Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7030
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J
D.K.Raina, G.K.Samnora, N.N.Gupta, Rattan Singh, Smt. Suman Lata, M.L.Sharma, S.L.Kar, Smt. Chanchala Devi, Smt. Sushma Kumari, Smt. Suman Oberoi, Darshan Kumar, Daleep Singh, G.K.Baru, D.N.Sharma, A.K.Bhat, Dileep Tikoo, Smt. Sunita, S.L.Bagotra, Ranjit Jamwal, Smt. T.Choral, Smt. I. Dolma, Smt. K.Dolma, H.S.Jamwal, J.B.Pathania, Kulvinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India – Respondent
OA 418 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: In person
For the Respondents: Mr.Raghu Mehta, Sr. CGSC
Judicial precedents must be applied consistently in similar cases to ensure fairness in administrative decisions regarding financial benefits under service schemes.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Administrative law - Service matters - Applicants, working as Group C employees, sought to count their prior service as daily rated LDCs for financial upgradation under ACP/MACP schemes. Impugned order dated 21.9.2016 rejected this claim based on delay and advice from the legal department - The Tribunal held that the applicants are entitled to the same relief as granted to their colleagues in similar circumstances, emphasizing the binding nature of judicial precedents. (Paras 6, 8, 12)
(B) Delay in filing applications - The Tribunal ruled that the delay should be condoned when it concerns recurring causes of action and judicial precedents. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicants were initially appointed as daily rated LDCs between 1977-1988 and later regularized. They claimed financial benefits based on earlier judgments that favored similar employees. The respondents denied the claim citing delay.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal quashed the impugned order, directing the respondents to count the applicants' prior service for financial upgradation and grant all consequential benefits.
Issues: The main issues included the applicability of prior service for financial benefits and the justification for denying the claim due to delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that similar cases should be treated equally, and judicial precedents must be followed to ensure fairness, thus allowing the applicants' claim for financial upgradation.
Result: OA allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of applicants and their employment history. (Para 2) |
| 2. applicants seek redressal for delayed grievances. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of service benefits and discrimination. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. importance of precedent and judicial relief. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. order to grant financial benefits to applicants. (Para 12) |
ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, J.M.
All the 25 applicants are working as UDC, Sk-III, Accountant, Superintendent (Group C) under Area Manager, CSD Depot at different places. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.9.2016, the applicants have filed the present OA seeking the following relief :
i) That the present joint original application and accompanying Misc. Application for allowing to file joint original application qua all the 25 applicants be allowed in the interest of justice.
ii) Respondents be directed to produce the complete record of case of the applicants.
iii) That impugned order dated 21.9.2016, Annexure A-1 (collectively) issued by respondent No.2 be quashed/set aside.
iv) That direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing respondent No.2 to count the service rendered by the applicants as daily rated LDCs from their initial date of engagement prior to their regularization and add the same with their regular service as LDC for the purpose of grant of benefit of financial upgradation under ACP and MACP scheme in terms of judgments Annexures A-1 to A-6 and further grant them the benefit of financial upgradation along with all other consequential benefits and arrears thereof as admissible to the applicants along with interest @ 10% p.a. within the time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the interest of justice.
v) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may also pass any other order for the grant of reliefs to the applicants which it may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
vi) That cost of this application be also awarded in favour of the applicants for forcing them to approach this Hon’ble Court for seeking similar relief as already granted to their colleagues in various judicial pronouncements in the interest of justice.
2. The applicants were initially appointed as daily rated LDCs w.e.f. different dates during the years 1977-1988 in Canteen Stores Depot at Udhampur, Jammu, Leh and Pathankot and continued to perform their duties till they were regularized as LDC, Group C after passing the departmental examination. During the said period of daily rated service as LDC, the respondents deducted the employees provident fund from the salaries of the applicant. The applicants were further promoted on the basis of their seniority in the feeder cadre of LDC to the various post of UDC, SK-III, Superintendent, Accountant etc. during various years.
Vide order dated 24.9.1999, CAT Ernakulam Bench allowed OA 58 of 1997 with a direction to the respondents to grant financial benefits to the applicants by counting the period from the date of their initial engagement as daily rated mazdoor/LDC with all consequential benefits. Respondents filed WP No. 32410 of 1999 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which was dismissed on 4.8.2003. The respondents then filed SLP 5121 of 2005 against the order of Hon’ble High Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 31.3.2010.
The applicants have submitted that their colleagues filed 74 OAs before CAT, Mumbai Bench praying for counting of service rendered by them as daily rated basis followed by regularization for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation relying upon the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench upheld by Kerala High Court vide order dated 12.9.2011. Respondents filed WP 1202/2012 against the order passed by CAT, Mumbai Bench and the same was dismissed by Bombay High Court vide order dated 24.7.2013. Relying on the order of Judicature of Bombay High Court, this Tribunal disposed of three OAs holding the applicants therein are entitled for counting of their daily
