Rajendra Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others

-1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 28, 2017 Rajendra Singh and others .....Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.V.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

The petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 10.02.2017 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, `the Tribunal'), whereby their claim for payment of arrears of wages from the date of their initial engagement by the respondents-Department, has been turned down. [2] The facts may be noticed briefly:- [3] The petitioners were engaged as casual labourers on daily wage basis on different dates and in different years ranging from November 1994 to April 2000. They were engaged through a contractor-cum-service provider. The petitioners filed Original Application before the Tribunal in the year 2011 seeking a declaration that they be treated as employees of the

-2Department and not as those of the contractor-cum-service provider through whom they were engaged. The Tribunal accepted the claim of petitioners vide order dated 04.05.2011 (Annexure A-2) as such a claim was found covered by an early decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kiran Pal and others vs Union of India and others decided on 14.08.2002, which was upheld by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No.21522 of 2006 vide order dated 20.04.2010. The operative part of the Tribunal's order dated 04.05.2011 reads as follows:- "15.

Resultantly, the respondents are directed to treat the applicants as their direct employees as has been done in the case of Kiran Pal and others (supra). In so far as reliance placed by the respondents on the case of Ramesh Singh and another (supra) is concerned, admittedly, in that case the Hon'ble High Court had proceeded on the premise that since the judgment in Kiran Pal's case has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be made basis of the decision of the Writ petition. Once the Apex Court has upheld the decision in the case of Kiran Pal & Others (supra), we are bound by the same, more so when no distinguishable features have been brought to our notice. The applicants who were sought to be disengaged or are already disengaged may be taken in service in view of these orders. Impugned orders are accordingly quashed and set aside."

[4] The Tribunal's order dated 04.05.2011 was upheld by this Court while dismissing CWP No.19583/CAT of 2011 decided on 14.10.2011 (Union of India and another vs Rajindra Singh and others). [5] Thereafter the authorities passed the administrative order dated 21.11.2012, thereby the petitioners were treated as the employees of the Department and consequently were granted pay w.e.f. May 2011 and paid

-3arrears of wages from May 2011 onwards.

[6] The petitioners thereafter filed second original application claiming that they should, in fact, be treated who have been directly engaged by the Department from the very beginning and they be paid arrears of wages from the date of their initial engagements. [7] The Tribunal has turned down such claim primarily on the ground that the judgment in Kiran Pal and others's case (supra) attained finality in the year 2010 and thereafter only it was given effect and Kiran Pal and others (supra) have been paid arrears of wages from May 2011 only. It is pertinent to mention that Kiran Pal and others (supra) approached the Tribunal in the year 2003 and it was after dismissal of SLP in the year 2010 that the judgment in their case was implemented and arrears were paid to them from May 2011. The petitioners, who approached the Tribunal only in the year 2011 are fortunate enough that their case was decided within few months.

[8] We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at a considerable length, who reiterated the submissions as were made before the Tribunal. It is contended that Kiran Pal and others(supra) have accepted their fate which does not estop the petitioners from raising their legitimate claim. In our considered view the entire claim of the petitioners is misconceived and is barred by principle of res judicata also. In the first original application, the Tribunal had directed to treat them as employees of the Department prospectively and not from the date of their initial engagement. Such a relief, if at all admissible, should have been claimed in the first original application. The Tribunal accepted their claim prospectively

-4from May 2011 and the authorities have rightly granted them arrears of wages from May 2011. Further Kiran Pal's case (supra) attained finality in 2010 only and applicants of that case have also been granted arrears of wages from May, 2011 only. The petitioners have no better claim than Kiran Pal and others (supra).

[9] No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. [10] Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE March 28, 2017 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No