G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for quashing orders Annexure P -1 dated 19.12.1996 and Annexure P -2 dated 12.11.1997 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal) in O.A.No. 509 -CH of 1995 and R.A. No. 39/97 respectively.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that application filed by respondent No. 1 Nirmal Singh Sandhu for issuance of a direction to the non -applicants (petitioners herein) for gram of JST Grade - Rs. 1640 -2925 with effect from the date of issuance instructions vide letter No. 9/9/79 -FR(2)/143 dated 19.2.1979 read with letter No. 3873/DPI -UT -84 -11(146) 80 -90 -Vol.II dated 13.11.1992 by the Director, Public Instruction(s), Chandigarh was registered as O.A.No. 509 -CH of 1995. Respondent No. 1 claimed the benefit of JST Grade by invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The petitioners controverted the claim of the applicant (respondent No. 1 herein) by asserting that being a re -employed ex -serviceman, he was not entitled to the benefit of JST Grade in terms of the instructions contained in letter dated 13.11.1992. At the hearing of the application, no one appeared on behalf of the writ petitioners. After hearing the counsel for the applicant, the Tribunal allowed the application vide dated 19.12.1996 by making the following observations: - "The only issue to be adjudicated is whether the applicant is entitled to the pay scale of the JST Grade on the basis of the qualifications acquired by him prior to 19.2.1979 while he was in the Military Service. Admittedly, the applicant had joined the UT Administration in 1987 and as per A -11 dated 13.11.1992, scales of pay on the Punjab Pattern were adopted by the UT Chandigarh retrospectively in regard to JBT teachers who were appointed prior to 19.2.1979 and had also improved their qualifications prior to 19.2.1979. The claim of the applicant is that he improved his qualification in terms of this order the Military Service itself and he should, therefore, be given the benefit of the improved qualification. Since the issue regarding the benefit of Military Service has been settled by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the only fact remains to be decided is that he had acquired qualification when he was in the military service. When all benefits of civil service of the UT have been allowed as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order given in September, 1995, denial of the benefit of this higher qualification does not arise now. The increments which the applicant had been given on the basis of the military service is a separate issue and cannot be mixed up with acquiring of higher qualification. In view of this, we hold that the applicant is entitled to the higher grade of JST as per Annexure A -1 dated 13.11.1992."
(3.) THE petitioners could have challenged that order by filing an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution because in view of Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. (for short the Act) (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in S.P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India , JT 1986 (2) S.C 996 , the High Courts did not have the jurisdiction to entertain petitions Hinder Article 226 of the Constitution against orders passed by the Tribunals constituted under the Act. However, they did not choose to challenge order dated 19.12.1996 by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court. Instead, they filed an application under Section 22(3) of the Act on 1.4.1997 for review of that order. The same was registered as R.A.No. 39/97. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal held that the application was barred by time. On merits also, it found that the petitioners had failed to make put a case for review order dated 19.12.1996.;