UNION OF INDIA Vs. PARDEEP JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The private respondents before us from Nos. 1 to 19 are employees of the Postal Department, who were discharging the duties of Postal Assistants in the Reserved Trained Pool. They sought parity of pay and allowances with regular Postal Assistants when they were discharging the same duties as of the Postal Assistants. In support of the aforesaid plea, the private respondents before us, had relied before the CAT upon a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 262 of 1986 - Binder Ram and others v. Union of India and others, decided on 29.04.1987. Another judgment relied upon for the said relief is in O.A. No. 472/HR/91 - Des Raj Brar and others v. Union of India and others, decided on 13.12.2000, specifically, in view of the fact that the private respondents having approached the CAT after a delay, the department was pleading the bar of limitation against them. In this case also a similar plea had been raised but the same was waived off in view of the fact that in other cases, which were assailed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the benefit of arrears had been given. Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., 1990 Supp1 SCC 113. The relief in terms of the impugned order dated 31.10.2003 has been granted to the private respondents in fact on parity with the case of Des Raj Brar .

(2.) We, thus, asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the Government authority can discriminate between employees in the same department identically situated where some will get benefit of larger part of the arrears while others will get lesser part of the arrears when waiving off the aspect of delay the arrears have been granted in full by the department itself accepting the judgment.

(3.) There is no satisfactory explanation to the aforesaid. It would be grave injustice to the private respondents, if they are treated differently in the aforesaid circumstances where the department has accepted the judgment by paying full arrears to identically situated parties and not confined to period of three years prior to the filing of that O.A. In view of the aforesaid given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.