Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Puran Lal Age 62 Years vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 9 October, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
h475
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 24-09-2024
Pronounced on :09-10-2024
SWP No.2450/2018
1. Puran Lal Age 62 years
MES No. 504142
S/O Sh. Ganesh Dass
R/O V.P.O Kot Tehsil Bhalwal District Jammu.
2. Sham Lal, Age60 yrs.
MES No. 504280
S/O Sh. Bhagat Ram
R/O V.P.O. Nandpur Camp, Tehsil Ramgarh Distt. Samba.
3. Parsidh Singh Age 61 years
MES No. 504994
S/O Sh. Nasib Chand
R/O Village Rehian Kaink Tehsil Ghagwal District Samba.
...Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate
V/s
1. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh, Sector 17-E
Through its Registrar.
2. Union of India,
Through Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, North Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief
ENC Sec. H. Room No. 112
Integrated Head Quarter, Ministry of Defence (Army)
Kashmir House, Raja Ji Marg, New Delhi.
4. Chief Engineer Head Quarters,
Northern Command,
C/O 56 APO, Udhampur (J&K).
5. Commander Works Engineer,
Jammu.
6. Garrison Engineer,
Nagrota, Jammu.
.....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Ms. Parkhi Parihar, Advocate.
SWP No. 2449/2018
Narinder Kumar Age 62 years
MES No. 503932
S/O Lt. Bk. Puran Chand
R/O Narwal Pain, Airport Road, Satwari Jammu.
...Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate
V/s
1. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh, Sector 17-E
Through its Registrar.
2. Union of India,
Through Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, North Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief
ENC Sec. H. Room No. 112
Integrated Head Quarter, Ministry of Defence (Army)
Kashmir House, Raja Ji Marg, New Delhi.
4. Chief Engineer Head Quarters,
Western Command,
C/O 56 APO, Chandi Mandir.
5. Commander Works Engineer,
Jammu.
6. Garrison Engineer,
Kaluchak, Jammu.
...Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
SWP No. 2450/2018 & connected matters 2
Ms. Parkhi Parihar, Advocate.
SWP No. 2451/2018
1. Joginder Singh Age 62 years
MES No. 504135
S/O Sh. Sham Singh
R/O V.P.O. Kirpind Tehsil R. S. Pura District Jammu.
2. Chet Ram Age 61 years
MES No. 504996
S/O Sh. Chajju Ram
R/O Village Rakh Amb Tali Tehsil & District Samba.
...Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate
V/s
1. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh, Sector 17-E
Through its Registrar.
2. Union of India,
Through Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, North Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief
ENC Sec. H. Room No. 112
Integrated Head Quarter, Ministry of Defence (Army)
Kashmir House, Raja Ji Marg, New Delhi.
4. Chief Engineer Head Quarters,
Northern Command,
C/O 56 APO, Udhampur (J&K).
5. Commander Works Engineer,
Jammu.
6. Garrison Engineer,
Nagrota, Jammu.
....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Ms. Parkhi Parihar, Advocate.
SWP No. 2452/2018
Subash Chander Age 49 years
SWP No. 2450/2018 & connected matters 3
MES No. 508037
S/O Sh. Shiv Ram
R/O Madoon Camp Tehsil and PO Rajpura
District Samba,
C/O Garrison Engineer, Nagrota, Jammu.
...Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate
V/s
1. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh, Sector 17-E
Through its Registrar.
2. Union of India,
Through Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, North Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief
ENC Sec. H. Room No. 112
Integrated Head Quarter, Ministry of Defence (Army)
Kashmir House, Raja Ji Marg, New Delhi.
4. Chief Engineer,
Northern Command,
C/O 56 APO.
5. Commander Works Engineer,
Jammu.
6. Garrison Engineer,
Nagrota, Jammu.
....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Ms. Parkhi Parihar, Advocate.
SWP No. 2453/2018
1. Ramesh Kumar Raina Age 54 years
MES No. 507807
S/O Sh. Chuni Lal
R/O Ward No. 2 Bhour Camp, Jammu.
C/O Garrison Engineer (Air Force) Jammu.
