Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13109 of 2004 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 12.02.2014 MRS.Gurmeet Sangha …..Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI Present: None for the petitioner Ms.Anju Arora, Standing Counsel for UOI Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh with Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate .SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE: (Oral) The challenge is laid to the impugned order of CAT limited to the extent that the benefit of monetary relief has been confined to only 18 months from the date of the petitioner’s representation.
The aforesaid issue has been examined by us in CWP No.13033 of 1998 titled as Chander Shekhar versus Union of India and otheRs.decided on 14.1.2014 where we observed as under: “The aforesaid order has been assailed before us but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fiRs.aspect of the relief of regularization does not arise as the petitioner stands regularized as a Booking Clerk though he does not have the date from which, the petitioner was regularized.
Only grievance raised is that the grant of difference of wages ought not to have been restricted for 18 months prior to the application being filed but ought to have been granted for the full period for which, the petitioner has worked as such.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jai Dev Gupta versus State of Chand Parkash 2014.02.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13109-2004 -2- Himachal Pradesh & Anr., 1997(2) S.C.Services Law Judgments 432.
A perusal of the same shows that firstly, it is an order and not a judgment.
Secondly, it does not lay down any revealing principle.
Thirdly, whatever observations are made, in fact, seized to substantiate the principle that back wages over a long number of years cannot be granted in such a case merely on the ground of making representations, if the effected party has not approached the CAT.
In this behalf, the judgment in Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu & ORS.versus R.D.Valand, 1995 Supp (4) SCC593has been referred.
The arguments of back wages from the date, the superior work was done, was rejected while simultaneously observing that the Tribunal was not right in invoking Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short 'the Act') for restricting the difference in back wages by one year.
Back wages are granted for a period of three years as the petition had been preferred in May 1999 and such relief was granted from May 1996.
It appears from the reading of the aforesaid order that the principle of three years of limitation for recovery of amount has been applied as against a lessor time period of one year prior to preferring of the application.
In the present case, the monetary relief has been restricted to 18 months before filing of the application on account of Section 21 of the said Act.
Section 21 of the said Act would not apply in view of what has been stated in Jaidev Gupta's case (supra).If parity is applied to the facts of the present case, the benefit could have been restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the application even in the present case.”
.
In view of the aforesaid legal position, the petitioner in the present case is also entitled to the benefit for a period of three years prior to the date of the filing of the application and the petition is allowed to the limited extent aforesaid leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
A copy of the order be sent to the petitioner by the Registry.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE1202.2014 ( ARUN PALLI) parkash* JUDGE Chand Parkash 2014.02.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document