In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.8564-8568/2012(S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. H.B.Sirajuddin Aged about 55 years S/o late Hassan Sahib Tailor, o/o. Commandant Madras Engineer Group (MEG) & Centre Shivan Chetty Garden Post Bangalore-560042 R/o.42/6, DCA Complex Domlur IInd Stage, Domlur Bangalore-560071 2. M.Ramesh Aged about 52 years S/o late Mudappa Tailor, o/o. Commandant Madras Engineer Group (MEG) & Centre Shivan Chetty Garden Post Bangalore-560042 2 R/o. 43, 6 th Cross, M.V.Nagar Dhorvani Nagar-PO Ramamurthy Nagar Bangalore-560016 3. B.N.Nagraja Aged about 49 years S/o late B.K.Navnathasa Tailor, o/o. Commandant Madras Engineer Group (MEG) & Centre Shivan Chetty Garden Post Bangalore-560042 R/o 20, Doddobyappa Street P.G.Halli Bangalore-560003 4. B.Poopathy Aged about 49 years S/o late Balaraman Tailor, o/o. Commandant Madras Engineer Group (MEG) & Centre Shivan Chetty Garden Post Bangalore-560042 R/o. 32, 9 th Cross, M.V.Nagar Ramamurthy Nagar Bangalore-560016 5. Dasaratha Aged about 49 years S/o late Munivenkatappa Tailor, o/o. Commandant Madras Engineer Group (MEG) & Centre Shivan Chetty Garden Post Bangalore-560042 R/o. 32, 9 th Cross, M.V.Nagar Ramamurthy Nagar 3 Dhorvani Nagar-PO Bangalore-560016 .. Petitioners (By Sri Izzhar Ahmed, Adv.,) AND : 1. The Union of India Represented by its SeCretary Ministry of DefenCe DHQ P.O., New Delhi-110 011 2. Chief of the Army Staff Army Headquarters DHQ P.O., New Delhi-110 011 3. Adjutant General Adjudant General BranCh Army Headquarters DHQ P.O., New Delhi-110 011 4. Commandant Madras Engineer Group (MEG) & Centre Shivan Chetty Garden Post Bangaloe-560042 ..Respondents (By Sri B.V.Thilak, CGC., for R1-R4.,) These writ petitions are filed under ArtiCles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 25.11.2011 passed in O.A. No.5/2009 vide 4 Annexure-A by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore BenCh, Bangalore etC., These writ petitions Coming on for hearing, this day, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR J., made the following:- O R D E R The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’ for short), Bangalore BenCh, Bangalore dated 25 th November 2011 in Original AppliCation No.5/2009 is Called in question in these writ petitions. The reCords reveal that petitioners herein joined serviCe as Civilian Tailors Classified as industrial employees under the 4 th respondent - Madras Engineering Group, whiCh is a Training Establishment, on various dates. The Union of India by its order dated 22.8.1983 upgraded the posts of some of the Tradesmen inCluded in the Common Category of Tradesmen suCh as BlaCksmith, Book-maker etC., to the pay sCale of Rs.260-400 from the pay sCale of Rs.210-290 Categorizing them as Skilled Tradesmen. 5 In the Case of Bhagwan Sahi .vs. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 1215), the employee who was a Carpenter by trade, whiCh was also one of the trades inCluded in the Common Category, but whiCh trade was not upgraded to the skilled Category, Challenged the aCtion of the Union of India before the Supreme Court and Claimed that his post should also be upgraded to that of the skilled Category in addition to other trades w.e.f. 16.1.1981. During the pendenCy of the said matter, the Government itself upgraded all the trades whiCh were in the Common Category to the skilled grade w.e.f. 1984. However the Supreme Court direCted that the benefit of upgradation should be given to the petitioners therein from 16.1.1981. Subsequently one Mr. Prabhulal and another, who were book-makers working in EME, Delhi filed W.P. No.492/1991 seeking the same benefit before the Apex Court, whiCh Came to be allowed by the Apex Court. Again, as the similar relief was not given to the Tailors 6 working in the EME Centre, SeCunderabad, they also filed O.A. No.522/1993 before the CAT, Hyderabad BenCh, whiCh was also allowed. Subsequently, Mr. Padmanabhan and 8 others who had joined serviCe as Civilians in the Cadre of Tailors in ASC Centre, Bangalore filed O.A. Nos.147 and 383 to 390/1996 before the CAT, Bangalore Claiming the benefit of deCisions of the Supreme Court in Bhagawan Sahi’s Case as well as in Prabhulal’s Case. Those appliCations Came to be allowed by the CAT. The order passed by the CAT was Confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the