2. Prithpal Singh Age 50 years
MES No. 508721
S/O Sh. Santokh Singh
SWP No. 2450/2018 & connected matters 4
R/O Nawabad Colony, Near Masjid
Sunjwan Road, Jammu.
C/O Garrison Engineer Kaluchak.
...Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate
V/s
1. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh, Sector 17-E
Through its Registrar.
2. Union of India,
Through Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, North Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief
ENC Sec. H. Room No. 112
Integrated Head Quarter, Ministry of Defence (Army)
Kashmir House, Raja Ji Marg, New Delhi.
4. Chief Engineer,
Northern Command, C/O 56 APO.
5. Chief Engineer,
Western Command,
C/O 56 APO Chandi Mandir, Chandigarh.
6. Commander Works Engineer,
Jammu.
7. Garrison Engineer, (Air Force) Jammu.
8. Garrison Engineer,
Kaluchak, Jammu.
....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Ms. Parkhi Parihar, Advocate.
WP( C) No. 387 /2023
Sukhdev Singh Age 61 years
MES No. 507120
S/O Sh. Khajoor Singh
R/O H. No. 220/A, Subash Nagar, Jammu.
...Petitioner(s)
SWP No. 2450/2018 & connected matters 5
Through:- Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate
V/s
1. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh, Sector 17-E
Through its Registrar.
2. Union of India,
Through Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, North Block, New Delhi.
3. Engineer-in-Chief
ENC Sec. H. Room No. 112
Integrated Head Quarter, Ministry of Defence (Army)
Kashmir House, Raja Ji Marg, New Delhi.
4. Chief Engineer Head Quarters,
Western Command,
C/O 56 APO, Chandi Mandir.
5. Commander Works Engineer,
Jammu.
6. Garrison Engineer,
Jammu.
....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Ms. Parkhi Parihar, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Kumar J
1. The petitioners in these petitions are aggrieved of and have called in
question a composite order and judgment passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ['the Tribunal'], passed
in OA No. 061/00081/2017 titled Bishamber Dass and ors v. Union
of India and other clubbed matters by invoking the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court vested by Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Rakesh
Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, we deem it appropriate
to set out few facts germane to the disposal of the controversy raised
in these petitions.
3. The petitioners commenced their services in Military Engineering
Service ['MES'] as Mazdoors between the years 1974 to 1978. They
were promoted as Valveman in the un-revised pay scale of Rs. 210-
290 which was the pay scale attached to the semi-skilled category.
The petitioners asserted before the respondents that Valveman
should be treated in the skilled category and placed in the revised
pay scale of Rs. 260-400.
4. Some of the petitioners and other Valveman of the MES working in
different Garrison Engineers filed SWP No. 1393/1994 seeking inter
alia a direction to the respondent- Union of India to treat the
category of Valveman as skilled one and accordingly place them in
the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 16-10-1981. The writ
petition came to be allowed by this Court vide judgment dated
12-03-1997, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of grade
of Rs. 260-400 to the petitioners with effect from 16-10-1981 by
treating them and other Valvemen of MES under skilled category.
The LPA filed by Union of India before the Division Bench came to
be dismissed vide judgment dated 12-03-1999. The judgment passed
by the Writ Court and up-held by the Division Bench was
implemented by respondent No.3 vide order dated 05-05-1999
subject to outcome of Special Leave Petition proposed to be filed
before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The writ petitioners were placed
in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (un-revised) with effect from 16-10-
1981 and the arrears on account of such placement were released in
their favour. Ultimately the Union of India preferred SLP before
Hon'ble the Supreme Court. While the SLP was pending before
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, other similarly situated Valvemen
including the petitioners in some of these petitions, filed SWP No.
1351/1999 titled Ram Dass and ors vs. Union of India and ors before
this Court. This writ petition was also allowed vide judgment dated
23-07-1999.
5. The Special Leave Petition filed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court
came to be disposed of vide order dated 06-10-2005 and Amar
Nath's case was remanded to the Division Bench of this Court for
fresh consideration. The matter was once again considered by the
Division Bench of this Court on remand alongwith LPA filed by the
Union of India against the judgment passed in Ram Dass's case.
