Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Union Of India And Others. The Said ... on 22 February, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 2251 of 2018
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via Video Conferencing)
Mr. Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate, for the
respondents.
The petitioner for redressal of his grievances
for the payment of parity of pay scale, had earlier
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by
filing an Original Application, being Original
Application No. 660 of 2012, Kheem Singh Vs.
Union of India and others. The said Original
Application was answered by the Central
Administrative Tribunal vide its judgement dated
20th April, 2015.
Being aggrieved against the said judgement
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Union
of India has preferred a Writ Petition, being Writ
Petition (S/B) No. 98 of 2016, Union of India and
others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and
others. The Division Bench of this Court vide its
judgement dated 30th November, 2017, in para 11
had expressed its intention of not to interfere with
the orders passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal on 20th April, 2015. But simultaneously,
while parting with the judgement, the Division
Bench has made the following observations as
observed in para 11, which is extracted hereunder :-
"11. It is brought to our notice that, pursuant
to an interim order passed by this Court, order
dated 19.09.2016 has been passed. The said order
was passed pursuant to the interim order, wherein
it is made clear that it will be subject to the result of
the writ petition. In such circumstances, we still
direct that an order be passed re-considering the
matter in terms of the observations contained in this
judgment."
In fact, the Division Bench had directed that
the respondent may reconsider the matter in terms
of the observations contained in the judgement
rendered by the Division Bench.
The petitioner contends that when the
Division Bench has not disturb the earlier
judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
which was sought by him in his OA No. 660 of
2012, as decided on 20th April, 2015, in fact, he
ought to be protected to reap the fruits of said
judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
But he may not be correct in his contentions for the
reason being that, that being the situation, the
Division Bench in its judgement dated 30th
November, 2017, would not have left the issue open
to be decided by the respondents in the light of the
judgement as reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, State
of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and other,
directing the respondents to reconsider the matter.
As a consequence, in compliance of the
judgement of 30th November, 2017, passed by the
Division Bench, the impugned order of 22nd
January, 2018, has been rendered by virtue of
which, the benefit has been denied to be extended
to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that it is a
very particular situation, which has arisen in the
instant case for him, for the reason that once the
earlier judgement was not disturbed by the Division
Bench and the issue stood adjudicated by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, if that would be
the perception of the petitioner, his remedy would
have been to get enforced the judgement through
the mechanism provided under the Central
Administrative Tribunal Act.
But simultaneously, if the other aspect is
looked into in the light of the observation made in
para 11, where it was left open for the respondent to
take a decision and they have re-considered and
passed the order of 22nd January, 2018, denying to
extend the benefit of the case of Jagjit Singh
(Supra), because that too also the petitioner would
have a recourse available to him to approach
Central Administrative Tribunal for putting
challenge to the order of 22nd January, 2018.
In view of the aforesaid, it would be apt and
also according to the petitioner's own contention,
the matter would be cognizable by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, as the matter relates to the
Ministry of Defence and the petitioner's claim for
the remittance of the parity of a scale, based on the
judgement of Jagjit Singh (Supra), if at all, the
petitioner have any grievance against the order of
22nd January, 2018, the appropriate recourse
available to the petitioner would be to approach the
Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Writ Petition may not be an appropriate
remedy available to him. Hence, the Writ Petition is
dismissed subject to the aforesaid liberty left open
for the petitioner to approach the Central
Administrative Tribunal as against the order of 22nd
January, 2018.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 22.02.2022
Shiv
