In review petitions challenging a High Court order granting financial upgradation to respondent employees under the ACP Scheme, the bench distinguished a Punjab and Haryana High Court precedent (Rupa Singh) based on the applicability of 1980 Rules versus 2005 Rules. The court rejected the request for a rehearing.
Review petitions dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 68/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
Durga Ram (Dead) Through His LRs Smt. Mathura Devi W/o Late Shri Durga Ram, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Outside Chandpole, Jodhpur Raj.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 154/2018
---Petitioners
Versus
Moti Lal S/o Shri Mohal Lal, Aged about 42 years, at present working as a Tailor under Commandant, 224, Advance Base
(2 of 10)
[WRW-68/2018]
Ordinance Depot C/o 56 A.P.O. resident of Holly Chowk, near Badri Pan Merchant, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 155/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
Umrao Singh S/o Shri Govind Singh G, Aged about 55 years, at present working as a Rop-worker under Commandant, 224, Advance Base Ordinance Depot C/o 56 A.P.O. Ticket No.1756, resident of VPO, Banar District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 156/2018
----Petitioners
(3 of 10)
[WRW-68/2018]
Versus
Om Prakash S/o Shri Rana Ram, aged about 41 years, at present working as a tailor under Commandant, 224, Advance Base Ordinance Depot C/o 56 A.P.O., resident of Mohanpura, under Brize Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 157/2018
------Petitioners
Versus
Ram Narayan S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged about 47 years, at present working as a Tailor under Commandant, 224, Advance Base Ordinance Depot C/o 56 A.P.O., resident of Holly Chowk, Near Badri Pan Merchant, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 196/2019
(4 of 10)
[WRW-68/2018]
------Petitioners
Versus
Bal Mukund S/o Shri Bansi Lal, Aged about 57 years at present working as Tent Mender under Commandant, 224, Advance Base Ordinance Depot C/o 56 A.P.O. resident of Mohanpura, under Brize Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Kaushik
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
Per Hon’ble Mr.Sangeet Lodha, J.
14th December, 2019
(5 of 10)
[WRW-68/2018]
petitioners had filed a special leave petition before the Supreme
Court, wherein the petitioners were extended liberty to move to this Court by way of review petition to make submissions in light of a Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court taking a different view in the matter against which the special leave petition preferred was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The order dated 16.2.18 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.9828/17, arising out of the order dated 30.5.16 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6338/12 reads as under :
“Delay condoned.
It is submitted by Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the impugned order is in conflict with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Judgment dated 4th July, 2011 in CWP No.15739-CAT of 2003 in Union of India v. Rupa Singh against which SLP (C) No(s).28779 of 2011 has been dismissed by this Court on 10th July, 2017.
Since we find that this aspect has not been pointed out to the High Court, the petitioners are at liberty to move the High Court in support of this submission. The High Court may consider the mater on merits in accordance with law.
We make it clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the High Court, they will be at liberty to take their remedied against the same in accordance with law.
The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of.”
(6 of 10)
[WRW-68/2018]
Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.15739-CAT of 2003 : Union of India and others Vs. Rupa Singh and others, stands affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.7.17 passed in Special Leave Petition No.28779/2011 : Rupa Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(7 of 10)
[WRW-68/2018]
entitlement on completion of 12/24 years of service, in the pay scale admissible to the post of Chargeman-II i.e. Rs.5000-8000 is ex facie erroneous and therefore, the order under review deserves to be recalled and the writ petitions preferred by the respondents deserve to be dismissed.
(8 of 10)
[WRW-68/2018]
(9 of 10)
[WRW-68/2018]
entitled to the scale of pay available to Chargeman-II is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
(10 of 10)
[WRW-68/2018]
merits, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
(SANGEET LODHA),J
Aditya/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents are entitled to financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme based on the older Rules of 1980 instead of the service hierarchy defined in the Rules of 2005.
Whether the rules of the Army Ordnance Corps restricting promotional avenues to Chargeman for Highly Skilled Tradesman apply retrospectively to petitioners holding posts under the 1980 Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Rupa SinghDistinguished¶99
Union of India v. Rupa Singh, CWP No.15739-CAT of 2003
Rupa Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.Followed¶90
Special Leave Petition No.28779/2011
Rupa Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.Followed¶89
Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).28779 of 2011
Arising out of order dated 30.5.16 passed by this CourtReferred¶85
order dated 16.2.18 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.9828/17
Union Of India
Durga Ram (Dead) Through His LRs
Sangeet Lodha
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
