ORDER
Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Member (J)
1. 20 applicants working as skilled employees, under Respondent No. 2 in this OA seek extending benefit of judgments in series of cases by directing respondents to grant revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 from the dates of their appointment with all consequential benefits including arrears of difference of pay & allowances. It is contended that they made representations through proper channel in the month of October, 2004, seeking extension of judgments of this Tribunal, which remained undecided. When they approached Respondents orally, they were informed that only applicants in those cases were entitled to benefit of the pay scale and since they were not impleaded therein, they will not be entitled to any benefit of the judgments.
2. Respondents contested the claim laid stating that in compliance of orders passed by this Tribunal, they had already issued various orders, viz. PTO No. 03 dated 16.1.2006, PTO No. 28 dated 10.7.2006, PTO No. 22 dated 22.5.2006 and PTO No. 8 dated 20.2.2006, revising their pay in pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- from the dates of filing of OAs, i.e. the scale available to skilled category and as such there is no merit in the claim laid in present OA.
3. We heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record carefully.
4. 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.
8. The OA is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
5. 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 vide order dated 21.01.2004 extending judgment of M.S.A. Khan & 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.
6. 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. Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned Counsel also relied upon order dated 16.10.2006 in OA No. 729/2006 whereby a Single Bench of this Tribunal had followed aforesaid judgments in OA Nos. 3047/2001 as well as 1076/2003. In these circumstances, learned Counsel contended that applicants cannot be treated differently.
7. During the course of oral hearing, Shri R.N. Singh, learned Counsel for Respondents, raised please of limitation. On 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. It is further not in dispute that directions issued in OAs No. 3047/2001 as well as 1076/2003, 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, we 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 OA is allowed.
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. 19 & 20, who have retired, would also be entitled to such benefits besides revision of their pensionary benefits. 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.