UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway & Ors., have challenged the order dated 4th June, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1915 of 2010, titled `Harcharan Singh & Others v. Union of Indian & Ors.' directing the petitioners to consider the prayer of the respondents to grant the increments between the intervening period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement in the light of the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 25th September, 2007 which was upheld by the Supreme Court and if the respondents are found to be similarly situated, then the same benefit be extended to them.

(2.) THE respondents had filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal contending inter-alia that they were amongst those who were dismissed by the petitioners for participating in the General Railways Employees Strike (Locomen Strike) in 1981. According to the respondents, they were reinstated in November 1993, however, they have not been given the benefits of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 5th August, 1993 in the matter of `Union of India & Anr. v. V.Raddappa & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.4681-82 of 1992) whereby notional continuity from the date of termination till the date of restoration for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits were granted. THE respondents contended that they are similarly situated and are entitled for all the benefits which were granted by the Supreme Court to the other employees.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents have admitted that notice was not issued by the Tribunal to the petitioners and the order has been passed to consider their claim, as the respondents are only claiming that the benefit which has been given to similarly placed employees be also granted to them in terms of order of the Supreme Court as detailed hereinabove. LEARNED counsel has contended that the claims of the respondents are not barred by time as has been alleged by the petitioners. In any case the Tribunal has not granted the relief and has only observed that the claim of the respondents be considered and if the respondents are found to be similarly situated, then the benefit extended to other similarly placed employees be also extended to them.