Vide common judgment dated 19-08-2010 the LPAs in Amar
Nath's case and Ram Dass's case came to be disposed of by
directing the appellants therein (respondents herein) to treat the
petitioners as skilled workers and place them in the un-revised pay
scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 16-10-1981 on the principle of
equal pay for equal work. The judgment dated 19-08-2010 was
accepted by the respondents and no appeal against the said judgment
was preferred.
6. The respondents vide order dated 05-01-2012 implemented the
judgment and accorded sanction to the placement of Valvemen in the
pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (un-revised) with effect from the date of
their initial appointment/promotion as Valveman or 16-10-1981
whichever was later. It was provided in the order that the re-fixation
of pay will be notional and the actual arrears shall be restricted for
18 months from the date of filing of OA. The controversy with
regard to treatment of Valveman under the skilled category, in the
case of petitioners, came to be settled in the year 2012. However, in
the year 1999 the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions, with a view to eradicate the
problem of stagnation had introduced Assured Career Progression
(ACP) Scheme for the Central Government civilian employees vide
Office Memo dated 09-08-1999. As per the ACP scheme, the benefit
of 1st non-functional promotion was available after 12 years and 2nd
on completion of 24 years of service. Later on the ACP was
modified on 19-05-2009 and given effect from 01-09-2008.
7. As per the modified ACP scheme, the three non-functional financial
up-gradations under the scheme were provide at the intervals of 10,
20 and 30 years of continuous service. The claim of the petitioners,
as is projected before the Tribunal, is that they became entitled to 1 st
ACP on 09-08-1999, 2nd ACP on 28-12-2003 and to the 3rd MACP
on 28-12-2009. In the aforesaid background and giving the benefit of
ACP scheme, the salary of the petitioners was fixed by giving the
benefit of 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with grade pay
of Rs. 2400 and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with
grade pay of Rs. 4200. The petitioners were, however, not granted
the benefit of modified ACP scheme which was due to them on
completion of 30 years of service i.e. 28-12-2009. The pay scale of
Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4600 continued to elude the
petitioners.
8. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed SWP No. 625/2014 titled
Bodh Raj and ors v. Union of India and ors which was disposed of
by this Court vide judgment and order dated 07-03-2014. The
judgment passed in Bodh Raj's case was implemented by the
respondents vide order dated 30-04-2015 vide which the earlier order
dated 05-01-2012 was amended by omitting and substituting the
words thereby giving arrears with effect from 16-10-1981.
9. While the controversy had come to be settled after issuance of order
dated 13-04-2015, the Commander Works Engineer, Jammu issued
another order dated 03-08-2015 whereby directing all the Garrison
Engineers under his command to pay the benefit of pay scale of Rs.
260-400 by treating the same as ACP-I, and after completion of 24
years service ACP-II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and ACP-III
in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 2800, with
a further direction to effect recovery of all other benefits wrongly
granted/ over paid while implementing the judgment passed by this
Court. The respondents re-opened the issue as to whether the
petitioners, who were working as Valveman, are required to be
treated as semi skilled or skilled, though the same had already been
decided by this Court authoritatively relying upon the judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
10.Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 03-08-2015 issued by the
Commander Works Engineer Jammu, the petitioners filed OAs
before the Tribunal which have been dismissed vide order and
judgment impugned in these petitions.
11.The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is challenged by the
petitioners inter alia on the ground that order dated 03-08-2015
which was challenged before the Tribunal was illegal, arbitrary and
issued in violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned
judgment of the Tribunal is also challenged on the ground that the
Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the order dated 03-08-2015
challenged before it was an attempt to over reach a final judgment
passed by this Court and was contemptuous in nature. It is submitted
that the issue as to whether Valvemen are to be treated in the semi
skilled category or skilled category was no longer res-integra and
had been finally decided by this court in cases of Amar Nath and
Ram Dass. The Commander Works Engineer, Jammu, could not
have sat over the judgment passed by this Court and taken the plea
that the issue was not finally determined and per the rules of MES
the category of Valveman falls under the semi-skilled category and,
therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to be placed in the higher
pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (un-revised).
