Full Judgment
2. 92 applicants (skilled workers) in this OA seek quashing of communication dated 19.10.2005 to the extent which deny them arrears of pay. Though they have been made entitled to fixation of pay in pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- with effect from the dates of their initial appointment, but on notional basis, and actual arrears from date of filing of OA. Applicants No. 11 and 75 are the legal heirs of Shri Bhim Singh and Vishwa Nath respectively, who died in the meantime.
3. It is not disputed that 27 similarly situated officials filed OA No.1657/2000 M.S.A. Khan and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. seeking extension of benefit of Tribunal's order dated 05.02.1993 in OA No. 1436/1990, order dated 13.07.1993 in OA No. 347/1989 & OA No. 147/1989 as well as Arbitration Award with all consequential benefits. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.2001 directing Respondents to consider their representations and pass speaking orders. Pursuant thereto, respondents issued order dated 27.07.2001, though extending the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- with effect from the date of their initial appointment, but on notional basis and actual arrears from the date of filing of the OA. Aforesaid communication dated 27.07.2001 had been challenged in OA No. 3047/2001 M.S.A. Khan and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. After considering rival contentions of parties as well as earlier precedent on the said subject, and also numerous judgments relied upon, said OA was allowed vide order dated 10.05.2002 with following observations: 6. A perusal of Annexure A-1 establishes that respondents have held applicants to be entitled for fixation of their pay in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from the dates of their initial appointments. If that be so, respondents cannot deny payment of actual arrears right from the inception of their service. They have not indicated any reasons to deny arrears to applicants from the dates of their initial appointments and have ordered that their pay would be fixed notionally and actual arrears would be paid only from the date of filing of the OA. Respondents have not refuted the contention of applicants regarding according the grade of Rs. 950-1500 from the dates of their initial appointments to similarly situated persons. Applicants have been performing same duties and responsibilities from the beginning of their service. The higher scale has not been granted to them for any higher duties and responsibilities. Having held in Annexure A-1 that applicants are entitled for fixation of pay in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from the dates of their initial appointments, respondents have no justification in denying the actual arrears to them from the dates of their initial appointments.
7. Having regard to the reasons recorded and discussion made above, we quash Annexure A-1 dated 27.7.2001 to the extent that not only that applicants shall be entitled for fixation of their pay in scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from the dates of their initial appointments, they shall also be paid actual arrears from the dates of their initial appointments. The directions shall be carried out by respondents within a period of three months from the date of communication of these orders.
3. Later, aforesaid directions dated 10.05.2002 were implemented vide communication dated 15.11.2002 and applicants therein were allowed fixation of pay in scale of Rs. 950-1500/- w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, another group of similarly situated 40 officials preferred OA No.1076/2003 Om Prakash and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. which was allowed ide order dated 21.01.2004 extending judgment of M.S.A. Khan and Ors. and further holding that: it is directed that not only that applicants shall be entitled for fixation of their pay in scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from the dates of their initial appointments, they shall also be paid actual arrears from the dates of their initial appointments.
In the meantime, applicants had approached this Tribunal vide OA No.2397/2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.09.2003 directing Respondents to consider their representations and pass reasoned and speaking order. Since said directions remained un-complied with, CP No. 477/2004 was preferred besides MA No. 1687/2005. Said MA was disposed of on 20.10.1995 with liberty to resort to legal remedies in accordance with law. Hence the present OA.4. The only contention raised by applicants is that they being similarly situated officials like applicants in OA No.1657/2000 and OA 3047/2001 and the directions in these OAs stand implemented, besides applicants in OA No. 1076/2003. Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned Counsel, contended that treating applicants in a different manner amounts to discrimination, which is violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. It is further contended that applicants being similarly situated are entitled to extension of relief granted to similarly situated officials, as noticed hereinabove.
5. Respondents contested the claim laid by filing their short reply stating that pursuant to directions issued on 30.09.2003 in OA No.2397/2003, Respondents have already passed order dated 19.10.2005 vide which they have been allowed the scale on notional basis & actual arrears from the date of filing of OA. Shri Rajeev Bansal, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents, during the course of argument, contended that based on plea of limitation, applicants are not entitled to any relief.
7. A perusal of reply para-3, which deals with limitation, shows that such plea of limitation has not been raised. Such contention was raised during the course of hearing for the first time, taking other side by surprise. In my considered view such plea of limitation is not tenable as this Tribunal had issued directions to Respondents on 30.09.2005 to dispose of applicants representations by passing speaking & reasoned order, which was complied with only on 19.10.2005. It is not in dispute that identically worded communications had been the subject matter before this Tribunal in OA Nos. 3047/2001 as well as 1076/2003, which stand had not been approved by the Tribunal. It is further not in dispute that directions issued in aforesaid OAs which were allowed on 10.05.2002 and 21.01.2004 respectively had been implemented. It is also not in dispute that applicants herein are similarly situated to applicants in aforesaid OAs. When such are the facts, I do not find any justification in treating applicants in present OA differently. This action of Respondents amounts to invidious discrimination, which is violative of Article 14 & unsustainable in law. Following the ratio of aforesaid judgments and extending the same to applicants herein, the impugned communication dated 19.10.2005 is quashed and set aside to the extent which required fixation of pay in scale of Rs. 950-1500/- on notional basis.
8. Accordingly, OA is allowed. Applicants shall be entitled to fixation of pay in scale of Rs. 950-1500/- w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment as well as actual arrears of pay. Applicants No. 11 and 75 are also entitled to such benefits and would also be entitled to arrears till their husbands were in service. These directions shall be carried out by Respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.