Delhi High Court
R.K. Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr on 5 August, 2016
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Dated: 5th August, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 6828/2016
R.K. SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj with
Mr. Shriambhra Kashyap, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. At the admission stage, with the consent of the parties the writ petition is
set down for final disposal.
2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to for short as
„the Tribunal‟) by which while disposing of the OA, it was directed by
the Tribunal that if the petitioner was entitled to the actual financial
benefits, it would be confined to three years preceding the filing of the
OA.
3. The grievance of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that they were
entitled to grant of Pay Scale of Rs.5500-9000/- of Hindi Translators
notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 11.02.2003 and revised
Pay Scale of Rs.7500-12000/- of Assistant Director(Official
Language/Hindi Officer).
4. It was urged before the Tribunal that by placing reliance on a judgment
dated 14.08.2014 passed in OA. No.2777/2014, that similar issue was
considered by the Tribunal and the judgment in the aforesaid OA stands
implemented. The Tribunal was persuaded to hold that the present
matter was covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal. The OA
was disposed of with the following directions:
"3. In view of the above circumstances, this O.A. is being
disposed of with the directions that the respondents would
examine the claim of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid
judgment dated 14.08.2014 passed in O.A. No.2777/2014 and if
there is no distinguishable feature, the benefit of the aforesaid
judgment shall be granted to the applicants. It is, however,
observed that even though the respondents may fix the pay of the
applicants notionally, the actual financial benefits, if found
entitled to, would be confined to three years preceding the filing
of the present O.A. No costs."
5. While learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal at his
request disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondents to
examine the claim, but has imposed a restriction which was not imposed
by the Tribunal either while deciding OA.No.2777/2014 nor such a
condition was imposed while deciding subsequent OAs on the same
ground. He submits that to that extent where the Tribunal has directed
that in case the petitioners are entitled to the relief, the same would be
confined to three years preceding the filing of the present OA would
seriously prejudice the rights and claims of the petitioners. Moreover,
neither this argument was addressed nor decided by a reasoned order.
Mr. Bhardwaj thus, prays that in case the order is not modified, it would
attain finality and would come in the way of the petitioners and their
claims would be restricted only for three years from the date of the filing
of the OA.
6. Notice to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted. Mr. Ruchir
Mishra, enters appearance on behalf of the respondents on an advance
copy and accepts notice.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners at the Bar that in the
earlier OA, this restriction of three years was not imposed. We also find
that in the order, there are no reasons as to why such a condition has
been imposed in the present case. Thus, it we deem it appropriate to
modify this order to the extent that in case the entitlement of the
petitioners is upheld, it would be open for the respondents to pass such
orders with regard to the entitlement in accordance with law. The legal
grounds of both the parties are kept open.
8. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
AUGUST 05, 2016
pst
