- (1.) Heard Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned Central Government Counsel representing the petitioner Union of India and learned counsel Mr. Rahul Kumar Das representing the applicant / private respondent herein.
(2.) The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi after considering the rival stand of the parties passed the order at Annexure-3 dated 29.03.2012 in O.A. No. 237 of 2010 which reads as under: "In the instant OA the applicant has sought for benefit of judgment rendered by CAT, Principal Bench in OA No. 804 of 1998, Hari Ram Shukla and others vs. Union of India & Others and OA No. 2634 of 2004, Phool Chand vs. Union of India & Others decided by the Principal Bench on 14.07.2005. The point for consideration is whether the applicant is similarly situated to the applicants of OA 804 of 1998 and OA 2634 of 2004 and whether he is entitled to the same benefits. 2.It is also noticed that the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 [AnnexureA/8] is in reply to the application dated 08.09.2010 which reads as follows: "It is intimated by HQCEJZ, Jabalpur vide their letter No. 110 1/ACP/211/FIB dated 09th August, 2010 that only the affected applicant of the OA No. 804/1998 are eligible in the skilled grade pay merely sympathy only. This is not as existing policy applicable to all C/Man [Blind]. Hence, your application dated 08th September, 2010 and certificates are returned herewith." It is noticed that on 08.09.2010[Annexure-A/7], the applicant in OA No. 237 of 2010 had prayed before the Chief Engineer, Central Command, Lucknow as follows: "1. That Sir, Engineer-in-Chief Branch had issued a letter No. 9523/438/Policy/EIC [legal-D] dated 15th Jul. 2008 [Copy enclosed] for the totally visually handicapped [Blind] C/Man to upgrade them from semi skilled to skilled based on the decision of Supreme Court but it is regretted that the said order has not so far been implemented by Garrison Engineer Ranchi. 2. That Sir, I have been approaching to the authorities since long to take proper action for my up-gradation and fixation of my pay scale of skilled category but unfortunately, no action has been taken in this regard. 3. I have come to know that all the visually [Blind] handicapped C/Men serving under other Commands have already been upgraded from semi skilled to skilled on account of the above mentioned letter and they are getting the skilled pay wherever I have not been considered for the same so far. Therefore, I request your honour to be kind enough to issue necessary direction in this regard for lower formation to implement the said order and to consider my up-gradation. In this regard, the following certificates are submitted herewith for your verification and necessary action please: [a] Certificate issued by Govt. of India, Department of Social Welfare, Training centre for the Adult Blind, Rajpur Road Dehradun. [b] Certificate issued by "The Pheroze and Noshir Merewanji Rehabitation Centre for Blind, East View, Mount Abu, Ranjasthan." 3.It also appears from the communication dated 15.07.2008 [AnnexureA/4] the opinion of the Director [Legal] is expressed in the following words: "It may be noted that Caneman who is not visually handicapped is not entitled to skilled grade of pay being not similarly situated to other visually handicapped Canemen. If any of Caneman [not visually handicapped] serving under your control, files an OA/CWP seeking skilled grade, strength from the above judgment dated 09th April, 2008 be extracted for defending such case in the Govt. interest." In the written statement the respondent have stated as follows: 4. The applicant had applied for pay scale of skilled category being a visually (Blind) handicapped. His case was forwarded to HQ CWE Ranchi vide our letter no. 1648/46/EIA[B] dated 16th June, 2010. Further HQ CWE Ranchi forwarded his application to HQ CE JZ Jabalpur vide tyheir letter no. 10588/ACPS/1708/EIC [2] dated 26th June, 2010. HQ CE JZ Jabalpur further asked to forward certain documents/policy letter from HQ CWE Ranchi with copy to this office. Further this office submitted required documents/papers to HQ CWE Ranchi vide our letter no. 1648/56/EIA [B] dated 21st August, 2010 and HQ CWE Ranchi forwarded copy of HQ CE JZ Jabalpur letter no. 11071/ACP/211/EIB dated 09 August, 2010 vide their letter no. 10588/ACP/1721/EIC[2] dated 20th September, 2010. As per E-in-C's Br. Letter dated 15th July, 2008 mentioned in HQ CE JZ Jabalpur individual is not entitled for ACP of skilled Cat. The policy/instruction received from higher Hqr. Has been communicated to the individual through BSO vide letter No. 1027/ACP/23/EIA dated 28th September, 2010. 5. It is not the case of the respondents that the benefit of OA 804 of 1998 or OA 2634 of 2004 was directed not to be a precedent for other similarly situated Caneman or it was especially restricted to the applicants therein. It is also not their submission that the aforesaid judgments/orders were set aside or modified higher up. It is also not in dispute that the applicants are visually handicapped Caneman. Thus, in view of the reliefs granted to the visually handicapped Caneman under the Ministry of Defence by coordinate Benches, in OA No. 2034 of 2004 and OA No. 804 of 1998 the applicants are entitled to the same benefits as given to such applicants. 6.The impugned order dated 21st October, 2010 [Annexure-A/8] tends to create a class within a class and a macro compartmentalization on the basis of a micro distinction, which is bad in law. Even on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the applicant deserves consideration. As such, the impugned order being bereft of reasons is quashed. 7. The respondents are directed to grant the same benefits to the applicant as granted to their counterparts in OA No. 804 of 1998 and OA 2634 of 2004 with consequential benefits of proforma fixation if otherwise found eligible. However, actual benefits granted from the date of this order. 8.The OA is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs." This order was not challenged by the applicant/ respondent before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead he preferred a review application being R.A. No. 04 of 2012 with the plea that the learned Tribunal did not confer him the benefit of pay scale of skilled grade from the initial date of joining in terms of the order passed in O.A. No. 3998 of 2010 by the learned CAT, Principal Bench, Delhi. Three grounds were pleaded by the applicant before the learned Tribunal which are: a) that the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal had not taken into consideration the order passed in O.A. No. 3998/2010 dated 11.10.2011 passed by learned CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. b) that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that similarly situated persons have been granted the skilled grade from the date of their joining in service. c) That earned Tribunal has failed to fix a time frame for compliance of the order.
(3.) The instant writ petition arises out of the order dated 31.12.2012 passed in R.A. No. 04 of 2012, whereunder the learned CAT has modified the original order granting benefit of the pay scale of skilled grade to the applicant from the date of initial engagement with consequential benefits to be paid within 4 months. The review order (Annexure-5) reads as under: "The review of the order dated 29.03.2012 in OA No. 237 of 2010[R] is sought for on the ground as follows: That Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 29.03.2012 allowed the application of the applicant directing the respondents to grant the same benefit to the applicant as has been given to his counterparts in OA No. 804 of 1998 and OA No. 2634 of 2004. However, Hon'ble Tribunal did not conferred the benefit to the applicant from the date of his joining in terms of the order passed in OA No. 3998 of 2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi. Further, the order do not specify the time frame in which the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal is to be complied with. 2. As I go through the orders in OA 804 of 1998 and OA 2634 of 2004, I find that the orders have been passed granting benefits from the date of initial engagement. 3. I also find that in a similar matter being OA No. 1832/2007 decided on 17.03.2008 and OA No.2697 of 2003 decided on 05.05.2004, the benefits have been granted from the date of initial engagement. 4. Hence, in the interest of justice and to mete out the invidious discrimination amongst the peers in the same post, the order is modified to the extent that the benefits of pay scale of skilled grade shall be granted to the applicant from the date of initial engagement to the post of Caneman with consequential benefits within four months from the date of communication of this order." ;