- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4441 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. Shri.Rajesh M.Raste. ...Respondent --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.K.K.Waghmare with Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondent. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.3733 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. Shri.Deepak V.Ranpise & others....Respondents --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Smt.C.S.Radia with Mr.K.K.Waghmare with Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondent no.1 to 8. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.3734 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. Shri.Deshmukh S.M. and others. ...Respondents - 2 - --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.K.K.Waghmare with Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondent nos.1 to 14. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.3735 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. S.K.Sakpal & another. ...Respondents --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.P.J.Prasada Rao, for Respondent nos.1 & 2. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4443 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. V.D.Chakor ...Respondent --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.K.K.Waghmare with Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondent ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4444 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners - 3 - VS. H.J.Zalte ...Respondent --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.K.K.Waghmare with Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondent. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4446 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. Ramu Narayan Akolkar. ...Respondent --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.K.K.Waghmare with Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondent. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4447 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. Sham Balkrishna Dixit & others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. - 4 - Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondents 1 to 49. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4451 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. Gaikwad Deepak Eknath & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.K.K.Waghmare, for Respondents 1 to 12. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4452 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. Pradeepkumar Nivrutti Katare and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondents 1 to 6. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4454 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. - 5 - A.A.Bhurke and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondents. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4456 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. S.W.Kulkarni and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.P.J.Prasadrao, for Respondents. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4457 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. Ashok Pandharinath Ghayal. ...Respondent --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.K.K.Waghmare, for Respondent. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4458 OF 2003 - 6 - 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. D.N.Patil & others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondents. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4459 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. Kanchana Shrikant. ...Respondent --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.M.S.Karnik, for Respondent. ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4460 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. S.A.Bhave & others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.P.J.Prasad Rao, for Respondents 1 to 6. - 7 - ---- WRIT PETITION NO.4461 OF 2003 1.Union of India & others. ...Petitioners VS. S.S.Joshi ...Respondent --- Mr.Ravi Shetty with N.D.Sharma & Kiran Kandpile, for Petitioners. Mr.P.J.Prasada Rao, for Respondent. ---- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 27th February,2008. DATED: 27th February,2008. DATED: 27th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. By these petitions, the petitioner Union of India challenges the orders passed by the Bombay bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.7.2002 as also the order dated 9.1.2003 passed by the same tribunal in several original applications. In the original applications filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the applicants who are respondents in these petitions had sought a direction - 8 - to Union of India to pay to the applicants salary in the scale of Rs.1350-Rs.2200/- with effect either from the date of their initial appointment or from 1.1.1986 whichever is later. The applicants were initially recruited as "Junior Key Punch Operator" which post was subsequently re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade A. There was another post which was initially called as "Senior Key Punch Operator", that post was re-designated as "Data Entry Operator Grade B". The Government granted scale of Rs.1350-2200 to the post of Data Entry Operator Grade-B with effect from the year 1989. It appears that there were petitions filed for claiming that scale from 1.1.1986. Those petitions were allowed. It appears that before the Lucknow bench of the tribunal several persons working in the grade of "Data Entry Operator Grade-A" approached the tribunal for direction to the Government to fix their salary in the scale of Rs.1350-2200 from the date of their recruitment as Data Entry Operator Grade-A ) because, according to them, the post of Data Entry operator Grade-A and the post of Data Entry Operator Grade-B are the same, and therefore, they are entitled to the same scale of pay. The Lucknow bench decided those petitions which were Original application no.150 of - 9 - 2001 and other connected applications by order dated 9.10.2001 and the Union of India was directed to give effect to the pay scale from 1.1.1986 instead of 11.9.1989 and the Government was also directed to extend the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 to the post "Data Entry Operator Grade-A". It appears that the question whether the judgment of Lucknow bench is to be challenged in the Supreme Court or is to be implemented, was considered by the Government and by letter dated 23rd-24th October,2002, Dy. C.G.D.A.