Chandan Chakraborty and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the short question that falls for decision in this o.a. is whether the applicants (43 in number), who are working as data entry operators under the respondents and who have not been extended the benefit of revised scale of pay of rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.86 whereas the same was granted to the similarly situated employees pursuant to the decisions of different benches of the tribunal including the calcutta bench, can be denied similar relief simply on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the o.a.? it is, therefore, to be seen whether the principle of law on this issue is sufficient to refuse the relief in favour of the applicants and whether such refusal will amount to injustice to them.the applicants were initially recruited as operators in the directorate of census operations, west bengal in the year 1982-84. these posts were later redesignated as data entry operators, gr. b. the applicants' case is that they have been given revised pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- attached to the post w.e.f. 11.9.89. their grievance is that they are entitled to the said pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.86.3. the applicants while filing the o.a., have stated in para 3 that the application is within limitation prescribed in section 21 of the at.act, 1985. however, on objection raised by the respondents in their reply, the applicants in a rejoinder, have stated that the data entry operators, gr. b of different directorates of census operations located in different states filed applications before different benches of the tribunal praying for giving effect of the revised pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/ w.e.f. 1.1.86 instead of 11.9.89 and the respondents therein opposed the said applications on the ground of delay and laches, but those benches of the tribunal overruled such objection and allowed the prayer of the applicants therein with consequential arrears. it has also been averred in the rejoinder that the data entry operators, gr. b of the directorate of census operations, bihar, have filed o.a. no. 94 of 1998 before the patna bench of the tribunal and the patna bench vide its order dt. 25.1.2001 rejected the grounds of delay, laches and limitation taken by the respondents after elaborate discussions. a xerox copy of the order of the patna bench has been enclosed with the rejoinder as annexurc-1. similarly, it is also averred that the cuttack bench, bangalore bench, lucknow bench, mumbai bench, hyderabad bench, jaipur bench, principal bench as also the calcutta bench of the tribunal rejected the grounds of delay, laches and limitations raised by the respondents opposing the respective applications filed before those benches. the orders passed by those benches have also been annexed with the o.a. as annexure-a2 collectively.4. the applicants have further stated that individual applicants of this o.a. had submitted representations dated 23.1.98 to the registrar general of india, new delhi for extension of the benefits of the judgments of the tribunal by allowing them the pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.86, but the same have not been replied so far.thus, the applicants have given some explanation as to why they could not approach the tribunal earlier. it is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to grant the revised pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- to the applicants w.e.f. 1.1.86 with all consequential benefits including arrears.5. in the reply, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicants mainly on the ground of limitation. it is contended that necessary orders in this regard has been passed in the year 1989 whereas the present application has been filed only in the year 2000 and hence the application is barred by limitation: it has also been submitted in the reply that since the applicants have accepted the new designation of data entry operator, gr. b as also the pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 11.9.89, they cannot now claim the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.86 with the new designation. in support of this contention, a copy of the option exercised by applicant no. 1 dt. 24.1.91 has been annexed to the reply as annexure-r1. accordingly, it is contended that the applicants are not entitled to the revised pay scale from 1.1.86.6. since the point in controversy is already covered by a number of decisions of various benches of this tribunal, we do not think it necessary to consider the matter on merit.7. we find that the patna bench of the tribunal in o.a. no. 94 of 1998 (k.m. sahay and ors. v. uoi and ors.) by its order dt. 25.1.2001 granted identical relief to the similarly placed officials like the present applicants. then we have the decisions of different benches of the tribunal on the same issue in favour of the respective applicants therein viz. cuttack bench in o.a. no. 249/91 (minaketan mishra and ors v. uoi and ors.) decided on 6.4.92, lucknow bench in o.a. no. 389/91 (shivan and pathak and ors v. uoi and ors.) decided 10.12.92, hyderabad bench in o.a. no. 957/90 (y. jagamohan reddy and ors. v. uoi and ors.) decided on 9.7.92, ernakulam bench in o.a. no. 146/96 (b. sahadevan and ors. v. uoi and ors.) vide order dt. 23.10.97, bangalore bench in o.a.no. 90/98 (m.s. gururaghavan and ors. v. uoi and ors.) decided on 9.10.98, mumbai bench in o.a. no. 122/98 (smt. a.a. kadam and ors. v.uoi and ors.) decided on 15.1.99, jaipur bench in o.a. no. 357/95 (narendra singh naruka and ors v. uoi and ors.) decided on 25.11.99, and the principal bench in o.a. nos. 2454/97 and 2650/97 (jai prakash and ors. v. uoi and ors.) decided on 2.2.2000 whereby similarly placed employees like the applicants were given the revised pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.86 with all consequential benefits including arrears.we also find that very recently this calcutta bench vide its decision dated 18.2.2002 in oa no. 18 of 2001 (ajoy mukherjee and ors. v. uoi and ors.) (in which one of us viz. hon'ble mr. b.p. singh, a.m. was a member of the bench) has granted identical reliefs to the applicants therein. "4. mr. panda, learned counsel, on the other hand submitted that the applicants were not vigilant and they have approached the tribunal more than 14 years after the 4lh pay commission report and, therefore, no relief should be given to them. 5. we have given the contentions our anxious consideration. it is now no more in dispute that the similarly situated data entry operators, grade b of the census department have been granted the pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- with effect from 1.1.86 on the basis of the decisions rendered by various benches of this tribunal. mr. panda, learned counsel for the respondents, was not in a position to say as to on what ground the respondents can be justified in discriminating the cases of the applicants. the jaipur bench of this tribunal has considered the matter in great detail, a copy of the decision is annexure-a2 on record. the principal bench has also relied on the decision rendered by the jaipur bench. the other benches of the tribunal including hyderabad, mumbai and lucknow have also taken similar view. since the decision of the tribunal that the data entry operators, grade b are entitled to pay in the pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- with effect from 1.1.86, the respondents themselves ought to have issued orders in respect of the data entry operators, grade b posted through out the country. it is surprising that the respondents have chosen to raise the plea of limitation. in such matters the plea of limitation cannot be allowed to be successfully raised, where the judgments of the various benches of this very tribunal relating to the same category of the employees. 6. it is not necessary on our part to discuss the matter in detail. suffice it to say, that the applicants are entitled to have the benefit of the judgment rendered by the jaipur bench as also the principal bench." it may be relevant, to mention here that the name of smt. swapna mullick, applicant no. 3 of the aforesaid o.a. also figures at sl. no.34 in the representation dated 23.8.98 vide annexure-a3 of the present o.a. she has been granted relief by this tribunal as per the aforesaid order.8. thus, from the above it is quite evident that different benches of the tribunal have consistently granted relief to the respective applicants from 1.1.86 with all consequential benefits including arrears.9. we have also noticed that in one or two cases, the respondents filed slps which came to be rejected by the apex court. however, the learned counsel for the respondents pressed on the questions of limitation, delay and laches so far as the claim of the present applicants is concerned. ld. counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice the decisions of the apex court in the cases of state of karnataka and ors. v. s.m. kotrayya and ors. (1996) 6 scc 267 and bhoop singh v. uoi and ors. (1992) 21 atc 675, in support of his contention that there is no need to enter into the merit of the case as there has been inordinate and unexplained delay in the matter of filing of this o.a.and as such it should be dismissed on this