department. When the faCts stood thus, the petitioners herein approaChed the CAT by filing O.A. Nos.264 & 279 to 283/1998 praying for the very relief of upgradation of their posts to the skilled grade of Tailors. By the order dated 25.1.1999, the CAT, Bangalore BenCh allowed the said 7 appliCations. SinCe 25.1.1999, the petitioners herein are getting the benefit of the order passed by the CAT in O.A. Nos.264 and 279-283/1998. However, when one Mr. Anniappa, who is also working as Civilian Tailor in the respondent department filed Original AppliCation No.239/2002 seeking the similar relief, the said appliCation was referred to the Full BenCh of the CAT, Bangalore BenCh whiCh Came to be disposed of on 10.11.2003 as per Annexure-A-02 with the following ConClusion: (1) Keeping in view the decision of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prakash Dundappa Mogli and others v. Union of India and others and also reasons which are recorded above, we approve the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.937/99 entitled T.V. Ramachandran v. Union of India and overrule the other decision to the contrary 8 mentioned in question No.1 referred to this Full Bench. (2) The civilian tailors in the respondents organization would not be entitled to the benefit of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter and others v. Union of India and another and Prabhu Lal and another v. Union of India and others (supra). (3) We make it clear that overruling of certain decisions will not have the effect of taking away the benefit that may have accrued to those concerned applicants”. Based on the aforementioned ConClusion, the respondent/department has reverted the petitioners to the initial sCale of Rs.210-290 from Rs.260-400. Obviously the order dated 10.11.2003 passed in O.A. No.239/2002 by CAT, Bangalore BenCh should not have affeCted the petitioners inasmuCh as they are not parties to the said litigation and they were not heard in the matter. The CAT 9 while passing the order in O.A. No.239/2002 has Commented on the earlier order passed by the Division BenCh of the CAT in O.A. No.264 and 279 to 283/1998 also and has held that the judgment passed in O.A. Nos.264 & 279-283/1998 is overruled. It is also made Clear in the operative portion of the order passed by the Full BenCh of the CAT in O.A. No.239/2002, that the overruling of Certain deCisions will not have the effeCt of taking away the benefit that may have aCCrued to the ConCerned appliCants. Despite the same, the respondents have proCeeded to revert the petitioners to the lower sCale. SuCh reversion is questioned by the petitioners before the CAT onCe again in O.A. No.5/2009 whiCh Came to be dismissed on 25.11.2011. 2. The Division BenCh in O.A. No.5/2009 has ignored one of the ConClusion reaChed by the Full BenCh that the overruling of the judgment passed in the petitioners’ Case 10 will not have the effeCt of taking away the benefit whiCh has aCCrued to the petitioners. SinCe the petitioners had the benefit of the order passed by the CAT in O.A. No.264 & 279-283/1998 disposed of on 25.1.1999, the said benefit should not have been taken away by the department. Moreover the petitioners were not heard before the Full BenCh of the CAT while deCiding O.A. No.239/2002 in as muCh as they were not parties to O.A. No.239/2002. HenCe the upgraded pay sCale whiCh was given to the petitioners herein should not have been taken away without hearing them. The Full BenCh of CAT in O.A. No.239/2002 as aforementioned, Clarified that the benefit aCCrued to the petitioners should not be taken away. If it is so, the benefit flowing from the order passed by the CAT in favour of the petitioners in O.A. Nos.264 & 279-283/1998 disposed of on 25.1.1999 should not be taken away and suCh benefit shall Continue to aCCrue in favour of the petitioners. The order passed by the Full BenCh of the CAT in O.A. No.239/2002 11 will not have the effeCt of taking away the benefit aCCrued to the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 25.1.1999 in O.A. NO.264 & 279 to 283/1998. ACCordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed . The order at Annexure-A passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. NO.5/2009 dated 25.11.2011 stands quashed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Gss/- .