SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J. - (1.) THE Union of India and its officers have filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby respondents No.2 to 6 have been granted the benefit of Field Service Concession (in short 'FSC') and the petitioners have been restrained from effecting the recovery of FSC already paid to the respondents, and if some recovery was effected from the respondents, the same be refunded to them within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
(2.) IN the present case, respondents No.2 to 6 aggrieved against the order dated 3.6.2011 (Annexure A-1) for recovery of the FSC being given to them in view of the service rendered by them for "Operation Parakram" w.e.f. 14.12.2001 to 18.3.2003. The learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 22.11.2011 has allowed the Original Application of the respondents by following its earlier decision in identical case titled as Bathinda Ammunition Depot Janta Karamchari Sangh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Others, (O.A. No.604/PB/2010, decided on 13.7.2011), while observing as under:- "It cannot be disputed after perusal of documents placed on record by the parties that the Units in which applicants were working were deployed in the "Operation Parakram" and these Units have also adopted War Establishment System of Accounting and there was huge rush of work relating to issue, receipt, loading and unloading of ammunition, which were carried out on war footing and on all days, including Sundays, were declared to be working days. These Units put into operation as if it was a war like situation. Thus, whether it was actually shifted to a war zone or not would not make any difference. The applicants would fall within the term of 'deployed/mobilized' staff for the "Operation Parakram". If the Army Personnel have not been paid FSC, that does not mean that the applicants cannot be sanctioned the same despite a specific decision having been taken in their favour. Thus, withdrawal of the same from the applicants is illegal and they are held entitled to grant of this benefit from 14.12.2001 to 18.3.2003." During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly stated that the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal passed in Bathinda Ammunition Depot Janta Karamchari Sangh's case (supra) was challenged by the petitioners in CWP No.7158 of 2012 and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on April 20, 2012, while observing as under:- " Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the Bench is of the considered view that pursuant to the order issued by the Western Command, war system of accounting for the formations/units mobilised/deployed in the "OP Prakram" for a period of one year w.e.f. 19.12.2001 or till the termination of the operation, whichever was earlier, was pressed into action. The Ammunition Depot, Bathinda of which the individual private respondents were the employees was covered under the aforementioned order for moblisation/deployment in "OP Prakram". It is also not in dispute that the defence civilian employees of the Ammunition Depot, Bathinda were actually deployed in the "OP Prakram". It is also not in dispute that the operation continued upto 18.3.2003. To such like defence civilian employees as the individual private respondents, the benefit of FSC was extended and in the list attached to the letter dated 6.3.2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, the name of the Ammunition Depot, Bathinda was duly mentioned. Having been granted the benefit of FSC and the same disbursed to the concerned defence civilian employees, what to talk of recovering the amount of FSC for the period from 14.12.2001 to 18.12.2002, the same was required to be paid upto 18.3.2003. The objection by the audit authorities had no legs to stand upon as merely because the army personnel had not been sanctioned such a benefit, the same could not be denied to the defence civilian employees. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed." In view of the aforesaid, this petition is also dismissed.;