Point of Law : If extrapolated or applied to the factual matrix of present case would have the effect of restricting claim for pension, if otherwise sustainable in law, to three years previous to when it was raised in a judicial forum - Such claims recur month to month and would not stand extinguished on application of the laws of prescription, merely because the legal remedy pertaining to the time barred part of it has become unavailable.

JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby it allowed the petition filed by the petitioners (respondents herein), the petitioners have filed the instant petition.

2. The claim of the respondents relates to the grant of Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance (for short ‘SCA’). According to the case set up by the respondents, it was averred that all the respondents were/are posted at the Air Force Station, Kasauli (for short ‘AFS’) in different trades. After the Fifth Pay Commission Report, the Central Government allowed Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowance against Hill Compensatory Allowance for its employees including the one’s posted at Shimla. On being denied the benefit, the employees posted at AFS Kasauli and Central Research Institute, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 92-HP-1998, titled Central Research Institute Employees Associations, vs. Union of India and Others, claiming benefit of such allowance and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.05.1989. But when it got down to the respondents, the same had illegally been denied to them on the pretext that the benefit of SCA was allowed only to those of the employees, who were party to the aforesaid case.

3. The petitioner contested the petition and submitted that AFS, Kasauli was authorised SCA as per letter dated 29.08.2008 and accordingly SCA had been paid to all employees of the Station as per Policy till 30.06.2017 before implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations, except employees, who had been arrayed as party in O.A. No. 1072-HP-1990, titled as Mukesh Gautam and Others vs. Union of India and Others decided on 19.10.1990.

4. The defence of the respondents therein was that since the applicants therein were not party to the case relied upon by them, the same benefit therein could not be extended to them as it was judgment in rem.

5. The learned Tribunal allowed the petition by observing as under:

8. Once the issue has been set at rest by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, we see no earthly reason with the respondents to deny the benefit of the decision to identically placed person like the applicants herein. In the case of K.C. Sharma vs. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCT 341 and Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (2) SCT 54, the jurisdictional High Court have held that benefit of a judgment cannot be denied to similarly situated employees. Similarly, in Union of India and Another vs. Lalita S. Rao and Others, AIR 2001 SC 1972, it was held that an order of a court should be implemented for similarly situated employees whether party or not instead of forcing each and every individual to approach the court of law for similar relief.

9. In the wake of the aforesaid factual position and legal principles laid down by courts, we are of the firm view that this O.A. merits acceptance and is allowed accordingly. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of indicated decision to the applicants also in same terms as given to applicants in the case of Mukesh Gautam etc. (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners (respondents therein) have filed the instant petition reiterating all the grounds that were raised before the learned Tribunal. However, interestingly, the petitioners (respondents therein) would now seek the question of maintainability of the petition filed by the respondents on the grounds of delay and laches on the strength of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.C.S. Negi vs. Union of India and Others, (2018) 16 SCC 721, wherein it was held that the Tribunal cannot admit application unless the same is made within the specified period or an order is passed in terms of sub section (3) for entertaining application after prescribed period. It is