1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.401 OF 2001 Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners. V/s Naval Armament Inspection Staff & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Pakale with Mr.H.K.Vardhan for the Petitioners. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. By this petition the petitioners challenge the order dated 20.7.2000 passed in Original Application No.398 of 1995 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. 2. The matter relates to grant of the productivity linked bonus. The Respondent is an organisation representing the staff attached to Naval Armament Inspection Unit at Bombay. It is the common ground that so far as eligibility of these personnel for the benefits of the productivity linked bonus is concerned, it was no longer in dispute even before the Administrative Tribunal because the petitioner itself extended the scheme of productivity linked bonus to the civilian employees of the Navy by memorandum dated 28.9.1983. 2 3. The dispute before the Tribunal was the point of time from which these benefits are to be extended. The Government has extended the benefits to these personnel from the year 1991-92 whereas the Respondents were claiming that they are entitled to these benefits from the year 1979-80 when the scheme was originally introduced. The Tribunal has found that when initially the decision was taken the personnel working in the armament division were not getting that benefits. Therefore the personnel from Kerala approached the Madras Bench of the Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Tribunal of Madras Bench found in their favour. Inspite of that decision, because the Government was not extending the benefits to the personnel working in Mumbai they approached the Tribunal at Mumbai and the Tribunal directed the Government to consider their demand for extension of productivity linked bonus to the employees in Mumbai. Pursuant to that the Government extended that benefits from the year 1991-92 viz.the year in which the Bombay Bench of the Administrative Tribunal had issued directions. By the order impugned in this petition the Tribunal has held that the extension of benefits from the year 1991-1992 is not valid. It is held that in any case the Government should have extended the benefits when the Madras Bench extended the benefits to the employees situate similarly to the petitioners. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. We find 3 that once having found that the employees working in Mumbai were also entitled to the benefits of productivity linked bonus they could not have been denied the payment of that bonus at least from the date on which similarly situate employees were found by the judicial forum entitled to that benefits. Admittedly, the personnel who are beneficiaries of the decision of the Madras Bench belong to the same cadre, perform same duties and are also inter-transferable, and therefore, really speaking, there was no room to assign different dates for the application of the benefits of the productivity linked bonus. 5. In our opinion therefore the Tribunal has rightly extended the benefits from the year 1988-89. We see no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Petition therefore fails. Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)