ground alone. his contention was that while deciding o.a. 18/ 2001 (ajoy mukherjee and ors v. uoi and ors.) (supra) this bench of the tribunal had not decided this issue and as such that judgment should be ignored and the present o.a. should be decided taking into consideration the law laid down by the apex court in the decisions cited by him.10. it is true that attention of this bench of the tribunal was not drawn to the aforesaid two decisions of the hon'ble supreme court while deciding o.a. no. 18/2001, and as such no finding on this point appears to have been given by this bench, as is evident from the judgment dt.18.1.2002, relevant portion of which has been quoted above. but it may be pertinent to add here that both these authorities were taken into consideration by the jaipur bench as well as by mumbai bench of the tribunal in their decisions dt. 25.11.99 in o.a. no. 357/95 and 15.1.99 in o.a. no. 122/98 respectively. the jaipur bench while considering the decision in bhoop singh's case (supra) observed in para 6 as below:-- "6. the learned counsel for the respondents, relied on the case of bhoop singh v. union of india reported in jt 1992(3) sc 322 and the judgment dated 27.8.1998 of the high court of judicature for rajasthan, jaipur bench in civil writ petition no. 1922/1998 (union of india v. the central administrative tribunal, jaipur and ors). we do not think these help the cause of the respondents because of the special facts and circumstances of this case." similarly the mumbai bench while considering the decision of the apex court in state of karnataka and ors. v. s.m. kotrayya and ors. (supra) has observed in para 7 as follows:-- "respondent's counsel invited our attention to the supreme court in the state of karnataka and others v. s.m. kotrayya and ors reported at 1996 scc (l&s) 1488 where no doubt supreme court has observed that the applicant filed the belated application immediately after coming to know that in similar claims relief has been granted by the tribunal and held not a proper explanation to justify condonation of delay. that was not a case where a general principle was involved. the facts show that certain teachers had availed ltc benefits without performing the journey and government ordered that the amount should be recovered, and the order came to quashed. in that case before supreme court another teacher had come to tribunal for similar relief and, therefore, in such circumstances, the supreme court observed that in view of the delay, the claim cannot be granted. there is no question of genera principle involved in that case." 11. thus, different benches of the tribunal have already taken note of the aforesaid decisions of the apex court, on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents and despite such objection, the delay in the filing of the respective o.as. was condoned.12. similarly, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicants had exercised option accepting the redesignated post of data entry operator with revised pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 11.9.1989 vide option dt. 24.1.91 annexed to the reply as annexure-r1, and hence they cannot be granted the revised scale with revised designation w.e.f. 1.1.86, also merits no consideration, in view of the fact that after the decisions of the various benches of the tribunal (earliest one being of cuttack bench dt. 6.4.92 i.e., after the exercise of option by the applicant no. 1 of the present oa oh 24.1.91), whereby the benefit of revised pay scale was extended to the data entry operators w.e..f 1.1.86 and in one or two cases, the sips filed by the government were also dismissed, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to ask for fresh option from the data entry -operators. since the respondents have failed to ask for fresh option pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the tribunal, which reached its finality, they cannot be heard to say that option exercised vide annexure - r1 should be treated as final one.13. it was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that at the most, the applicants-may be allowed the benefit of a revised pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.86 notionally without any back wages. in support of this argument, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the decision of the apex court in civil appeal no. 14.53 of 1997, (union of india and ors. v. r.d. gupta and ors.) decided on 24.10.97 and the decision of the calcutta high court in wpct n. 300 of 2000 (union of india and ors. v. brindaban mallick and ors.) decided on 15.1.2002.14. we have considered both these decisions and are of the view that the ratio of these judgments does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we find that in civil appeal no.1453/97, the hon'ble supreme court was considering the effect of a direction given by the tribunal in a review petition. from the facts cited therein it appears that while deciding the o.a. no. 960/90 out of which the aforesaid review petition arose, no direction was given by the principal bench of the tribunal for payment of arrears to the applicants therein w.e.f. 1.1.1947, from which date they were directed to be treated as udcs, it was only directed that pay of the applicants shall be fixed notionally for the purpose of recomputing their pension and that they will be entitled to arrears of pension from the date of superannuation. against that decision of the tribunal, the applicants filed a review petition in which the tribunal gave direction for payment of arrears of pay and allowances also from 1.1.1947. that decision was challenged before the supreme court thereupon the apex court held that the direction of the tribunal given in review petition could not be upheld since the o.a. was filed only in 1990 when the concerned employees had already retired from service and observed that the decision given by the tribunal in the oa was correct. the facts and circumstances of that case are entirely different from those of the present case in hand and as such that decision is of no help to the respondents.similarly, the decision of the calcutta high court in wpct no. 300/2000 is also no assistance to the respondents. in that case, even though the calcutta bench of the tribunal granted benefit of arrears on refixation in higher scale, in terms of an earlier decision of the madras bench, to the respondent-employees, the hon'ble high court, relying on the subsequent decisions of the madras bench in similar cases, held that the benefit would be applicable only on notional basis and actual payment will be admissible prospectively on the ground that the respondent-employees approached the tribunal belatedly. as has already been pointed out above, on the present issue, different benches of the tribunal by their decisions rendered at different times from 1992 onwards, granted benefit of arrears to the concerned applicants from 1.1.86 itself and there was no divergent decision on this issue.15. after considering the decisions of various benches of the tribunal whereby benefits of the revised scale was granted from 1.1.86 with all consequential benefits including arrears to the similarly placed employees, overruling the contention of the respondent regarding inordinate and unexplained delay in the matter of filing the respective applications, we also feel that the present applicants are entitled to the revised pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f.1.1.86 with all consequential benefits including arrears. in our considered opinion, those decisions being in rem and not restricted to particular group of applicants, if we deny the same relief to the applicants by departing from the said decisions of various coordinate benches, it will amount to injustice and discrimination because not only the data entry operators of the directorates of other states but also some of the data entry operators of the directorate of west bengal to which the present applicants belong, have been granted such benefit from 1.1.86 with consequential arrears. we are, therefore, of the opinion that it will be inequitable and discriminatory to depart from the earlier decisions and deny similar benefits to the present applications only oh the ground of inordinate and explained delay.16. in the result, the o.a. is allowed. the respondents are directed to extend the revised pay scale of rs. 1350-2200/- to the applicants from 1.1.86 with consequential arrears. this older be implemented within four months from the date of communication of this order. there will be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
1. The short question that falls for decision in this O.A. is whether the applicants (43 in number), who are working as Data Entry Operators under the respondents and who have not been extended the benefit of revised scale of pay of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.86 whereas the same was granted to the similarly situated employees pursuant to the decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal including the Calcutta Bench, can be denied similar relief simply on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the O.A.? It is, therefore, to be seen whether the principle of law on this issue is sufficient to refuse the relief in favour of the applicants and whether such refusal will amount to injustice to them.