12.Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that as per the recruitment
rules and charter of duties issued under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are working as Valvemen,
are not entitled to be treated as 'skilled' and placed in the pay scale
of Rs. 260-400. However, the learned counsel then representing the
Union of India failed to bring to the notice of the Court the relevant
recruitment rules and charter of duties and, therefore, the Division
Bench passed the order holding the petitioners entitled to the pay
scale of Rs. 260-400 (un-revised), payable to the skilled category.
13.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has
failed to appreciate the controversy in correct perspective.
14.Undoubtedly, the petitioners were entitled to be placed in the pay
grade of Rs. 260-400 (un-revised) with effect from 16-10-1981
pursuant to the decision of this Court. Needless to say that the
decision of this Court, giving the benefit of pay scale of Rs, 260-400
to the petitioners, was passed on the principle of equal pay for equal
work. This Court, while dismissing the LPAs filed in the cases of
Amar Nath and Ram Dass shall be presumed to know the rule
position but agreed with the petitioners that they were entitled to be
placed in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 16-10-1981
on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Commander Works
Engineer could not have sat in appeal against the concluded
judgment of this Court and held that the petitioners were required to
be treated as 'semi-skilled' as per the recruitment Rules governing
their service. The judgment passed by this Court overrides the
statutory service rules to the contrary, if any, and the opinion of the
authority howsoever high it may be.
15.We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the manner, in which the Commander Works Engineer has acted,
was not only vindictive but contemptuous in nature. Since the
petitioners were held entitled to skilled scale of Rs. 260-400 with
effect from 16-10-1981, therefore, the benefit of 1st ACP with effect
from 09-08-1999, 2nd ACP from 28-12-2003 and the 3rd MACP with
effect from 28-12-2009 etc. was required to be given. The petitioners
were thus entitled to 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, the
2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and to the 3rd MACP in
the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4600. The
order dated 03-08-2015, which treated the pay scale of Rs. 260-400
granted to the petitioners with effect from 16-10-1981 as 1st ACP,
was erroneous on all counts. The pay scale of Rs. 260-400 was the
pay scale to which the petitioners were held entitled to on the
principal of equal pay for equal work and by treating their category
as skilled. So the 1st ACP which was applicable to the petitioners
after completion of 12 years of service ought to have been the pay
scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and the 2nd ACP, after completion of 24 years
of service, in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. Similarly the next
grade was to be given as 3rd MACP. The communication dated 03-
08-2015 issued by the Commander Works Engineer Jammu was
based on erroneous assumption that, notwithstanding the judgments
passed by this Court holding the petitioners entitled to the pay scale
of Rs. 260-400 (pre-revised) with effect from 16-10-1981, the
petitioners were to be treated as 'unskilled category' in the pay scale
of Rs. 210-290. It was also erroneous on the part of the Commander
Works Engineer to direct that petitioners were entitled to their 1 st
ACP after completion of 12 years service in the grade of Rs. 260-
400. This aspect of the matter has not been understood by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal was not correct in arriving at the conclusion
that the petitioners were seeking to be treated in the skilled category,
for, this issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by
this Court. The Tribunal was called upon to adjudicate the
communication of the Commander Works Engineer dated 03-08-
2015, which, on the face of it, was contrary to the concluded
judgment passed by the Division Bench in LPAs in the cases of
Amar Nath and Ram Dass.
16.For all these reasons, we find merit in these writ petitions and while
allowing the writ petitions, we set aside the order impugned passed
by the Tribunal. The OAs filed by the petitioners are allowed and
communication dated 03-08-2015 issued by the Commander Works
Engineer, Jammu, is quashed. The petitioners are held entitled to 1st
ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, the 2nd ACP in the pay scale
of Rs. 5000-8000 and the 3rd MACP in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-
34800 with effect from completion of 12 years, 24 years and 30
years of service. They shall also be entitled to re-fixation of their
salary and release of arrears.
(Rajesh Sekhri) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
09.10.2024
Anil Raina, Addl. Registrar/Secy
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Anil Kumar Raina
2024.10.11 14:38
SWP No.and
I attest to the accuracy 2450/2018 & connected matters 15
integrity of this document
