Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sushil Kumar vs Union Of India& Others on 3 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHALPRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 3179 of 2016
Date of decision: 03.10.2024
Sushil Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India& others ....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the petitioner: Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI.
Rajiv Shakdher Chief Justice (oral):
CMP No. 18414 of 2024
1. This is an application seeking early hearing of the writ
petition.
2. The writ petition was filed in 2016. The record shows that
the writ petition was admitted on 29.12.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner says that the
issue raised in the instant petition is covered by several judgments.
4. Accordingly, the prayer made in the application is allowed.
5. The writ petition is taken for hearing and final disposal with
the consent of counsel for the parties.
6. This writ petition is directed against the order dated
24.05.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Chandigarh
Bench) [hereafter referred to as the "Tribunal"].
7. Via the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the
Original Application [O.A.] filed by the petitioner on the ground of
delay and laches.
8. On facts, it is pleaded by the petitioner that he was
appointed as Postal Assistant (Reserved Trained Pool) on 29.10.1982.
8.1 The petitioner was, thereafter, appointed as a regular Postal
Assistant on 12.02.1988.
9. Since the petitioner was not treated at par with the regular
Postal Assistants concerning pay, allowances, and seniority, he
approached the Tribunal in and about 1990via O.A. no. 1402/HP/1990.
9.1 The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal via order dated
01.01.1992.
9.2 The operative part of the said order reads as follows:
"For the above mentioned reasons, we accept this Application and
hold that the applicants are entitled to be paid the same salary and
allowances as were being paid to the postal assistants appointed on
regular basis, for the period during which the applicants had been
working in R.T.P. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay
the arrears i.e. difference between the amount already paid to the
applicants and the amount to the payment of which the applicants
are entitled on the basis of this judgment and also all other
consequential benefits within a period of 3 months from today."
[Emphasis is ours]
9.3 Strangely, although the Tribunal had directed payment of
arrears along with consequential benefits to the applicant within three
(3) months of the order being passed, the petitioner chose not to enforce
the order, perhaps, due to a misunderstanding of the directions issued by
the Tribunal.
10. The petitioner woke up to the fact that it had been granted
relief when the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered its decision on
18.02.2014 in CWP No. 1466-CAT, titled Union of India and others v.
Pardeep Jain and others.
11. On the basis of the said judgment, the petitioner preferred a
representation, which was not responded to. This led to the petitioner
approaching the Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal, via order dated 24.12.2014, disposed of the
petitioner's O.A. with a direction to the respondents to consider the
representation of the petitioner.
13. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the
concerned authority via order dated 23.03.2015.
14. It is against this backdrop that the petitioner preferred a
second O.A. before the Tribunal, which was dismissed, as noticed
above, on the ground of delay and laches via order dated 24.05.2016.
15. Ms. Shikha Chauhan, learned counsel, who appears on
behalf of the petitioner says that the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in thePardeep Jain's case has been implemented
by the respondents.
15.1 For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to the
communication dated 03.04.2014, addressed by the Assistant Director,
Postal Services Haryana Circle, Ambala, interalia, to the HR Division
Ambala.
15.2 In addition thereto, in support of the plea that the
aforementioned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has
been implemented, our attention was also drawn to the communication
dated 26.05.2014 addressed by the Superintendent RMS, HR Division
Ambala to the HRO, RMS HR Division, Ambala.
16. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India, does not dispute the fact that despite delay being propped as
defence in the Pardeep Jain case, the Court ruled against the
respondents and the judgment was subsequently, as noticed above,
implemented.
17. The peculiarity of this case stems from the fact that despite
the Tribunal, in the first round, having directed the respondents to grant
not only arrears of pay but also consequential benefits, the petitioner
failed to comprehend the import of the directions passed in his favour.
18. Be that as it may, the petitioner's cause is not different from
the cause addressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
Pardeep Jain case.
19. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the writ petition.
20. The petitioner will be paid all consequential benefits at par
with those whose cause was the subject matter of the Pardeep Jain case.
21. Ms Chauhan concedes that since the petitioner delayed
enforcement of the order passed by the Tribunal in the first round, the
petitioner cannot lay claim to interest on arrears for the period spanning
01.01.1992 and 23.03.2015.
(Rajiv Shakdher)
Chief Justice.
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
3rd October, 2024
(kck)