The applicants were initially recruited as Operators in the Directorate of Census Operations, West Bengal in the year 1982-84. These posts were later redesignated as Data Entry Operators, Gr. B. The applicants' case is that they have been given revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- attached to the post w.e.f. 11.9.89. Their grievance is that they are entitled to the said pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.86.

3. The applicants while filing the O.A., have stated in para 3 that the application is within limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the AT.Act, 1985. However, on objection raised by the respondents in their reply, the applicants in a rejoinder, have stated that the Data Entry Operators, Gr. B of different Directorates of Census Operations located in different States filed applications before different Benches of the Tribunal praying for giving effect of the revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/ w.e.f. 1.1.86 instead of 11.9.89 and the respondents therein opposed the said applications on the ground of delay and laches, but those Benches of the Tribunal overruled such objection and allowed the prayer of the applicants therein with consequential arrears. It has also been averred in the rejoinder that the Data Entry Operators, Gr. B of the Directorate of Census Operations, Bihar, have filed O.A. No. 94 of 1998 before the Patna Bench of the Tribunal and the Patna Bench vide its order dt. 25.1.2001 rejected the grounds of delay, laches and limitation taken by the respondents after elaborate discussions. A xerox copy of the order of the Patna Bench has been enclosed with the rejoinder as annexurc-1. Similarly, it is also averred that the Cuttack Bench, Bangalore Bench, Lucknow Bench, Mumbai Bench, Hyderabad Bench, Jaipur Bench, Principal Bench as also the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal rejected the grounds of delay, laches and limitations raised by the respondents opposing the respective applications filed before those Benches. The orders passed by those benches have also been annexed with the O.A. as Annexure-A2 collectively.

