Anushil Sharma Vs Union of India

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 3160 of 2016

¶3

Date of decision: 06.12.2024

¶4

Smt. Anushil Sharma …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …..Respondents Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?^{1 No}

¶7

For the Petitioner	: Ms. Sikha Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents	: Mr. Balram Sharma, Dy. Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev
	Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶9

CMP No.22354 of 2024.

¶10

This is an application seeking early hearing of the writ

¶11

petition.

¶12

The writ petition was instituted in the year 2016.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that

¶14

the issue raised in the instant petition is covered by several judgments.

¶15

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

¶16

2

¶17

Accordingly, the prayer made in the application is allowed. Application stands disposed of.

¶18

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

¶19

CWP No. 3160 of 2016.

¶20

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

¶21

24.05.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) [hereafter referred to as the “Tribunal”].

¶22

Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application [O.A.] filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches.

¶23

In fact, it was pleaded by the petitioner that she was appointed as a Postal Assistant (Reserved Trained Pool) in the year 1982 and thereafter, she was appointed as a regular Postal Assistant in the year 1985.

¶24

Since the petitioner was not treated at par with the regular Postal Assistants concerning pay, allowances, and seniority, she approached the Tribunal around the year 1990 by filing O.A. No.1402/HP/1990.

¶25

3

¶26

The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.01.1992. The operative part of the said order reads as follows:

¶27

“For the above mentioned reasons, we accept this Application and hold that the applicants are entitled to be paid the same salary and allowances as were being paid to the postal assistants appointed on regular basis for the period during which the applicants had been working in the R.T.P. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears i.e. difference between the amount already paid to the applicants and the amount to the payment of which the applicants are entitled on the basis of this judgment and also all other consequential benefits within a period of 3 months from today. ” [Emphasis is ours]

¶28

Strangely, although the Tribunal had directed payment

¶29

of arrears along with the consequential benefits to the petitioner, even then she chose not to enforce the order, perhaps, due to a misunderstanding of the directions issued by the Tribunal.

¶30

The petitioner woke up to the fact that it had been granted relief when the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered its decision on 18.02.2014 in CWP No. 1466-CAT, titled Union of India

¶31

& others vs.Pardeep Jain & others .

¶32

4

¶33

On the basis of the said judgment, the petitioner preferred a representation that was not responded to. The petitioner, along with other similarly situated persons, thereafter, preferred

¶34

O.As. before the Tribunal.

¶35

The Tribunal, vide order dated 24.12.2014, disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner.

¶36

14.1 The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the concerned authority vide order dated 23.03.2015.

¶37

It is against this backdrop that the petitioner preferred a second O.A. before the Tribunal, which was dismissed, as noticed above, on the grounds of delay and laches vide order dated 24.05.2016.

¶38

Ms. Shikha Chauhan, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, states that the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India & others vs. Pardeep Jain & others has been implemented by the respondents.

¶39

16.1 For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to the communication dated 03.04.2014, addressed by the Assistant Director, Postal Services, Haryana Circle, Ambala inter alia to the

¶40

5

¶41

HR Division Ambala. In addition, thereto, in support of the plea that the aforementioned judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court has been implemented, our attention was also drawn to the communication dated 26.05.2014 addressed by the Superintendent, RMS, HR Division Ambala to the HRO RMS HR Division Ambala.

¶42

Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, does not dispute the fact that despite delay being propped as a defence in Pardeep Jain’s case, the Court ruled against the respondents and the judgment was subsequently, as noticed above, implemented.

¶43

In this peculiar case, the Tribunal, in the first round, had directed the respondents to grant not only arrears of pay but also consequential benefits. Despite this, the petitioner failed to comprehend the import of the directions passed in her favour.

¶44

Be that as it may, the petitioner’s cause is not different from the cause which was addressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pardeep Jain’s case. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the writ petition.

¶45

6

¶46

The petitioner will be paid all consequential benefits at

¶47

par with those whose cause was the subject matter of Pardeep Jain’s case.

¶48

Ms.Chauhan concedes that since the petitioner delayed enforcement of the order passed by the Tribunal in the first round, the petitioner cannot lay claim to interest on arrears with effect from

¶49

01.01.1992 till 23.03.2015.

¶50

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice

¶51

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶52

6^th December, 2024. ( sanjeev/yogesh )

Anushil Sharma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anushil Sharma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lekh Ram and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Ram Dayal and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Sher Singh and Another

State of Hp and Another Vs Pritam Singh and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Sanjay Kumar

Court on its own motion Vs State of Hp and others