UNION OF INDIA Vs. S GOPINATHA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel appearing for the common petitioners in all the Petitions, and different counsel appearing for contesting respondents in all the Petitions. All the cases are filed against the orders issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal on review applications filed by the petitioners based on orders of the Supreme Court in C.A.Nos. 6589 to 6598 of 2002. The Supreme Court had permitted filing of Review Applications only against the common orders passed by the Tribunal on 29.10.1993. However, it is seen that Review Applications filed by the Government against which WPC No. 20247/2010 and O.P. (CAT) No. 77 of 2010 are not against orders of the Tribunal passed on 29.10.1993. So much so, Review Applications themselves were not maintainable and the Tribunal rightly rejected the same. We do not find any merit in WPC No. 20247 of 2010 and OP (CAT) No 77/2010. Therefore these two Petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.

(2.) SO far as the remaining cases are concerned, the relief granted by the Tribunal to the contesting respondents was stepping up of salary to equalise the same with higher pay received by juniors. When department challenged the orders of the Tribunal issued on 29.10.1993, this Court upheld the same against which appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals giving freedom to the petitioners to file Review Applications because the contention raised by the petitioners before the Supreme Court was that under the judgment of the Supreme Court in SWAMINATHAN's case, (1997) 7 SCC 690, higher pay received by juniors based on ad hoc promotion is not a ground for claiming parity by seniors. However, in review proceedings the Central Administrative Tribunal found that the case of the respondents is not covered by the ad hoc promotion referred to in SWAMINATHAN's case. Further the judgment of the Supreme Court in SWAMINATHAN's case was subsequent to the order of the Tribunal. Above all, Tribunal found that all the contesting respondents retired on various dates ranging from 13 to 17 years back and all of them have drawn higher pay and were given pension based on last drawn pay. In the circumstances, the Tribunal found no merit in the Review Applications and therefore all the Review Applications were dismissed. Before us also counsel for the petitioners raised the very same contentions as raised before the Tribunal. In view of the facts stated above, we do not find any justification to unsettle the pay and allowances given to concerned employees who retired 13 to 17 years back. WPCs are accordingly dismissed.