JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This writ petition challenges the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated
27th November, 2001. The applicants before the Central
Administrative Tribunal and the respondents herein, had
claimed parity with the applicants in O.A. 133/1991 before
the Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal
which directed the respondents to upgrade the posts of
Material Checkers held up the applicants before it to the
higher grade of Material Checking Clerks. The said order
of the Lucknow Bench had been appealed against before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had dismissed
the Special Leave Petition and thus the order of the
Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal became
final.
2. The foundation of the pleas of the respondents was
that the respondents i.e. the applicants before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and the
applicants in O.A. 133/91 before the Lucknow Bench were
placed in the same seniority list of Material Checkers. It
is also contended that while the judgment of the Lucknow
Bench has been complied with, but it has been restricted
only to the applicants before the Lucknow Bench of the CAT
and the benefit thereof has been denied to the applicants
before the CAT, New Delhi, who were similarly situated to
the applicants before the Lucknow Bench. It is thus
contended that since the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of
the Central Administrative Tribunal was upheld by the
Supreme Court, consequently the issue involved in that case
cannot be re-opened. The petitioner took a stand that the
order of the Lucknow Bench was not binding as certain
orders of the Railway Board has been ignored and the
dismissal of the S.L.P. by the Supreme Court did not make
it law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently the order affirmed by the Supreme Court was
decided to be implemented only for those persons who had
filed the O.A. before the Lucknow Bench and none else.
3. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment found that it
was not even the case of the respondent that the applicants
were not placed in the same seniority list as those before
the Lucknow Bench. In fact some of the respondents herein
were shown as senior to the appellants before the Lucknow
Bench. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the
Lucknow Bench and held as under:-
“Applying the said principles…
the applicants are entitled to count their
seniority from the date they were so
upgraded and placed in the same pay scale
and their seniority will be countered from
that date. Those who are Material Clerks
before that, obviously will rank senior to
them but those who become Material
Checkers subsequent to their gradation and
placement in the same scale, will rand
junior to them and accordingly this
application is allowed to the extent that
the order dated 19.4.1991 is quashed and
the respondents are directed to prepare a
fresh seniority list in accordance with
law and in the light of the observations
made above, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment and give promotions to
the applicants in accordance with their
seniority and placement without requiring
them to undergo written test or viva-voce
for the post of Material Clerks.”
4. The Tribunal further found that even before the
Lucknow Bench, the letter dated 6th July, 1978 was relied
upon by the applicant and had been relied upon before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi too. The
Tribunal further held that the judgment of Lucknow Bench
had attained finality and had been admittedly implemented
by the Union of India and therefore following the law laid
down in Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New
Delhi (SLR 1975 (1) 153 at 169) and Girdhari Lal v. Union
of India and Ors. the Appellant/Union of India ought to have
treated alike all persons similarly situated. The Tribunal
had noticed that the Railway Board’s letter relied upon by
the applicant/respondent itself, clearly states that for
the upgraded posts of Material Clerks, no arrears will be
paid prior to 1st August, 1978. Consequently the full
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal directed that
the applicants were entitled to have their pay re-fixed
from the relevant date in the grade of Material Checkers
and Clerks and the consequential benefits will be subject
to law of limitation.
5. It is this order of the Full Bench dated 23rd October,
2001 along with the consequent order of the Division Bench
dated 27th November, 2001 which is challenged in this Writ
Petition before us and the learned counsel for the
petitioner has primarily contended that since the order of
the Tribunal, Lucknow did not state that the similarly
situated persons shall be given benefit, it could not be
given to the applicants before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, New Delhi as it was not a precedent and the
treating the order of the Tribunal, Lucknow as a precedent
will open the flood gates. Besides making this sweeping
statement no detail or particular of any kind whatsoever
was averred in the writ petition or even urged in arguments
before us. Infact, it turned out that the phrase ‘Flood
gates’ had been used rather liberally and inappropriately
particularly when enquiries revealed that there were only 8
respondents. Learned counsel has further relied upon the
plea that the Material Checker’s post were project based
and they cannot claim the effect of any upgradation policy.
6. We have considered the pleas of the petitioner and are
satisfied that the writ petition is without merit. While
there is no dispute that the judgment of Lucknow Bench of
the Central Administrative Tribunal had not made it
universally applicable, yet it is not in dispute that most
of the respondents figure in the same seniority list as the
applicants before the Lucknow Bench. The respondents’ plea
was based on the fact that the similarly situated persons
who figured in the same seniority list and were even senior
to the applicants before the Lucknow Bench cannot be
treated differently by the respondent, particularly when
the Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the Lucknow
Bench and the principles laid down therein. We are
satisfied that there is no merit in the plea of the
respondent and the Central Administrative Tribunal was
entirely justified in granting the benefit entitling them
to have their pay refixed in the grade of Material Checkers
and Clerk as was done in the case of the applicants before
the Lucknow Bench. Irrespective of the fact that whether
the Lucknow Bench order was universally applicable, those
figuring in the same seniority list as the applicants and
those other similarly situated as the applicants before
the Lucknow Bench are entitled to similar benefits
particularly when the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the
order of the Lucknow Bench. We are satisfied that the
respondents’ plea deserved to be accepted and the
petitioner had unduly delayed the implementation of the
benefits granted by the Lucknow Bench Central
Administrative Tribunal for no valid reason. Accordingly
there is no merit in the writ petition.
7. We must also note that even though the Full Bench of
the Central Administrative Tribunal laid down the
principles governing dispute by its judgment dated 23rd
October, 2001 and the Division Bench consequently granted
benefits in accordance with the Full Bench judgment by its
order dated 27th November, 2001. The writ petition in this
Court was filed only in August, 2002. The petition
consequently suffers from inordinate and unexplained laches
also and the petitioners have ignored the time bound
direction of the Tribunal dated 24th November, 2001
directing implementation of the judgment within three
months from the date of the receipt of the order. The
period of more than 9 months have passed before the writ
petition was filed and taken up for hearing on 14th August,
2002. Apart from the fact that we find no merit in the
writ petition it also suffers from unexplained laches and
warrants dismissal on this ground also.