' ..€Pe 't^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P.NO.Q3S^ 72005 \^ Petitioners \w f &<.lv •/ ^>^yw 'W^f 1. Subhash Chandra Roy, S/o late Jnendra Roy, Dateofbirth 13.9.1951, 0/0 Central Excise Headquarters, Tikarapara, RAIPURfC.G.) 2. A.K. Chaterjee, S/o late Ranjit Chaterjee, Date ofbirth 8-4-1945, 0/0 Central Excise Headquarters, Tikarapara, RAIPUR(C.G.) 3. Prasanta Mondal, S/olateJ.N. Mondal, Date ofbirth 16-5-1953, 0/0 Central Excise Headquarters, Tikarapara, RAIPURfC.G.) / 4. Smt. Renubala Mallick, Wlo Shri Chita Ranjan Mallick, Date ofbirth 18-6-1949, 0/0 Central Excise Headquarters, Tikarapara, RAIPUR(C.G.1 / 5. Smt. Chapala Biswas, / Date of birth 27- 10-1951, 0/0 Central Excise Headquarters, Tikarapara, RAIPUR(C.G.) /6. Parthasarthi Brahma, S/o late Pulin Brahma, Date ofbirth 16-4-1952, 0/0 Central Excise Headquarters, Tikarapara, RAIPUR(C.G.) / 7. Bhaba Ranjan Kulu, Sio late Harendra Nath Kulu, Date of birth 28-3-1954, 0/0 Central Excise Headquarters, Tikarapara, RAIPUR(C.G.1 ^ 8. Sudhanshu Bepari, S/o Shri Surendra Nath Bepari Date ofbirth-14.12.1953 0/0 Central Excise Headquarters, Tikarapara, RAIPURfC.G.) / 9. Bikash Chandra Dhar S/o Late Shreenath Dhar Dateofbirth-15.4.1956 0/0 Central Excise Headquarters, Tikarapara, RAIPUR(C.G.) \ l ^ 10. Lochan Lal Tikaria S/o Late Luddhak Ram Tikaria, Dateofbirth-23.9.1953 0/0 Central Excise Headquarters, Tikarapara, RAIPUR(C.G.) Respondents Versus / 1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The Central Board of Excise & Customs Through its Member (Personnel) North Block New Delhi. /4. The Principal Chief Controller of Accounts, O/o Central Board of Excise & Customs AGC Principal Building First Floor, New Delhi. The Commissioner, Central Board ofExcise & Customs New Central Excise Building Tikarapara, Raipur (CG PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Djvisjon Coram: - Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon*ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. Petitioners Resoondents W.P.(SINo.2357of2005 Subhash Chandra Roy and othera Versus Union of India and othere (PetitionunderArtJcte 226/227 ofthe Cpnstitution oflndia) Present: - Shri P. S. Koshy, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsel forthe respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 09th day of February, 2010) With the consent of leamed counsel for the parties. the matter is heard finally. (2) The petitioners jmpugns the orcter dated 18-03-2005 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Central Adminjstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, CJrcuit Court sitting at Bilaspur (henceforth "the Tribunal") in Original Applicatfon No.62 of 2003 (Subhash Chandra Roy and othere vs. Unton of India and othere) and Original Application No.396 of 2003 (Paritosh Kumar Biswasand and others vs. Union of India and others) as common question of law were involved. (3) Learned counsel for the petiUoners submits that the applicants in Original Application No.396 of 2003 took up the matter before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh chaltenging the legaJity and validity of the common order dated 10-03-2005 passed by the Tribunal. Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur had allowed the petition vide order dated 20-06-2007 and set aside the impugned order dated 18-OS.2005 passed by the Tribunat which is impugned herein also. m 2.- ;^^^ »»•« (4) Learned counsel for the respondents concur with the submission made by tearned counsel for the petitioners and as such, there is no reason to take a contrary view as no attempt has been made by the ejtherpartyto distinguish the decision rendered in W.P.No.5730/2005(S) arising out of Original Application No.39eof2003. (5) By allowing the petition CW.P.No.5730 <rf 2005 (s). the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, has held as under- uln the light of the afpresaid contentton, thepetition is allowed. The impugned order passed by Tribunal is hereby set aside and quashed. Necessary beneffis as menfloned heretnabove, to the extent indicated, bo extended to th® petilaonere. Tribunal 'rtself has made 'rt ctear that no case for recovery of the amount that was already paid to the petitjoners, is made out. Thus, no furtherdirections in this regard are required to bepassed." (6) Resultantly, the petition is allowed on the same terms as indfcated above. The impugned order dated 18-03-2005 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^umaw