UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHITTAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defense and others, against the judgment dated 17.04.2013 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, in O.A. No.67/2012 and order dated 13.09.2013 passed in Review Application No.19/2013 with M.A. Nos.190/2013 and 191/2013, to review the order passed in OA No.67/2012.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners at the threshold argued that the order dated 17.04.2013 passed in O.A. No.67/2012 was passed with observations that the respondents (petitioners herein) also agreed with submissions made by the counsel for the applicants that controversy has already been decided in the case of Tulsiram & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 11.09.2008, but fact was not correct that the controversy is covered in the aforesaid judgment because ACP can be granted to the employees in the event of non-availability of promotion, but in this case, the applicants (respondents herein) were initially appointed as "Mazdoor" in Group-D and they were further promoted to the post of Valve man (semi skilled), therefore, there was no question to grant financial up gradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 but OA was decided by the Tribunal upon wrong consent given by the learned counsel for Union of India before the Tribunal. Upon aforesaid fact, a review application was filed and the learned Tribunal was apprised with the fact that matter is not covered with the judgment of Tulsiram (supra), but the learned Tribunal dismissed the review application on the ground that judgment was passed with the agreement of the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further invited our attention towards the reply filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the OA in which specific fact was disclosed that applicants (respondents herein) were initially appointed as Mazdoor in the office of Garrison Engineer (Army), Suratgarh, and thereafter they appeared in the trade test of Valve Man (Semi Skilled) and after passing said trade test, they were promoted on the post of Valve Man w.e.f. 29.11.1991, 04.12.1991, 10.12.1991, 28.12.1995 and 28.12.1995 respectively. Thus it is a case in which the counsel appearing on behalf of respondents gave consent contrary to the facts, therefore, the order impugned may kindly be quashed and the matter may be remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal for deciding the OA No.67/2012 afresh.