4. The applicants have further stated that individual applicants of this O.A. had submitted representations dated 23.1.98 to the Registrar General of India, New Delhi for extension of the benefits of the judgments of the Tribunal by allowing them the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.86, but the same have not been replied so far.

Thus, the applicants have given some explanation as to why they could not approach the Tribunal earlier. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to grant the revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- to the applicants w.e.f. 1.1.86 with all consequential benefits including arrears.

5. In the reply, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicants mainly on the ground of limitation. It is contended that necessary orders in this regard has been passed in the year 1989 whereas the present application has been filed only in the year 2000 and hence the application is barred by limitation: It has also been submitted in the reply that since the applicants have accepted the new designation of Data Entry Operator, Gr. B as also the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 11.9.89, they cannot now claim the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.86 with the new designation. In support of this contention, a copy of the option exercised by applicant No. 1 dt. 24.1.91 has been annexed to the reply as annexure-R1. Accordingly, it is contended that the applicants are not entitled to the revised pay scale from 1.1.86.

6. Since the point in controversy is already covered by a number of decisions of various Benches of this Tribunal, we do not think it necessary to consider the matter on merit.

7. We find that the Patna Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 94 of 1998 (K.M. Sahay and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.) by its order dt. 25.1.2001 granted identical relief to the similarly placed officials like the present applicants. Then we have the decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal on the same issue in favour of the respective applicants therein viz. Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 249/91 (Minaketan Mishra and Ors v. UOI and Ors.) decided on 6.4.92, Lucknow Bench in O.A. No. 389/91 (Shivan and Pathak and Ors v. UOI and Ors.) decided 10.12.92, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 957/90 (Y. Jagamohan Reddy and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.) decided on 9.7.92, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 146/96 (B. Sahadevan and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.) vide order dt. 23.10.97, Bangalore Bench in O.A.No. 90/98 (M.S. Gururaghavan and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.) decided on 9.10.98, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No. 122/98 (Smt. A.A. Kadam and Ors. v.UOI and Ors.) decided on 15.1.99, Jaipur Bench in O.A. No. 357/95 (Narendra Singh Naruka and Ors v. UOI and Ors.) decided on 25.11.99, and the Principal Bench in O.A. Nos. 2454/97 and 2650/97 (Jai Prakash and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.) decided on 2.2.2000 whereby similarly placed employees like the applicants were given the revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.86 with all consequential benefits including arrears.

