Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Ajay Kumar Verma S/o Kripashankar Verma – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Steel, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 6206 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Diwakar Upadhyay.
For the Respondents: Anil Kumar, Bibhash Sinha.
IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of eligibility criteria in administrative orders must be strictly adhered to, and both conditions must be satisfied for entitlement to benefits, as established in the Office Order dated 18.11.2021.
Headnote:
[Writ Petition] - [Administrative Law] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, Clause 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of Office Order dated 18.11.2021] - The court examined the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows for judicial review of administrative actions, and the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, particularly Section 14, which outlines the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court interpreted Clause 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of the Office Order regarding the fitment benefit for employees, determining that both conditions must be satisfied for entitlement. The court concluded that the interpretation of the word 'and' in the clauses was conjunctive, requiring employees to be on the rolls of the company on both specified dates to qualify for benefits, thus affirming the Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioners' claims.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners sought to quash the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing their application for pay revision benefits for the period from 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2020, arguing that the denial was based on financial conditions and discriminatory practices violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's dismissal was justified as the petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria outlined in the Office Order dated 18.11.2021, specifically the requirement to be on the rolls of the company on both 01.01.2017 and 01.04.2020. The court noted that the petitioners failed to substantiate claims of discrimination or financial impropriety.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the fitment benefit based on the conditions set forth in the Office Order dated 18.11.2021. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the application without considering the alleged violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interpretation of the eligibility criteria in the Office Order was conjunctive, meaning both conditions must be satisfied for entitlement to benefits. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's findings were not erroneous and that the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of discrimination.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order and concluding that the petitioners were not entitled to the claimed benefits due to non-fulfillment of the eligibility criteria.
ORDER :
1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the following reliefs:
(a) For issuance of an appropriate writs/orders/directions in the nature of ‘Certiorari’ for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.10.2022 passed in O.A. No. 051/000787/2022 by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the Hon’ble Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the case of the petitioners on the ground of being devoid of merits; and further to give direction upon the respondents to extend all benefits as prayed for by the petitioners before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi as prayed for in O.A. No. 051/000787/2022 after quashing the aforementioned impugned order.
And/or
(b) Pass any other order/writ/direction as your Lordships may deem fit & Proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordance with law.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, reads as under.
3. The writ petitioners, for redressal of their grievance, have approached to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by invoking its jurisdiction as conferred under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The learned Tribunal has called upon the respondents. However, no written statement was filed, but the issue was argued on merit particularly, on the maintainability of the Original Application by taking the ground of financial condition of the Company. In consequence thereof, the arrears were denied to the other employees. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties has dismissed the Original Application, denying the benefit of arrears for the period from 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2020. The learned Tribunal has also made observation that the ground of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India is not being taken into cognizance, since, there is no pleading to that. The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court. The matter was heard at length by this Court on 5th February, 2024. The following order was passed, for reference the said order is referred hereunder:
Order No. 20/Dated 5th February, 2024
1. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/000787/2022 has been assailed.
2. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, at the outset, by making reference of office order dated 18.11.2021, as appended as Annexure-2, has submitted that he is not pressing now the prayer made as under 8A, 8B and 8C which are being referred hereunder as:
“8. (A) For quashing of Miscellaneous Clause 13(i) as contained in the Office Order dated 18.11.2021, bearing Number PER/IC-1213/2017 (Ann-2) issued under the signature of the Executive Director (P&A), SAIL, New Delhi, whereby and where under an erroneous decision has been taken by the Management of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. to deny the payment of arrears towards Pay Revision to the employees (including the applicants herein) for the period 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2020.
(B) To hold and declare that the aforesaid impugned clause as contained in order dated 18.11.2021, denying the benefits of the salary revision coupled with payment of arrears to the applicants is unconstitutional, as the same amounts to discriminate the applicants and is thus violative of the Constitutional provisions as enshrined within Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
(C) For further issuance of an appropriate order/direction to the respondents to grant the benefits of the pay revision coupled with payment of arrears and Fitment Benefits, due at the time of superannuation to the applicants alongwith statutory as well as
