CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CIRCUIT BENCH AT SHIMLA Reserved on : 26.09.2025 Pronounced on:17.10.2025 O.A.NO.063/1086/2021 HON’BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)

Him Saran, S/o Sh. Padam Dev, R/o Village Navi, P/o Himri, Tehsil Sunni, Distt. Shimla, H.P. Group D, Age 43 years.

...Applicant (BY ADVOCATE: Sh. D.N. Sharma)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through its Secretary Finance, Rajpath Marg, E Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110011.

2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Sector 17 E, Chandigarh.

3. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (ReFAC) (AU)-1, Railway Board Building, Shimla-3 (Erstwhile Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Shimla).

…Respondent(s)

(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Vinod Chauhan)

O R D E R

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. This Original Application has been filed under Section

19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide acts, conduct, commission and omission on the part of the respondents whereby the applicant has been discriminated for paying the salary and other monetary benefits which are required to be given to the applicants at par with the similarly situated person. The applicant is also aggrieved for not being given the benefit of order dated 27.09.2012 passed in OA No. 990/HP/2010.

2. By filing the present Original Application, the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-

(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to make the payment of salary to the applicant as Basic Pay + DA from 21.11.2012 i.e (from the date of rejoining) as is being paid to the similarly situated persons, in view of the notification/letter dated 08.06.2001 (Annexure A-17) including the arrear of said salary with upto date interest.

(ii) That the services of the applicant may very kindly be regularized from July 2007, with all consequential benefits like seniority, as he has completed the requisite 10 years regular service in July, 2007 and similar other such persons like applicant have been regularized after the completion of 10 years.

3. The facts as submitted in the Original Application are that the applicant joined the respondent department on 01.08.1997 as a daily wager, alongside other persons appointed in the same month. He was assigned duties in various offices of the respondent department, with the official orders of such assignments collectively annexed as Annexure A-2. The applicant discharged his duties sincerely and without complaint until 31.03.2001, when his services were orally terminated without prior notice or opportunity of hearing, while junior employees were retained. Despite repeated oral requests for reinstatement, the respondent gave only assurances, leading the applicant to issue a formal demand notice to Respondent No. 3, also endorsed to the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. The demand notice is annexed as Annexure A-3, and the respondent‘s reply refusing re-engagement is Annexure A-4.

4. Following the refusal, the applicant approached the Labour Commissioner, HP, who issued a letter to the Assistant Commissioner (C), Chandigarh, requesting action (Annexure A-5). Subsequently, the applicant filed Original Application No. 990/HP/2010 seeking reinstatement from 31.03.2001, regularization, consequential benefits, production of departmental records, and costs. The Tribunal partially allowed the application on 27.09.2012, directing reinstatement to the previous position but denying back wages, while granting notional fixation of pay from termination till reinstatement (Annexure A-6). The applicant rejoined on 21.11.2012. Dissatisfied with the partial relief, he filed CWP No. 3045/2013 in the HP High Court seeking full back wages and benefits. Respondents later filed CWP No. 661/2016 against the Tribunal‘s order. Both petitions were decided by the High Court on

15.07.2021 (Annexure A-7).

5. Despite reinstatement, the applicant faced discriminatory pay treatment. While si