(EDPS) informed the Controller of Defence Accounts (Navy) that the Government has decided to accept the decision of the Lucknow Bench and has decided to implement that judgment. The applicant who had approached the Bombay Bench, therefore, claimed that they are entitled to the same reliefs which have been granted to the persons identically situated by the Lucknow Bench. The tribunal examined that aspect of the matter and on finding that the Lucknow Bench had issued directions which were claimed by the applicants before the Bombay Bench and that the Government has also accepted that decision, the tribunal issued directions to the Government to grant same scale of pay i.e Rs.1350-2200 to the "Data Entry Operator Grade-A" with effect from 1.1.1986. - 10 - It is this decision of the tribunal which is challenged before us. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Lucknow bench has granted reliefs relying on the judgments of Hyderabad Bench and Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned Counsel submits that the question that was considered by the Hyderabad Bench and Jabalpur Bench of C.A.T. was not whether Grade-A Data entry operator and Grade-B data entry operator are the same, and therefore, they are entitled to the same pay scale; but the question that was considered was whether the new scales are to be implemented from 1.1.1986 or from 11.9.1989 and the Jabalpur Bench and Hyderabad bench directed the Government to implement the pay scale from 1.1.1986. The learned Counsel submits that even the Lucknow Bench has not held that the operator occupying the post in two grades are entitled to the same scale of pay. In the submission of the learned Counsel therefore, as these two posts are designated separately and in fact, according to him, one post is promotional post to other, the Bombay bench of C.A.T. has committed grave error in directing the grant of the same scale of pay to both - 11 - the cadres. He has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case "State of Bihar & others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, 2000 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 845". 3. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for respondents. Now perusal of the judgment of the Bombay bench of Central Administrative Tribunal which is under challenge before us shows that all that the Bombay bench has done is that it has relied on the judgment of Lucknow Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. The question to be considered before us is ’what was the question being considered by the Lucknow bench of Central Administrative Tribunal’. In our opinion, paragraph (5) of that judgment is relevant which reads as under:- "5. The Claim of the applicants is that the nature of duties and responsibilities of Junior Key Punch Operators re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade-A and Senior Key Punch Operators re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade-B are same hence both - 12 - these grades are entitled for the pay scale without any difference." Perusal of the above quoted paragraph makes it clear that the question that Lucknow Bench was considering was "whether considering the nature of duties and responsibilities of Grade A operators and Grade B operators, they are entitled to same scale of pay without any difference.", and it is obvious from that judgment that the Lucknow bench has granted that relief in favour of the applicants. It is true that in doing so the Lucknow bench has entirely relied on the judgment of Jabalpur bench and Hyderabad bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. Though it was argued before us that the Jabalpur bench and the Hyderabad bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal were considering a different controversy and therefore, the Lucknow bench was not justified in granting relief which it has granted relying on those judgments, in our opinion, we need not make any inquiry into that controversy, because we are not really concerned with the reasons given by the Lucknow bench for granting the relief in favour of the petitioners before it. It is to be seen that the question whether the operative order passed by the Lucknow bench is to be challenged or it is to be - 13 - implemented, was considered by the Government and the Government decided to accept that judgment and implement it. In this connection, a reference can be made to the letter of the Government dated 23rd/24th October,2002 which reads as under:- "2.1 Similarly the CAT Lucknow Bench judgment of OA No.150 of 2001 was also referred to Ministry of Defence (Finance) and after consultation with Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, they have decided to implement the judgment in respect of the applicants of 150 of 2001 only." It becomes clear from the above quoted paragraph that the Government decided to accept the judgment of the Lucknow bench and also decided to implement it. In any case, it is an admitted position before us that the judgment of the Lucknow bench has not been challenged by Union of India and is therefore, binding on Union of India. In this situation, therefore, in our opinion, it could not have been argued on behalf of the Union of India before the Bombay Bench that the Bombay Bench should not follow the judgment of the Lucknow Bench which was on - 14 - identical issue and which was accepted as final by Union of India especially because the Bombay bench and the Lucknow bench are co-ordinate Courts. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case "Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another" which was relied on by the petitioner, in our opinion, is not relevant in the present case. That decision relates to the decision taken by the Administrative authority, however, in the present case it was the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal of Lucknow bench which has been followed by the Bombay Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal on finding that the judgment has been accepted as final by the Government. In our opinion, the course adopted by the Bombay bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal was the only course available to it. In our opinion, it will not be appropriate for us to interfere with the judgment of the Bombay bench which is under challenge because in that judgment it has followed the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench which has been accepted as final by Union of India. In the result, all these petitions fail and are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. - 15 - (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (V.M.Kanade, J.) ---