CWP challenging an order denying pay parity to Postal Department employees. The court, addressing procedural questions on reporting and substantive claims on parity and delay, dismissed the petition finding no basis for interference.
Petition dismissed as the impugned order did not call for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[1]
CWP No.1466-CAT of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1466-CAT of 2004 Date of Decision: 18.02.2014
Union of India and others
... Petitioners
Versus
Pardeep Jain and others
... Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 3, 5, 7, 14 to 16, 18 and 19.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
The private respondents before us from Nos.1 to 19 are employees of the Postal Department, who were discharging the duties of Postal Assistants in the Reserved Trained Pool. They sought parity of pay and allowances with regular Postal Assistants when they were discharging the same duties as of the Postal Assistants.
In support of the aforesaid plea, the private respondents before us, had relied before the CAT upon a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.262 of 1986 - Binder
Rajan Kumar 2014.02.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
CWP No.1466-CAT of 2004
Ram and others v. Union of India and others , decided on 29.04.1987. Another judgment relied upon for the said relief is in O.A. No.472/HR/91 – Des Raj Brar and others v. Union of India and others , decided on 13.12.2000, specifically, in view of the fact that the private respondents having approached the CAT after a delay, the department was pleading the bar of limitation against them. In this case also a similar plea had been raised but the same was waived off in view of the fact that in other cases, which were assailed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the benefit of arrears had been given. [ Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd ., 1990(1) SCC 113]. The relief in terms of the impugned order dated 31.10.2003 has been granted to the private respondents in fact on parity with the case of Des Raj Brar (supra).
We, thus, asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the Government authority can discriminate between employees in the same department identically situated where some will get benefit of larger part of the arrears while others will get lesser part of the arrears when waiving off the aspect of delay the arrears have been granted in full by the department itself accepting the judgment.
There is no satisfactory explanation to the aforesaid. It would be grave injustice to the private respondents, if they are treated differently in the aforesaid circumstances where the
[3]
CWP No.1466-CAT of 2004
department has accepted the judgment by paying full arrears to identically situated parties and not confined to period of three years prior to the filing of that O.A.
In view of the aforesaid given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE
( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE
February 18, 2014 Rajan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether local newspaper reports should be allowed to see the judgment or reported in the digest?
Whether the impugned order requires interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding pay parity for Postal Department employees?
Union of India
Pardeep Jain
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Arun Palli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
