Partly allowed

Chander Shekhar v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2014CWP/13033/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's claim for difference in wages for work performed as a Clerk, extending the relief period beyond the 18 months initially granted by the CAT, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding limitation periods.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to extent that difference in wages is granted for the full period worked, not restricted to 18 months prior to application.

Chander Shekhar Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13033 of 1998 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13033 of 1998 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 14.01.2014

Chander Shekhar

…..Petitioner

versus

Union of India and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

¶11

Present: Mr. Kailash Sharma, Advocate for Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

None for the respondents.

¶13

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE : (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner was appointed as a Gateman with the Northern Railway in 1977 but claimed that since 1984, he was performing the work of a Booking Clerk i.e., for 13 years. The grievance made was that he had neither been promoted as a Booking Clerk nor given the salary of the post. Thus, filed the petition before CAT in 1996.

¶15

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner appeared in a written test and viva-voce for being selected but on account of paucity of vacancies, could not be selected. The CAT had passed the interim order dated 01.10.1996 at initial stage to continue the petitioner on the post of Booking Clerk. The finding in the impugned order is in favour of the petitioner that he did work as a Booking Clerk. The CAT, however, granted the limited relief that the petitioner would not be reverted to the post of Gateman till regularly selected candidate was available and that he cannot steal a march over seniors and has to wait for his turn. However, since the petitioner had worked as a Booking Clerk, relief of the emoluments arising from difference in

¶16

Rani Neetu2014.01.20 10:40wages was granted for a period for 18 months before filing of the application I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13033 of 1998 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

before CAT.

¶20

The aforesaid order has been assailed before us but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first aspect of the relief of regularization does not arise as the petitioner stands regularized as a Booking Clerk though he does not have the date from which, the petitioner was regularized. Only grievance raised is that the grant of difference of wages ought not to have been restricted for 18 months prior to the application being filed but ought to have been granted for the full period for which, the petitioner has worked as such. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., 1997(2) S.C. Services Law Judgments 432 .

¶21

A perusal of the same shows that firstly, it is an order and not a judgment. Secondly, it does not lay down any revealing principle. Thirdly, whatever observations are made, in fact, seized to substantiate the principle that back wages over a long number of years cannot be granted in such a case merely on the ground of making representations, if the effected party has not approached the CAT. In this behalf, the judgment in Administrator of Union

¶22

Territory of Daman and Diu & Ors. vs. R.D. Valand, 1995 Supp (4) SCC

¶23

593 has been referred. The arguments of back wages from the date, the superior work was done, was rejected while simultaneously observing that the Tribunal was not right in invoking Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short 'the Act') for restricting the difference in back wages by one year. Back wages are granted for a period of three years as the petition had been preferred in May 1999 and such relief was granted from May 1996. It appears from the reading of the aforesaid order that the principle of three years of limitation for recovery of amount has been applied as against a lessor time period of one year prior to preferring of the application. In the present case, the monetary relief has been restricted to 18 months before filing of the Rani Neetu application on account of Section 21 of the said Act. Section 21 of the said Act 2014.01.20 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13033 of 1998 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

would not apply in view of what has been stated in Jaidev Gupta's case (supra).

¶27

If parity is applied to the facts of the present case, the benefit could

¶28

have been restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the application even in the present case.

¶29

Ordered accordingly.

¶30