: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8201 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.8201 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.8201 OF 2003 1) Shri C.P. Pathan, President ) All India Military Engineer Services) Kamgar Sanghatana, 12/14, Rajgir ) Chambers, Room No.60, 7th Floor ) Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg ) Mumbai 400 023 (Representing 203 ) Lift Operators) ) 2) Shri Subhash P. More ) Lift Operator, Ex.No.199248 ) C/o. Garrison Engineer (NW) ) Dr.Homi Bhabha Road, Navy Nagar ) Colaba, Mumbai 400 005. ).. PETITIONERS Versus 1) Union of India through ) Secretary, Ministry of Defence ) South Block, New Delhi 110 001 ) 2) Engineer-In-Chief, Army Headquarters) Kashmir House, DHQ PO ) New Delhi 110 001 ) 3) Chief Engineer, HQrs, ) Southern Command, Engineers’ Branch ) Pune 411 011 ) 4) Chief Engineer (Navy) ) 26-Assaye Building, Colaba ) Mumbai 400 005 ) 5) Commander Works Engineers ) 26-Assaye Building, Colaba ) Mumbai 400 005 ) 6) Commander Works Engineers ) Naval Works, Dr.Homi Bhabha Road ) Navy Nagar, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 ) 7) Garrison Engineer (Naval Works) ) Dr.Homi Bhabha Road, Navy Nagar ) Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 ) 8) Garrison Engineer (W) ) Dr.Homi Bhabha Road, Navy Nagar ) Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 ) 9) Garrison Engineer (NW) ) Dr.Homi Bhabha Road, Navy Nagar ) Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 ) : 2 : 10) Commander Works Engineers (Suburbs) ) Bhandup, Mumbai 400 072 ) 11) Garrison Engineer (NW) ) Bhandup, Mumbai 400 072 ) 12) Garrison Engineer (NW) ) Kunjali, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 ) 13) Garrison Engineer (North) ) R.S.Lines, Santacruz, Mumbai. ) 14) Garrison Engineer (NW) ) SPDC Camp, Mankhurd, Mumbai ).. RESPONDENTS Mr.R.A. Shaikh for the Petitioners. Mr.R.R. Shetty with Mr.D.A. Dube for the Respondents. CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag. C.J. AND CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag. C.J. AND CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag. C.J. AND SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY 2006 DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY 2006 DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MHATRE, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MHATRE, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MHATRE, J.) . By this Petition, the Petitioners challenge the order passed in O.A. No.162 of 2003 on 19th June 2003 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. The Petitioners had claimed certain benefits which had been granted to other similarly situated persons by the Mumbai, Calcutta and New Delhi Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Petitioners through their Original Application prayed that the benefits available to the Applicants in these cases be extended to them. The present Petition has been filed by the President of the All India Military Engineer Services Kamgar Sanghatana representing 203 Lift Operators. 2. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Lift : 3 : Operators in Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as "CPWD") and Military Engineering Service (hereinafter referred to as "MES") were placed in the pay scale of Rs.210-270 from 1st January 1973. A revised pay scale of Rs.260-400 was extended to the CPWD Lift Operators from 20th December 1983 retrospectively from 1st January 1973 under an Arbitration Award. The MES Lift Operators continued to draw salary in the same pay scale of Rs.210-270. After the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations in 1985, the CPW Lift Operators were granted the pay scales which were higher than the earlier pay scales. By the order dated 23rd November 1987, the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.634 of 1987 directed that the CPWD Lift Operators be granted only one pay scale of Rs.950-1500. Accordingly, from 1st December 1987, the Union of India granted this pay scale to all Lift Operators, whether employed with CPWD or MES. However, a group of MES Lift Operators in Mumbai continued to draw the same pay scale of Rs.800-1500. In the year 1996, the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal directed that the Lift Operators at the MES be granted parity with the CPWD Lift Operators with effect from 1st January 1973. This order was implemented. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No.525 of 1980 issued similar orders qua MES Lift Operators in the Mumbai region. Accordingly, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 with effect from 1st January 1973 and extended parity with the CPWD Lift Operators. A similar : 4 : order was passed by the New Delhi Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. However, since the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal was made applicable only to the Applicants who had filed the Original Application, the Petitioners submitted a representation on 13th November 2001 to Respondent No.2 i.e. the Engineer-In-Chief, Army Headquarters, requesting for re-fixation of the pay scale of the other MES Lift Operators in the Mumbai region in the same pay scale as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. As there was no response to the representation, a Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioners being Writ Petition No.2331 of 2002. This Petition was disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to avail of the alternate remedy under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Accordingly, Original Application No.162 of 2003 was filed. 3. The Tribunal after consideration of the pleadings and the material on record, has held that the Petitioners were entitled to re-fixation of their pay scales with effect from 1st January 1973 or from the dates of their appointments, if the same falls within the period 1st January 1973 to 30th December 1978. The Tribunal directed that this re-fixation in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 be done notionally. However, the actual benefits extended to the Petitioners were for a period of eighteen months prior to the filing of the Original Application i.e. 3rd February 2003. The Tribunal held : 5 : that in view of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the judgment in the case of S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 10 AIR 1990 SC 10 AIR 1990 SC 10, no further amounts could be given to the Applicants in the Original Application. Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. 4. We have perused the impugned judgment and considered the submissions of the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners. We find that the Tribunal has correctly exercised its jurisdiction while granting parity with the Lift Operators of CPWD. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion in limiting the relief to be granted to the Petitioners. We do not think that there is any improper exercise of discretion or that the decision of the Tribunal is perverse. It is obvious that the Petitioners took a chance and waited till the Applicants in Original Application Nos.525 of 1998 and 1488 of 2000 were granted the benefit of revision in pay scales. It is trite law that the Petitioners who slept over their rights, cannot question the discretion exercised by the Tribunal while granting them relief. In these circumstances, Writ Petition is rejected. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J.) (V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J.) (V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J.) : 6 : (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)