Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 544 (HP)

Union of India v. Tripta Sharma

2015-05-16

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted against the judgment dated 22.7.2014 rendered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 332/HP/2012. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent has filed O.A. No. 332/HP/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, being an Ex- BCB employee. She was declared surplus in the year 1984. She was redeployed to the NSSO (FOD) against the post of a Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400. She sought the grant of pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from 1.1.1986 revised to Rs. 4500-7000 with effect from 1.1.1996, including other benefits such as financial upgradation under the ACP scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 (as first upgradation) and Rs. 5500-9000 (as second upgradation) with arrears of pay and allowance with further revision with effect from 1.1.2006 on the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. According to her, the Government of India has taken a decision in the year 1987 to afford fresh option to Ex-BCB employees, who had opted for the Central Pay scales, but she was not given any opportunity to exercise the option. She was not given option even after letter dated 31.3.1992 on the basis of judgment rendered in O.A. No. 159/1987 titled as O.P. Jaswal and others Vs. Union of India and others. She has placed strong reliance on O.A. No. 253/CH/1991, titled as Bharat Bhushan and others vs. Union of India and others decided on 9.2.2011. The DOPT has already given advice on 4.11.2005 to extend the benefit of related judgments even to the non-petitioners. She made a representation in the year 2006. It was decided on 27.9.2006. She again made representation on 19.11.2011. It was rejected on 6.3.2012. 3. The original application was resisted by the petitioners on the ground of limitation. According to the petitioners, respondent has failed to exercise her option. Thus, she was not entitled to the relief. 4. Respondent has become surplus employee in the year 1984 and was redeployed to the NSSO (FOD. She was put up in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 in the central pay pattern in lieu of Rs. 400-600 of Punjab Government scale of pay in view of her option to switch over to the Central Pay Scale under the provision of O.M. dated 27.2.1985. She was put up in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 in the central pay pattern in lieu of Rs. 400-600 of Punjab Government scale of pay in view of her option to switch over to the Central Pay Scale under the provision of O.M. dated 27.2.1985. Similarly situate persons had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.253/CH/1991. It was decided on 9.2.2000. The judgment was upheld by the High Court and also the Apex Court. Case of the respondent was similar to the case filed by Bharat Bhushan and others with only difference that Bharat Bhushan and others were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 510-800 and the respondent was put in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600. Since the respondent was suffering financial loss every month for non-fixation of pay on the basis of Bharat Bhushan’s case, the petition could not be stated to be barred by limitation. She has rather continuous cause of action since non-fixation of her pay has also affected her retiral/pensionary benefits. Moreover, the Government of India has also issued instruction on 11.4.2005 to extend the benefits of judgment even to non-petitioners. The petitioners should have granted the benefits to the respondent instead of coercing her to file the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The earlier judgment is rem and not in personam. The benefit could not be denied to the respondent on the ground that she was not party in the earlier lis. 5. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others versus C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747 have held that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly irrespective of the fact that only one person has approached the court. Their Lordships have held as under: “29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well-settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well-settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a Category I Post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to.” 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Verrappa and others versus State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 9 SCC 406 have held that grant of revised pay scale to the 23 employees who had earlier approached the High Court but denying the same benefit to appellants similarly placed employees by the University was unjustified. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Karnataka, it is admitted that the Government of Karnataka has revised the pay scales of its employees with effect from 1-1-1977 and this revision was also extended to the employees of the universities, including the University of Mysore, Respondent 2. Grant of benefit of revised pay scales by the University to its 23 employees, who had succeeded in the earlier writ petitions, is admitted. It is stated that the order of the Division Bench impugned in these appeals has only directed the implementation of the first order of the Division Bench in its true spirit. The State, for the first time, has taken wholly untenable stand that pursuant to the order earlier passed by the Division Bench, the action of the University granting pay scales to the 23 employees was not in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 as the pay scales of the employees of the University are to be fixed by framing or amending the existing statute of the University. 16. 16. The defence of the State Government that as the appellants were not the petitioners in the writ petition filed by 23 employees of the respondent University to whom the benefit of revised pay scales was granted by the Court, the appellants are estopped from raising their claim of revised pay scales in the year 1992-94, is wholly unjustified, patently irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, revised pay scales were given to those 23 employees in the year 1991 when the contempt proceedings were initiated against the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Mysore. The benefits having been given to 23 employees of the University in compliance with the decision dated 21-6-1989 recorded by the learned Single Judge in WPs Nos. 21487-506 of 1982, it was expected that without resorting to any of the methods the other employees identically placed, including the appellants, would have been given the same benefits, which would have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also the movement of files and papers which only waste public time.” 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.