UNION OF INDIA Vs. DHARAM CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India and its officers have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh (Circuit Bench at Jammu) in O.A. No. 941 -JK -2009 dated 16.09.2010 and the later clarification issued on 20.04.2012 in M.A. No. 34 of 2012. It has remained undisputed that a number of persons working as Instrument Repairers filed OA No. 410 -JK -1989 (Dhian Singh and others v. Union of India and others) challenging order dated 22.12.1988 issued by the Army Headquarters, Engineer -in -Chief's Branch, New Delhi on the ground that the Instrument Repairers were illegally excluded from amongst the categories, which were made eligible for promotion to HS Grade II and HS Grade I under the 'In -situ Promotion Scheme', which amounted to taking away their promotional avenues available to them earlier. The trade of Instrument Repairer was re -designated as Electrician (SK) vide letter dated 21.02.1994. The appellant issued instructions to work out revise 20% vacancies of Electrician HS II grade and to grant them promotion by reviewing DPC with notional seniority vide letter dated 10.02.1995 issued by the Engineer -in -Chief's Branch. The aforesaid O.A. No. 410 -JK -1989 was allowed on 22.03.1996 holding those applicants entitled to their inclusion in the three grade structure from the initial date i.e. 15.10.1984. The letter dated 22.12.1988 to the contrary issued by the Army Headquarters Engineer -in -Chief's branch was quashed to that extent.

(2.) THE original applicant along with others thereafter filed SWP No. 836 of 1994 titled as Adip Singh and others v. Union of India and others with a prayer to issue same directions, which were passed in Dhian Singh's case (supra) while deciding O.A. No. 410 -JK -1989. The petition was decided on 31.08.1996 by observing as under: -

(3.) WE also note that the order referred to the concurrence that had been given by the Defence (Finance) vide their diary No. 476/W -1/97m dated 12.5.97. However, when the applicant approached the respondents with copy of the judgment of the High Court, he was not given welcome. Protracted correspondence ultimately resulted in a decision which communicated the decision taken by the Commander Works Engineer, vide Annexure P -4, dated 12.5.04. It is shown that Army Hqrs. on 2.4.04 had indicated that the Govt. had not issued any general order regarding grant of notional seniority and consequential benefits to Instrument Repairers. The benefit could be given only to those petitioners who were covered by CAT orders. This order is under challenge. The impugned order also indicates that as the applicant was not party to CAT case, the department adopted the above position.