The duty of the department to ensure uniformity and non-discrimination among the Instrument Repairers, and the compliance with the National Litigation Policy in filing appeals in service matters.

M.M. Kumar; CJ.-

1. The Union of India and its officers have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh (Circuit Bench at Jammu) in O.A. No. 941-JK-2009 dated 16.09.2010 and the later clarification issued on 20.04.2012 in M.A. No. 34 of 2012. It has remained undisputed that a number of persons working as Instrument Repairers filed OA No. 410-JK-1989 (Dhian Singh and others v. Union of India and others) challenging order dated 22.12.1988 issued by the Army Headquarters, Engineer-in-Chief's Branch, New Delhi on the ground that the Instrument Repairers were illegally excluded from amongst the categories, which were made eligible for promotion to HS Grade II and HS Grade I under the 'In-situ Promotion Scheme', which amounted to taking away their promotional avenues available to them earlier. The trade of Instrument Repairer was re-designated as Electrician (SK) vide letter dated 21.02.1994. The appellant issued instructions to work out revise 20% vacancies of Electrician HS II grade and to grant them promotion by reviewing DPC with notional seniority vide letter dated 10.02.1995 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief's Branch. The aforesaid O.A. No. 410-JK-1989 was allowed on 22.03.1996 holding those applicants entitled to their inclusion in the three grade structure from the initial date i.e. 15.10.1984. The letter dated 22.12.1988 to the contrary issued by the Army Headquarters Engineer-in-Chief's branch was quashed to that extent.

2. The original applicant along with others thereafter filed SWP No. 836 of 1994 titled as Adip Singh and others v. Union of India and others with a prayer to issue same directions, which were passed in Dhian Singh's case (supra) while deciding O.A. No. 410-JK-1989. The petition was decided on 31.08.1996 by observing as under-

"CMP dt. 21.8.96 filed by the petitioner is allowed. Petitioner No. 3 is deleted from array of petitioners. This petition shall now proceed for disposal on behalf of other petitioners except petitioner No. 3.

Both sides agree that the subject matter of the controversy in the petition stands already decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) vide judgment dt. 22.3.96 copy whereof has been submitted and placed on record. The matter is, therefore, disposed of in the light of that judgment.

Mr. Salathia, I/c for respondents has filed objection to the two ancillary CMPs which are also taken on record. These shall also be treated to have been disposed of."

3. After the aforesaid directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellants passed order on 05.04.1999 for implementation of the directions issued by this Court. Accordingly, it was held that the original applicant along with his colleagues would be entitled for inclusion in the three grade structure w.e.f. 15.10.1984. Their further promotion was also to be carried out on the basis of seniority cum fitness and available vacancies as per rules. The expenditure on that account were to be treated as charged expenditure. These directions were issued with the concurrence of Defence (Finance) and subsequently when the original applicant filed OA No. 762/JK/04, similar view was taken by the Tribunal in its order dated 21.05.2009 and the same reads as under-

"The applicant was the 8th petitioner in SWP 836/94 filed before High Court of J&K. The applicant there had prayed for a direction that as Instrument Repairers (re-designated as MPI) they were entitled to be included amongst the trades governed by what is known as three grade structure from the very inception of the scheme. When the matter was heard on 31.8.96, the High Court had observed that issue as agitated before the high Court had already been decided in favour of persons like the petitioners by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 110/JK/89. In fact High Court observed that both the sides agreed that subject matter of the controversy stands decided by the CAT on 22.3.96. The specific