JASWINDER KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged Annexure P -3, order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in OA No. 1209/HP/2001 dated 16th November, 2005 and also orders dated 22.3.2000, 9.6.2000 and 3.8.2000, passed by the respondents. The issue pertains to grant of pay scale to the Tailors in Army. he Central Administrative Tribunal, by following the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, has rejected the claim for the pay fixation. The matter came up before this Court on several occasions. On 7.12.2000, this Court served the respondents with the following interrogatories: i) In how many cases in the country, the orders passed by the respective Central Administrative Tribunals have been implemented by maintaining the revised pay -scales. ii) Whether the Full Bench decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, and referred to in Para -6 of the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal has been challenged before the High Court and whether that order has become final. iii) Whether in the case of a sale co -worker in Himachal Pradesh (Kalicharan at Dharamsala), he was allowed to maintain the revised pay -scales."

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, an affidavit dated 19th February, 2011 has been filed, wherein it is stated that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, in OA No. 540/2003 was implemented pursuant to government sanction. The order passed in OA No. 106/2007 by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi was implemented. The order passed in OA No. 66/2002 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, was also implemented. It is also stated in the affidavit that no information is available as to the fate of the decision of the Mumbai Bench. Be that as it may. Now that the Government of India also has sanctioned the implementation order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, in the similar situation and admittedly the orders passed by the Principal Bench, New Delhi and Guwahati Bench also have been implemented, it is only appropriate that the case of the petitioner is considered in those lines in this connection, it is also brought to our notice that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in OA No. 362/2000 also has been implemented. It is apparent that decision of the Jaipur Bench is in respect of one of the Tailors referred to in Annexure A2, wherein the petitioner's name is also included.

(3.) WITH the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.