IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP Nos. 396 & 397 of 2003. Date of Decision: 4.7.2008 ________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 396/03 Union of India & ors. …Petitioners. Versus Uttam Chand. … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 397/03 Union of India & ors. … Petitioners. Versus. Subhash Chand … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Central Govt. Counsel. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). By this judgment the aforesaid two writ petitions are being disposed of as they arise out of a common judgment of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No. 308/HP/2002 decided on 20.11.2002, whereby the Tribunal allowed the OA and held that the applicants (respondents herein) shall be entitled to the benefits prayed for in terms of the judgment in the case of Bharat Bhushan versus Union of India. - 2 - Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed the original application before the learned Tribunal in which they pleaded that they were initially appointed in the Beas Construction Board in the year 1972 - 73. They were both declared to be quasi-permanent Central Government employees in terms of the Apex Court judgment in Jaswant Singh versus Union of India, AIR 1980, SC 195. The original applicants were declared surplus in the Beas Construction Board (for short: BCB). Thereafter they were re- employed with the petitioner i.e. Directorate of Printing, “B” Wing, Nirmal Bhawan, New Delhi at the Printing Press at Shimla. The petitioners did not exercise the option to be governed by the new pay scales within a period of two months. The petitioners in their OA prayed that like the applicants in Bharat Bhushan’s case, they may also be given the benefit of revised pay scales as specified in the letters Annexures A2 & A3. The learned Tribunal held that the benefit of the new pay scales in terms of Annexures A2 & A3 cannot be denied to the applicants even though time for exercise the option has expired. This was done on the basis of the decision rendered in Bharat Bhushan’s case where also the applicants did not exercise the option within the prescribed period of two months but were granted further time to exercise the same. The respondents opted for the central pay scales in terms of the Government of India circular dated 27.2.1985. The Central Government scales were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the - 3 - respondents herein again gave their fresh options for grant of Central Pay scales w.e.f.1.1.1986. Many employees of the BCB who were placed identically as the respondents in the present case, filed an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal and this OA being Bharat Bhushan v. Union of India was allowed and the ex-employees of the BCB were held entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.510-800, re- revised to Rs. 1640-2900 on and w.e.f. 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits. This OA was allowed on 9.2.2000. The BCB filed CWP No.9969/CAT/2000 challenging this judgment. Stay order was initially granted which was vacated by the High Court. On the basis of the judgment rendered in Bharat Bhushan’s case, a number of other original applications were allowed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. One person, namely, Jai Karan Saini, filed OA No. 28/HP/1998 claiming similar relief. His OA was allowed on 21.8.2001 in the same terms as in the case of Bharat Bhushan and others. A writ petition was filed against this judgment in this Court. No stay was granted and ultimately the Central Government decided to implement this judgment of the learned Tribunal subject to the decision of the High Court and further subject to the decision of the Apex Court. Many other cases were decided on similar lines. The Apex Court had dismissed the Civil Appeal filed in the case of ex-BCB employees by the Union of India. Even CWP No.9969/2000 filed by the Union of India in the case of Bharat Bhushan and others was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 31.8.2005. - 4 - In fact after the judgment of the Apex Court the Government of India issued a letter dated 15.4.2005 which is in the following terms:- “ I am directed to refer to your letter No.F- 2/1/2005-NR-83 dated 23.3.2005 on the subject mentioned above. In this connection, it is stated that after dismissal of SLP in the Hon’ble Apex Court, DOP&T has already advised CGDA to grant the benefit of the CAT’s order dated 10.5.1995 (claimed similar relief) may have to be extended to ex-BCB employees, whose pay has been fixed in Central Pay scale. Deptt. of Pers. and Training has also given the advice in the case of Shri J.K.Saini, Deputy Director, NSSO, Shimla to implement the CAT Chandigarh’s order dated 9.2.2000 in OA No.253/CH/91 titled Bharat Bhushan and Ors vs. Union of India and Ors. The same benefits have also been extended to some of the non-petitioners. 2. You are, therefore, requested to grant the similar benefit granted by CAT, Chandigarh Bench in OA No.781/PB/2001 titled Subhash Chander as the same is identical with the case of Shri Bharat Bhushan and others vs. UOI and others and intimate the factual position to the Hon’ble CAT, Chandigarh (Circuit Bench), Shimla.” The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, in view of the various orders passed in similar cases which orders have been upheld by the Apex Court has allowed the present OA and granted relief to the respondents. The main ground raised in this application is that the judgment in Bharat Bhushan’s case has been stayed by the Apex Court. It would be pertinent to mention that when the judgment in Bharat Bhushan’s case was not implemented - 5 - Contempt Petitions/Misc. applications were filed before the learned Tribunal seeking implementation of the judgment. The learned Tribunal by an interim order directed the Union of India to comply with directions given in Bharat Bhushan’s case. This order was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court on 6.10.2003 passed the following interim order on this Special Leave Petition:- “Until further orders, the interim order dated 29th May, 2002 granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh shall remain stayed.” A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that only the order dated 29.5.2002 has been stayed by the Apex Court. There is no stay order of the original application passed in Bharat Bhushan’s case. As already observed above, the Government itself vide Annexure A-16 has decided to implement the judgment of the Apex Court. The respondents who are similarly situate cannot be discriminated in the matter. We, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. July 4, 2008. ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. s.