S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) This application is directed against a judgment and order dated 7.12.99 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1138 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioners herein was allowed with the following directions : "Accordingly, the application is allowed. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the petitioners in the grade of Head Clerk with effect from the date their junior in the erstwhile cadre of Sr. Clerk got promoted to the post of Head Clerk with benefit of special pay of Rs. 35/- or Rs. 70/- per month in the feeder post of Sr. Clerk following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex court in the aforesaid judgment so that there may not be any anomaly in the pay of the seniors and juniors in the grade of Head Clerk. The respondents are also directed to give the petitioners all consequential benefits including relaxation of pension, in case of these petitioners, who have retired from service etc. in terms of the above judgment within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs."
(2.) The petitioners who are 141 in number were said to have been promoted as Head Clerks notionally with effect from 1.1.84 to 31.8.85, and they had been posted therein from 1.9.85 onwards. According to the petitioners in view of the aforementioned promotion, they were entitled to grant of special pay of Rs. 35/- . It is the further contention of the petitioners that although such benefit had been granted to their juniors, the same has been denied to them. The petitioners have contended that similar grievances had been raised before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 866 of 1991 (Lakshmi Kanta Kundu and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) disposed of on 10.3.97, in O.A. No. 921 of 1996 (Rabindra Nath Sen v. Union of India and Ors.) disposed of on 1.9.97 and O.A. No. 832 of 1991 (Sunil Baran Chowdhury and Ors v. Union of India and Ors.) wherein reliefs prayed for by the employees similarly situated, had been granted. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No. 6348 of 1995 filed by Union of India against the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Lakshmi Kanta Kundu (supra) has upheld the same by an order dated 23.4.97.
(3.) It is not in dispute that in Lakshmi Kanta Kundu (Supra), the Apex Court passed the following order : "Admittedly, to the facts of these matters, the decision of this court which is applicable is Union of India and Ors. v. P. Jagdish and Ors., (1996 (9) SCALE 481 I : [1997(2) SLR 268 (SC)] . There can be no dispute that the decisions of this court in the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Administration, Bangalore vs. V.K. Gurura and Ors., (1996(1) SCALE 696) : [1996(1) SLR 773 (SC)] and Chief Personnel Officer, S.C. RIy. Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and Ors. Vs. Vazir Ali Mahboob Ali (Civil Appeal No. 5138/(SLP(C) No. 25985/95) decided on 21st March 1996 , do not apply bacause of the distinction in the facts. This being the Tribunal's judgment in these matters against the Union of India does not require any interference. Learned counsel for the Union of India made an attempt to persuade us that the decision in P. Jagdish and Ors. require-consideration. We are not satisfied that there is any occasion to reconsider the correctness of that decision. These appeals and the special leave petitions are dismissed.";