1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE WRIT JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.286 OF 2009 Union of India & Anr., .. Petitioners V/s. Mehboob Khan .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.467 OF 2009 Union of India & Anr., .. Petitioners V/s. S.S.Phadke .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.480 OF 2009 Union of India & Anr., .. Petitioners V/s. B.B.Thorat .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.482 OF 2009 Union of India & Anr., .. Petitioners V/s. Shri K.V.Kurien .. Respondent srj/- 2 Mr.V.S.Masurkar, G.P. for Petitioners. S.P.Saxena, for Respondents. Mr.S.B.Deshmukh, for Respondents in W.Pet.No.467 of 2009 CORAM: V.C.DAGA & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 22nd September, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Perused all Petitions. 2. All these Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against order dated 5th March, 2008, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bombay Bench, Bombay in Original Application Nos. 793 of 2004, 862 of 2004, 838 of 2004 and 830 of 2005 allowing all the four Original Applications. Since common facts and issues are involved, all these Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Factual matrix is not in dispute, hence, needs no reproduction. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in all these Petitions placed heavy reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Lal S. Jaswaney v/s. Film and Television Institute of India, bearing Writ srj/- 3 Petition no. 479 of 1987, dated 22 nd March, 1988 (unreported) to support of his submission and went on to submit that issues involved in these Petitions are clearly covered by the said Judgment, hence, Petitions need consideration. 4. In reply, the learned Counsel for the Respondents took us through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal wherein earlier order of the Tribunal passed on 24th October, 2001 in Transfer Application Nos.1 to 7 of 2000 and 1 to 5 2001 in the group applications is relied upon wherein the facts were absolutely identical as in the present Petitions. 5. Having gone through the same, factual matrix reveal that in one of the Transfer Applications bearing Transfer application No.1 of 2000 Mathura D. Sharma v/s. Film & Television Institute of India, decided on 24th October, 2001, the Judgment of the Learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lal S. Jaswaney v/s. Film & Television Institute of India delivered in Writ Petition No.479 of 1987 decided on 22nd, 23rd March, 1988 (unreported) was relied upon, observations of which are as under:- srj/- 4 In short, it is the stand of the respondents that since the applicant was appointed to the higher post of Manager Laboratory after due selection and nomination in response to an open advertisement, it amounted to a fresh appointment and therefore, being a fresh appointee of the FTII he could not get the benefit of the OM dated 3rd April, 1975. The benefit was available to him only till the date of his appointment to the higher post. This very question of whether the employees of the erstwhile department Institute absorbed in the service of the FTII on 1.10.1974 after exercising option would be eligible to the promotion of pension etc., assured to them by the Government of India even after their appointment to higher or another post through open advertisement came up before the High Court of Mumbai in Writ Petition No. 479/87 and the Mumbai High Court in their judgment and order passed on 22/23rd March 1988 came to the conclusion that since the petitioner therein Shri Lal Jaswaney who was absorbed in the service of the FTII on 1.10.1974 on his exercising option in terms of the Government of India OM dated 3.4.1975 was subsequently selected and appointed as direct recruit by the FTII. He was governed by the service conditions applicable to the new post from such date. This judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court later on and therefore, the respondents have rightly held that the ratio of the judgment and order passed in the case of Shri Lal Jaswaney equally applies to the case of similarly situated employees of the respondent institute. srj/- 5 6. The aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 1 to 7 of 2000 and T.A. Nos.1 to 5 of 2001 dated 24th October, 2001 in the case of Mathura D. Sharma has become final and conclusive for want of further challenge. The Petitioners herein have implemented the said judgment of the Tribunal in its true Letter and spirit. 7. The other set of employees including present Respondents when approached the CAT, they relied upon the aforesaid Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Mathura D. Sharma (supra.). The Tribunal following the said order reiterated its earlier view, which was not only accepted but implemented by the present Petitioners as stated hereinabove. 8. The observation of the Tribunal in the impugned order reads as under:- Judgment dt.24.10.2001 in T.As. 1 to 7/2000 and T.A. 1 to 5/2001 relied upon and relevant for the purpose are quoted hereinbelow:- srj/- 6 In this case, the facts are absolutely identical as in the case of the applicant. This Tribunal has decided that the applicants therein who were similarly placed as the applicants in the present OAs were legally entitled to the pay and pensionary benefits in terms of the OM dated 3.4.1975 from the date of their initial appointment to the date of their superannuation. The judgment of this Tribunal was accepted and implemented by the respondents and no further appeal was filed against the order. The case is squarely applicable to the present O.A. 9. Having gone through the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and the undisputed facts that the earlier order of the Tribunal having been implemented, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. When similarly placed employees were held legally entitled to get pay and pensionary benefits in terms of OM dated 3rd April, 1975, then how can the same benefits be denied to the present Respondent, who are similarly circumstanced, especially, by the Petitioner, who is nobody other than the Union of India. srj/- 7 10. It is not possible for us to accept the contention that Union of India will grant identical benefits to one group or set of employees, as involved in the case of Mathura D. Sharma shall deny the very same benefits to the other set employees/ Respondents herein, only because they approached the court after some gap of time. If this approach is allowed, it will amount to practising discrimination between similarly circumstanced and identically placed employees without any intelligeble criteria with the object sought to be advised. It is needless to mention that it is a settled law that, there cannot be two different contradictory orders for same set of employees. 11. Apart from the above, this Court not being a Court of Appeal, is not expected to go into the evidence and re-appreciate it once again so as to take different view of the matter. 12. Having examined the impugned order and judgment, we are of the view that the view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view in the facts of circumstances of the case. srj/- 8 13. All these Petitions involving identical issues are dismissed in limini for the reasons mentioned herein with no order as to costs. 14. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has prayed for stay on this order. There cannot be a stay to this Order, since the Petitions are being dismissed. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) srj/-