Dismissed

Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2015CWP/13510/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a tribunal order directing the Ministry to revisit washing allowance policy for MES industrial personnel. The Court held that directing an administrative reconsideration to establish a uniform policy neither prejudicially determines rights nor warrants judicial interference.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as the direction for policy reconsideration did not prejudicially determine rights.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Central… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.13510 of 2015 Date of Decision: July 09, 2015

¶3

Union of India and others

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others .....Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

¶7

Present: Mr.P.C.Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶8

-.-

¶9

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

Union of India through the Ministry of Defence as well as Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, have laid challenge to the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in terms of the consent accorded by both the parties and whereby the case has been disposed of with a direction to the authorities to “re-visit the issue regarding washing allowance payable to Industrial Personnel of the MES and apply the policy adopted in this regard uniformly across the formations of the MES...”

¶15

The above-stated direction came to be issued in a petition filed by private-respondents who are holding semiskilled, skilled, highly skilled posts. Some of them are working as Master Craftsmen also. They were granted the washing allowance which was revised to Rs.60/- per month on the

¶16

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.07.24 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

[2]

¶18

CWP No.13510 of 2015

¶19

recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission. Its arrears were to be paid w.e.f. 01.09.2008. It appears that after granting the benefit to private-respondents, the authorities vide the impugned order dated 07.05.2013 stayed the payment of washing allowance and recovery was ordered to be effected from the beneficiaries.

¶20

The question that arose for consideration was whether private-respondents were entitled to washing allowance at the pre-revised rate of Rs.30/- per month or at the revised rate of Rs.60/- per month at par with the Industrial employees in MES? The said controversy was disposed of vide the impugned order after taking notice of the statement made by counsel for the petitioners (official respondents) that they have no objection if the matter was referred to for reconsideration so that a uniform policy could be adopted.

¶21

In our considered view, the order under challenge is neither prejudicial to the petitioners nor it has finally determined the rights of parties. The petitioners have been merely directed to revisit the policy decision on the issue of payment of washing allowance and to adopt a uniform policy. Such a direction calls for no interference.

¶22

Dismissed.

¶23

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

¶24

July 09, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE

¶25

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.07.24 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sahdev Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kirandeep Singh Vs Panjab University & Ors.

Municipal Committee Charkhi Dadri Trhu Its Secretary Vs State of Haryana and Ors.