The Union of India v. M.S. Vaidya

1. MLV.P.S.Tyagi, Advocate who had appeared for the respondents of all the writ petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the Original Applications filed by the respondents enters appearance on advance copy ofthe writ petitions being served upon him.

2. Vide impugned decision dated December 14, 2012, seven Original Applications numbered as: (i) 1979/2011; (ii) 3587/2011; (iii) 3903/2011; (iv) 2385/2011; (v) 2454/2011; (vi) 3902/2011; and (vii) 454112011 have been disposed of.

3. Instant writ petitions pertain to the order in question relatable to Original Application Nos.3587/2011, 2454/2011, 3903/2011 and 454112011.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners would urge that three more writ petitions filed, pertaining to Original Application Nos.1979/2011, Page 2 of[5];f 2385/2011 and 3902/2011 have been cleared by the Registry for being listed tomorrow and on Monday.

5. The issue at hand is short.

6. Original Application No.260/2002 was allowed by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on November 13, 2002. The issue decided was: 'Whether the applications before the Tribunal, employees of the Controller General ofDefence Accounts, would be entitled to step up of pay with effect from July 03, 1995, the date when persons junior to them started receiving salary in the higher grade'.

7. Applying the principle of stepping up of pay i.e. where a situation arises in which a senior gets less salary than the junior, salary of the senior needs to be stepped up and brought at par with that of the junior, relief was granted to the applicants before the Tribunal in Original Application No.260/2002. The department challenged the decision of the Tribunal by filing W.P.(C) No.20774/2003 which was dismissed by the Roster Bench of ' the Madras High Court on November 27, 2008. Further challenge by the department before the Supreme Court failed when the Petition seeking Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 01, 2009. The decision in favour of the applicants of Original Application No.260/2002 was thereafter implemented by the department.

8. Other similarly situated employees also made a similar claim to the department praying that even they would be entitled to step up of pay with effect from July 03, 1995, ignoring that on the principle of law declared by the Bench of the Administrative Tribunal at Madras, they could claim stepping up of pay with effect from the date person junior to them started receiving salary more than them. Page 3 ofS 2013:DHC:7588-DB../ {

9. This claim was made by these people after the Supreme Court decided the Petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal filed by the department. The department refused, taking the stand that those who are fence sitters would not be entitled to reap the harvest, seeds whereof was sown by others.

10. This necessitated the respondents of the above captioned writ petition to file Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

11. On the merits of the issue, the writ petitioners had no case and so conceded before the Tribunal, but projected a technical defence. The defence was that the Original Applications filed in the year 2011 raised a stal,e claim relating back to July 03, 1995 and hence the Original Applications were liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.

12. Vide impugned order dated December 14, 2012, the Central Administrative Tribunal has simply noted the past history relating to the litigation commencing with O.A. No.260/2002 arid its terminal destination upto the Supreme Court. This was not required to be discussed by the Tribunal, because on merits the writ petitioners had admitted the legality of the claim but had sought to defeat the same by pleading the bar of limitation.

13. The defence pertaining to the bar of limitation has not even been discussed by the Tribunal.

14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, suffice would it be to state that those who sit on the fence and look at the field on the other side and permit others to sow the seeds cannot be entitled to partake the harvest from the date their toiling brethren harvested the same.

15. Law pertaining to limitation guides us that a monetary claim if found to be legally admissible can be restricted with respect to payment required to be made on the law of limitation. Vide Section 21 of the Central Page 4 ofS r Administrative's Tribunal Act 1985 the limitation within which the Tribunal must be approached is one year from the date when cause of action accrued and by doing reverse engineering one can safely say that a monetary claim can be restricted to the period of one year preceding the date when the claim was filed before the Tribunal.