We also find that very recently this Calcutta Bench vide its decision dated 18.2.2002 in OA No. 18 of 2001 (Ajoy Mukherjee and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.) (in which one of us viz. Hon'ble Mr. B.P. Singh, A.M. was a Member of the Bench) has granted identical reliefs to the applicants therein.

"4. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel, on the other hand submitted that the applicants were not vigilant and they have approached the Tribunal more than 14 years after the 4lh Pay Commission report and, therefore, no relief should be given to them.

5. We have given the contentions our anxious consideration. It is now no more in dispute that the similarly situated Data Entry Operators, Grade B of the Census Department have been granted the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- with effect from 1.1.86 on the basis of the decisions rendered by various Benches of this Tribunal. Mr.

Panda, learned Counsel for the respondents, was not in a position to say as to on what ground the respondents can be justified in discriminating the cases of the applicants. The Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal has considered the matter in great detail, A copy of the decision is Annexure-A2 on record. The Principal Bench has also relied on the decision rendered by the Jaipur Bench. The other Benches of the Tribunal including Hyderabad, Mumbai and Lucknow have also taken similar view. Since the decision of the Tribunal that the Data Entry Operators, grade B are entitled to pay in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- with effect from 1.1.86, the respondents themselves ought to have issued orders in respect of the Data Entry Operators, Grade B posted through out the country. It is surprising that the respondents have chosen to raise the plea of limitation. In such matters the plea of limitation cannot be allowed to be successfully raised, where the judgments of the various Benches of this very Tribunal relating to the same category of the employees.

6. It is not necessary on our part to discuss the matter in detail.

Suffice it to say, that the applicants are entitled to have the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Jaipur Bench as also the Principal bench." It may be relevant, to mention here that the name of Smt. Swapna Mullick, applicant No. 3 of the aforesaid O.A. also figures at Sl. No.34 in the representation dated 23.8.98 vide Annexure-A3 of the present O.A. She has been granted relief by this tribunal as per the aforesaid order.

8. Thus, from the above it is quite evident that different Benches of the Tribunal have consistently granted relief to the respective applicants from 1.1.86 with all consequential benefits including arrears.

9. We have also noticed that in one or two cases, the respondents filed SLPs which came to be rejected by the Apex Court. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents pressed on the questions of limitation, delay and laches so far as the claim of the present applicants is concerned. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice the decisions Of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Karnataka and Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 267 and Bhoop Singh v. UOI and Ors. (1992) 21 ATC 675, in support of his contention that there is no need to enter into the merit of the case as there has been inordinate and unexplained delay in the matter of filing of this O.A.and as such it should be dismissed on this ground alone. His contention was that while deciding O.A. 18/ 2001 (Ajoy Mukherjee and Ors v. UOI and Ors.) (supra) this Bench of the Tribunal had not decided this issue and as such that judgment should be ignored and the present O.A. should be decided taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions cited by him.

10. It is true that attention of this Bench of the Tribunal was not drawn to the aforesaid two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding O.A. No. 18/2001, and as such no finding on this point appears to have been given by this Bench, as is evident from the judgment dt.

18.1.2002, relevant portion of which has been quoted above. But it may be pertinent to add here that both these authorities were taken into consideration by the Jaipur Bench as well as by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in their decisions dt. 25.11.99 in O.A. No. 357/95 and 15.1.99 in O.A. No. 122/98 respectively. The Jaipur Bench while considering the decision in Bhoop Singh's case (supra) observed in para 6 as below:-- "6. The learned Counsel for the respondents, relied on the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India reported in JT 1992(3) SC 322 and the judgment dated 27.8.1998 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in Civil Writ petition No. 1922/1998 (Union of India v. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur and Ors). We do not think these help the cause of the respondents because of the special facts and circumstances of this case." Similarly the Mumbai Bench while considering the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya and Ors. (supra) has observed in para 7 as follows:-- "Respondent's Counsel invited our attention to the Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka and Others v. S.M. Kotrayya and Ors reported at 1996 SCC (L&S) 1488 where no doubt Supreme Court has observed that the applicant filed the belated application immediately after coming to know that in similar claims relief has been granted by the Tribunal and held not a proper explanation to justify condonation of delay. That was not a case where a general principle was involved.

