Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1577 (RAJ)

Diler Singh v. Union of India

2015-08-25

GOVIND MATHUR, JAISHREE THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. To question correctness of the judgment dated 18.05.2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 157/2009 with Misc. Application No. 95/2009, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. In brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-original applicants were employed as daily wagers on mustrol with Military Engineering Services somewhere in the year 1985-86. The petitioners along with similarly situated employees were retrenched from service on 06.02.1987 Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners and other similarly situated employees preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur that came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 19.07.1988. The learned tribunal by the judgment aforesaid held that discontinuation of the applicants from service was illegal and therefore, they are entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages within a period of two months from the date of the order. The judgment aforesaid came to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with a little modification that the retrenched workmen be reinstated in service on the posts held by them without any back wages. 3. As per the facts averred in the original application application, the applicants as well as other similarly situated persons were reinstated in service but not the posts held by them, therefore, some of the persons approached the Central Administrative tribunal, Bench Chandigarh by way of filing an Original Application to have a direction for their reinstatement in service on the posts from which they were retrenched. The original application of those employees came to be accepted on 24.03.2003 with direction to consider regularisation of the applicants on the post against which they were initially appointed with Military Engineering Services (Industrial Class-III & IV). 4. After acceptance of the original application by the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench, Chandigarh, some of the persons similarly situated preferred original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur and those were also disposed of in the terms of the judgment given by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 24.03.2003. Some other similarly situated persons also preferred Original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur for the same relief and those also came to be accepted on 05.09.2006. The respondents also complied with the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in different Original Applications. 5. Some other similarly situated persons also preferred Original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur for the same relief and those also came to be accepted on 05.09.2006. The respondents also complied with the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in different Original Applications. 5. After getting the orders complied with for certain other similarly situated persons, the petitioners-applicants also preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur but that came to be dismissed by the Tribunal being barred by limitation. Hence, this petition for writ is before us. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that the cause of the petitioners was very much surviving being recurring one. It is stated that in pursuance to the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was obligatory for the respondents to appoint the applicants and other similarly situated persons to the posts from which they were retrenched and if they have not complied with the directions given then it is not open for them to object about the cause agitated at least about maintainability of the original application being barred by limitation. It is also stated by learned counsel that the cause of similarly situated persons was examined by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the respondents complied with the directions given by the tribunal, therefore, no reason was available to deny the same benefit to the petitioners. According to learned counsel the facts stated were sufficient to satisfy the tribunal to condone the delay. To substantiate the contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 6 SCC 721 . Relevant portion of that reads as under:- "4. The validity of the retrospective amendments introduced by the impugned notifications dated 5.12.1988 had been considered by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment in C.R. Rangadhamaiah v. Chairman, Rly. Board and connected matters and the said notification insofar as they gave retrospective effect to the amendments were held to be invalid as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since the appellants were adversely affected by the impugned amendments, they sought the benefit of the said decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal by filing representations before the Railway Administration. Since the appellants were adversely affected by the impugned amendments, they sought the benefit of the said decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal by filing representations before the Railway Administration. Since they failed to obtain redress, they filed the application (OA No. 774 of 1994) seeking relief before the Tribunal in April, 1994. The said application of the appellants was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment on the view that the application was barred by limitation. The tribunal refused to consider the delay in filing of the said applications. 5. The correctness of the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal has been affirmed by this Court in Chairman, Rly. Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and connected matters decided today. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was a fit case in which the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in the filing of the application and the appellants should have been given relief in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, the delay in filing of OA No. 774 of 1994 is condoned and the said application is allowed. The appellants would be entitled to the same relief in the matter of pension as has been granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment dated 16-12-1993 in OAs Nos. 395-403 of 1993 and connected matters. No order as to costs". 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Union of India and Garrison Engineer, North, Bikaner submits that the cause sought to be agitated relates to the year 1988 and that cannot be raised after the lapse of more than 20 years, the tribunal, thus, has rightly refused to entertain the original application. 8. Heard learned counsels. 9. It is not in dispute that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the respondents modified the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in relation to grant of back wages but ordered for reinstatement of applicants and other similarly situated persons on the posts held by them before their retrenchment. 9. It is not in dispute that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the respondents modified the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in relation to grant of back wages but ordered for reinstatement of applicants and other similarly situated persons on the posts held by them before their retrenchment. In view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was obligatory upon the respondents to reinstate the applicants and other similarly situated persons as per the directions given. The respondents if had not complied with the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then in our considered opinion, the appropriate course before them was to examine the cases of the petitioners in the light of the directions by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and also in terms of the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the cases raised by other similarly situated persons. The objection with regard to limitation in such circumstances was not at all warranted as the prime duty of the respondents was to adhere to the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. Be that as it may. In the case of K.C. Sharma (Supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court found it fit to condone the delay where the persons approached the tribunal after disposal of the cases filed by the similarly situated persons. 11. Applying the same logic, we are of the opinion that in the instant matter also, the tribunal should have condoned the delay and should have examined the original application on merits. Accordingly, the petition for writ is allowed. The judgment given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur in Original application No. 157/2009 and Misc. Application No. 95/2009 is set aside. The original application is remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur for its adjudication afresh on merits. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******