Himachal Pradesh High Court
Thakur Dass vs Union Of India & Others on 3 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 3158 of 2016
Date of decision: 03.10.2024
Thakur Dass ....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. 18407 of 2024
1. This is an application seeking early hearing of the writ
petition.
2. The writ petition was instituted in 2016. The record shows
that the writ petition was admitted on 06.11.2019.
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 a Postal Assistant (Reserved Trained Pool) in the year
1983.
8.1 The petitioner was, thereafter, appointed as a regular Postal
Assistant on 01.01.1988.
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 1990. The petitioner's O.A. was
numbered 1402/HP/1990.
10. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal via order dated
01.01.1992. 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 the 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]
11. Strangely, although the Tribunal had directed payment of
arrears along with consequential benefits to the petitioner, the petitioner
chose not to enforce the order, perhaps, due to a misunderstanding of the
directions issued by the Tribunal.
12. 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 inCWP No. 1466-CAT, titled Union of India & others vs.
Pardeep Jain & others.
13. On the basis of the said judgment, the petitioner preferred a
representation that was not responded to. The petitioner, along with
other similarly situated persons, thereafter, preferred O.As. before the
Tribunal.
14. The Tribunal, via order dated 24.12.2014, disposed of the
O.As. with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation
made by the petitioner.
14.1 The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the
concerned authority via order dated 23.03.2015.
15. It is against this backdrop that the petitioner preferred a
second O.A. before the Tribunal, which was dismissed, as noticed
above, on the grounds of delay and laches via order dated 24.05.2016.
16. Ms. Shikha Chauhan, learned counsel, who appears on
behalf of the petitioner, says that the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Union of India & others vs. Pardeep Jain &
others has been implemented by the respondents.
16.1 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 inter alia to the HR Division
Ambala. In addition, thereto, in support of the plea that the
aforementioned judgment of 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.
17. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India, does not dispute the fact that despite delay being propped as
a defence in Pardeep Jain's case, the Court ruled against the
respondents and the judgment was subsequently, as noticed above,
implemented.
18. In this peculiar case, the Tribunal, in the first round, had
directed the respondents to grant not only arrears of pay but also
consequential benefits. Despite this, the petitioner failed to comprehend
the import of the directions passed in his favour.
19. Be that as it may, the petitioner's cause is not different from
the cause which was addressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
in Pardeep Jain's case. 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 Pardeep Jain's 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 with effect from
01.01.1992 till 23.03.2015.
(Rajiv Shakdher)
Chief Justice.
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
3rd October, 2024
(kck)