The facts show that certain teachers had availed LTC benefits without performing the journey and Government ordered that the amount should be recovered, and the order came to quashed. In that case before Supreme Court another Teacher had come to Tribunal for similar relief and, therefore, in such circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that in view of the delay, the claim cannot be granted. There is no question of genera principle involved in that case." 11. Thus, different benches of the Tribunal have already taken note of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents and despite such objection, the delay in the filing of the respective O.As. was condoned.

12. Similarly, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the applicants had exercised option accepting the redesignated post of Data Entry Operator with revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 11.9.1989 vide option dt. 24.1.91 annexed to the reply as annexure-R1, and hence they cannot be granted the revised scale with revised designation w.e.f. 1.1.86, also merits no consideration, in view of the fact that after the decisions of the various Benches of the Tribunal (earliest one being of Cuttack Bench dt. 6.4.92 i.e., after the exercise of option by the applicant No. 1 of the present OA oh 24.1.91), whereby the benefit of revised pay scale was extended to the Data Entry Operators w.e..f 1.1.86 and in one or two cases, the SIPs filed by the Government were also dismissed, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to ask for fresh option from the Data Entry -Operators. Since the respondents have failed to ask for fresh option pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, which reached its finality, they cannot be heard to say that option exercised vide Annexure - R1 should be treated as final one.

13. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that at the most, the applicants-may be allowed the benefit of a revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.86 notionally without any back wages. In support of this argument, the learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 14.53 of 1997, (Union of India and Ors. v. R.D. Gupta and Ors.) decided on 24.10.97 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in WPCT N. 300 of 2000 (Union of India and Ors. v. Brindaban Mallick and Ors.) decided on 15.1.2002.

14. We have considered both these decisions and are of the view that the ratio of these judgments does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, We find that in Civil Appeal No.1453/97, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the effect of a direction given by the Tribunal in a Review Petition. From the facts cited therein it appears that while deciding the O.A. No. 960/90 out of which the aforesaid review petition arose, no direction was given by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal for payment of arrears to the applicants therein w.e.f. 1.1.1947, from which date they were directed to be treated as UDCs, It was only directed that pay of the applicants shall be fixed notionally for the purpose of recomputing their pension and that they will be entitled to arrears of pension from the date of superannuation. Against that decision of the Tribunal, the applicants filed a review petition in which the Tribunal gave direction for payment of arrears of pay and allowances also from 1.1.1947. That decision was challenged before the Supreme Court thereupon the Apex Court held that the direction of the Tribunal given in review petition could not be upheld since the O.A. was filed only in 1990 when the concerned employees had already retired from service and observed that the decision given by the Tribunal in the OA was correct. The facts and circumstances of that case are entirely different from those of the present case in hand and as such that decision is of no help to the respondents.

Similarly, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in WPCT No. 300/2000 is also no assistance to the respondents. In that case, even though the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal granted benefit of arrears on refixation in higher scale, in terms of an earlier decision of the Madras Bench, to the respondent-employees, the Hon'ble High Court, relying on the subsequent decisions of the Madras Bench in similar cases, held that the benefit would be applicable only on notional basis and actual payment will be admissible prospectively on the ground that the respondent-employees approached the Tribunal belatedly. As has already been pointed out above, on the present issue, different Benches of the Tribunal by their decisions rendered at different times from 1992 onwards, granted benefit of arrears to the concerned applicants from 1.1.86 itself and there was no divergent decision on this issue.

15. After considering the decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal whereby benefits of the revised scale was granted from 1.1.86 with all consequential benefits including arrears to the similarly placed employees, overruling the contention of the respondent regarding inordinate and unexplained delay in the matter of filing the respective applications, we also feel that the present applicants are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f.1.1.86 with all consequential benefits including arrears. In our considered opinion, those decisions being in rem and not restricted to particular group of applicants, If we deny the same relief to the applicants by departing from the said decisions of various coordinate Benches, it will amount to injustice and discrimination because not only the Data Entry Operators of the Directorates of other States but also some of the Data Entry Operators of the Directorate of West Bengal to which the present applicants belong, have been granted such benefit from 1.1.86 with consequential arrears. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it will be inequitable and discriminatory to depart from the earlier decisions and deny similar benefits to the present applications only oh the ground of inordinate and explained delay.

16. In the result, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- to the applicants from 1.1.86 with consequential arrears. This older be implemented within four months from the date of communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs.