whereby the respondents herein were

denied the benefit of the higher pay scale merely on the ground that they

were not parties to the earlier litigation, namely, OA 1288/2004 and

OA 1574/2005. The Tribunal, accordingly, allowed the Original

Application No. 3178/2011 and directed the petitioners herein to grant the

respondents herein the same pay scale of ` 6,500-10,500/- as has been

granted to the DEO 'D' in the earlier litigation.

7. The petitioners are aggrieved by this decision of the Tribunal and

are before us by way of this writ petition. We fail to see as to why this

writ petition has been filed when the position in law is very clear. The

learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to three

decisions of the Supreme Court, which we shall mention presently. The

first decision is in the case of Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central

Excise: (1975) 4 SCC 714, wherein the Supreme Court observed as

under:-

"24. ................We may, however, observe that when a citizen aggrieved by the action of a government department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievances to court."

8. The next decision is in the case of Inder Pal Yadav and Others v.

Union of India and Others: (1985) 2 SCC 648, wherein the Supreme

Court, inter alia, stated as under:-

"5. ..............It is a Hobson's choice. Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court."

9. Finally, in the case of State of Karnataka and Others v. C.

Lalitha: (2006) 2 SCC 747, the Supreme Court categorically observed as

follows:-

"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently..............."

10. The dictum of the Supreme Court is absolutely clear that in service

jurisprudence all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly

and only because some persons had approached the court, would not

entitle the employers to treat persons similarly situated, but who have not

approached the court, in a different manner.

11. As a result, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order

passed by the Tribunal as that follows the law laid down by the Supreme

Court. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 17, 2012 SR