IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1280 of 2006 Decided on: Feb. 24, 2011. Jaswinder Kaur ………..Petitioner versus Union of India and others. ……….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has challenged Annexure P-3, order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in OA No.1209/HP/2001 dated 16th November, 2005 and also orders dated 22.3.2000, 9.6.2000 and 3.8.2000, passed by the respondents. The issue pertains to grant of pay scale to the Tailors in Army. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by following the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, has rejected the claim for the pay fixation. The matter came up before this Court on several occasions. On 7.12.2000, this Court served the respondents with the following interrogatories: i) In how many cases in the country, the orders passed by the respective Central Administrative Tribunals have been implemented by maintaining the revised pay-scales. 2 ii) Whether the Full Bench decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, and referred to in Para-6 of the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal has been challenged before the High Court and whether that order has become final. iii) Whether in the case of a sole co-worker in Himachal Pradesh (Kalicharan at Dharamsala), he was allowed to maintain the revised pay-scales.” 2. On behalf of the respondents, an affidavit dated 19th February, 2011 has been filed, wherein it is stated that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, in OA No.540/2003 was implemented pursuant to government sanction. The order passed in OA No.106/2007 by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi was implemented. The order passed in OA No.66/2002 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, was also implemented. It is also stated in the affidavit that no information is available as to the fate of the decision of the Mumbai Bench. Be that as it may. Now that the Government of India also has sanctioned the implementation order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, in the similar situation and admittedly the orders passed by the Principal Bench, New Delhi and Guwahati Bench also have been implemented, it is only appropriate that the case of the petitioner is considered in those lines. In this connection, it is also brought to our notice that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in OA No.362/2000 also has been implemented. It is apparent that decision of the Jaipur Bench is in respect of one of the Tailors referred to in Annexure A-2, wherein the petitioner’s name is also included. 3 3. For all the above reasons, we set aside the order (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in OA No.1209/HP/2001 dated 16.11.2005 and also the different orders challenged in the writ petition. There will be a direction to the respondents to grant revised pay scale to the petitioner. We are informed that this employment given to the petitioner is on compassionate ground on account of the untimely demise of her husband. Therefore, there will also be a direction to disburse the entire arrears to the petitioner on the revised pay scale within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice Feb.24, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak/cs) Judge.