A litigant who misleads the court should not be granted any relief, even if they have a case on merits. The court must ensure that its process is not abused and must maintain strict vigilance over the abuse of the process of the court.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. These petitioners have putforth prayer clause (a), as under:-

“(a) By a writ of Mandamus or by any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10th March, 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench Nagpur in O.A. No.422 of 2016 (Annx.16) as well as order dated 26.05.2016 passed by respondent no.3 (Annex.12) and in the same order direct the respondents not to make recovery of excess amount received by the petitioners towards grant of higher pay scale.”

3. Having considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the respondents, we have perused the petition paper book and the following judgments/ orders:-

(a) Sayed Abdul Qadir vs State of Bihar , reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475.

(b) State of Punjab and others etc vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc, reported in 2015 I CLR 398.

(c) Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension and another vs T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao (in Civil appeal No.10862 of 2014).

(d) Punjab and Haryana High Court and others vs Jagdev Singh, reported in 2016 14 SCC 267, and

(e) the order dated 04-02-2019 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Madhu Soodan Pasi and others vs Union of India and others (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.24111/2017).

4. The Ordnance Factory Board had classified and revised the pay scale of Data Entry Operators to Rs. 11500-1500 and of the Senior Data Entry Operator to Rs.1350-2200. The employees had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at Calcutta, Jabalpur and Hyderabad Benches who ruled that the Data Entry Operators are entitled to the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 1350- 2200 with effect from 01-01-1986.

5. The petitioners had, therefore, preferred an Original Application No.2142 of 2007, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur. By order dated 07-12-2012, the Tribunal disposed off the Original Application and directed the respondents to verify as to whether similarly situated employees have been granted higher pay scale on the basis of any Court order and extend similar benefits to these petitioners, if no such pay scales are granted. The respondents were directed to pass a speaking order and intimate the petitioners.

6. The respondent no.3 herein complied with the directions of the CAT at Mumbai dated 16-04-2013 and granted the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 to the petitioners after specifically taking individual undertakings from each of the petitioners on 12-04-2013. This aspect, of the petitioners having executed undertakings declaring that if they suffer any adverse orders from the High Court or the Supreme Court and the issue is decided in favour of the respondents, they will permit the employer to recover the excess amounts from their pay and allowances including retiral benefits. This aspect has been specifically suppressed from this Court and the petitioners have nowhere mentioned in the petition that they had given such an undertaking to the employer so as to recover the amounts paid to them, if they are found to be dis-entitled either by the High Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. The record reveals that the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension as well as the Union of India and others approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a bunch of Special Leave Petitions challenging various orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal having its Benches in different States. Several petitions were taken up together and, vide judgment dated 09-12-2014, all the judgments delivered by the various Benches of the CAT upholding the claim of the Data Entry Operators Grade-A were quashed and set aside. In the concluding paragraph 32, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-

“32. In view of the findings recorded above we hold that Data Entry Operators Grade-A are not entitled for Scale of