OP(CAT) No.51 of 2022

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944 OP (CAT) NO. 51 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT INOP 871/2018 OF CENTRAL** **ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:** 1 LT.GOVERNOR ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATIONS, PORT BLAIR, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS, 2 THE CHIEF SECRETARY ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATIONS, PORT BLAIR, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS 3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER A.P.W.D ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATIONS, PORT BLAIR, ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS BY ADV M.T.MURALEEDHARAN ## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN OA:** 1 BABYKUTTY, AGED 72 YEARS S/O.YOHANNAN RETD. JUNIOR ENGINEER, RESIDING AT BIJU BHAVAN, MALLASSERY POST, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689646 2 G.PAPPACHAN S/O Y. GEORGE, AGED 69 YEARS, RETD. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RESIDING AT THATTURKONAM, KARAMCODE P.O., CHATHANNUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691579 3 K.KOCHUKUNJU S/O KOSHY, AGED 69 YEARS, RETD. JUNIOR ENGINEER, RESIDING AT R.K. NIVAS, AMBALAKARA P.O., VALAKOM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691532 4 S.JOHN S/O SAKHARIAH, AGED 70 YEARS, RETD. JUNIOR ENGINEER, OP(CAT) No.51 of 2022 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** RESIDING AT CHERICKAL HOUSE, VAZHAMUTTAM E.P.O, MALLASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689646 5 V. J. PONNAMMA W/O LATE VARGHESE ABRAHAM, AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARUTHOOR, POOVANMALA, PULLOOPRAM P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689674 6 SANTHAMMA RICHARD W/O JOSEPH RICHARD, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATHAPILLY HOUSE, VENGALLOOR P.O., PALLIKUTTY, THODUCPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685608 BY ADV A.JANI THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(CAT) No.51 of 2022 :3: **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ ------------------------------------------------------------------** OP(CAT) No.51 of 2022 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of August, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** Mohammed Nias.C.P.. J. The above original petition is filed challenging the order in OA No.871 of 2018 dated 27.1.2022 that allowed the original application filed by the respondents herein seeking to quash Annexure A10 and also for a declaration that they are eligible and entitled to be granted the benefits of the 4[th] and 5[th] pay revision introduced as per Annexures A1 and A2 with effect from the date on which they completed 5 years and 15 years of service as Junior Engineers and with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts leading to the above original petition are as follows:- The applicants, the respondents herein are the retired employees of the Andaman Public Works Department. They were initially appointed as Draughtsman Grade III and Surveyor and later promoted as Draughtsman Grade II and and thereafter as Junior Engineer (Civil) against the 25% promotion post as Junior Engineers. They were aggrieved by the non-implementation of the pay scales as per the 4[th] and 5[th] Central Pay Commission. The Government of India OP(CAT) No.51 of 2022 :4: had implemented the 4[th] Pay Commission recommendation vide order dated 22.3.1991, (Annexure A1) of the Ministry of Urban Development (Works Division), Government of India. It was alleged that the 5[th] Central Pay Commission order was also not implemented and the office memorandum dated 16.10.1967 issued by the Government of India, Directorate of General Works, CPWD implementing the central Pay Commission was produced as Annexure A2, alleging that the applicants were not having the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Engineers. 3. The petitioners herein filed a reply statement stating that the applicants were not directly appointed to the post of Junior Engineers and hence they are not entitled to get the financial upgradation as per Annexure A1. In otherwords, only those who are entitled to get the financial upgradation and the applicants are not entitled. 4. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore Bench in OA 149 of 2020 dated 14.3.2022, wherein, the CAT considered all the contentions raised by the petitioners herein and by Annexure A4 judgment ordered that the applicants therein were entitled to get time bound higher pay scales on completion of 5[th] and 15[th] year of service in the cadre of Junior Engineer with all consequential benefits and directed to pay arrears within four months' from the date of receipt of the order. However, it was directed that the OP(CAT) No.51 of 2022 :5: payment of arrears is limited to three years preceding the date of filing of the original application following the decision of the Supreme Court in **Union of India v. Tarsen Singh** [(2008) 11 SCALE 94]. The Tribunal therefore found that, the applicants were similarly situated like the applicants in the case before the CAT Bangalore Bench and held that all the contentions taken by the petitioners herein were taken and considered, while the Tribunal passed the final judgment, which was confirmed by the High Court of Karnataka as per Annexure A5 judgment. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment was also dismissed, and therefore, as the law was finally settled by the decision in OA No.149 of 2010, the original application was allowed on the same grounds. 5. Before us, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the applicants herein are not similarly situated, and therefore, the judgment of the CAT, Bangalore Bench, cannot be held to be applicable in the case of the respondents herein. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the records, we are not in a position to accept the said contention as we do not find any fact or law which distinguishes the claim of the applicants herein from that of the case decided by the CAT, Bangalore Bench. As rightly found by the Tribunal, service jurisprudence postulates all persons similarly situated to be treated similarly and just because one person has approached the Tribunal cannot mean that the similarly situated persons should be treated OP(CAT) No.51 of 2022 :6: differently. It is not necessary to drive every similarly situated persons to the courts to get their reliefs already granted to the similarly placed. ( See in this connection **Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Association (Direct Recruitment) v. State of U.P.** [(2006) 10 SCC 346] and **Dr.(Mrs.)Santhosh Kumari v. Union of India & others** [1994(7) SC 565]. In that view of the matter we do not find anything wrong in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. OP(CAT) fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE** dlk 22.8.2022 OP(CAT) No.51 of 2022 :7: ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 51/2022** PETITIONERS ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22/03/1991 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (WORKS DIVISION) GOVERMENT OF INDIA Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 16/10/1997 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL WORKS, CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY BF THE ORDER DATED 09/06/2004 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CALCUTTA BENCH IN OA NO.51/AN/2004 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/03/2012 IN O.A NO.149 OF 2010 RENDERED BY THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/10/2015 IN W.P (C) I\JO.44790 OF 2013 OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICER ORDER NO. 963 DATED 04/08/2017 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.1299 DATED 11/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/05/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1 ST APPLICANT TO RESPONDENTS Annexure A8(a) TRUE COPY OF SIMILAR LETTER DATED 02/05/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2 ND APPLICANT Annexure A8 (b) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD APPLICANT. Annexure A8(c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY 4 TH APPLICANT DATED 02/05/2018 Annexure A8(d) TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY 5TH APPLICANT DATED 10/05/2018 Annexure A8(e) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10/05/2018 ISSUED BY 6 TH APPLICANT Annexure A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM IN OA NO. 542/2018 DATED 25-06-2018 Annexure A10 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO 1115 DATED 17-082018 OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ANDAMAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Annexure R1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT PROMOTION AND RELEVANT ORDERS IN CONNECTION WITH ALL SIX APPLICANTS OP(CAT) No.51 of 2022 :8: - Annexure R2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: 1115 DATED 17.08.2018 OF CHIEF ENGINEER APWD COMMUNICATED TO ALL SIX APPLICANT - Annexure R 3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFIED RECRUITMENT RULE PUBLISHED ON 28.08.1978 OF JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL) IN APWD AND THE SENIORITY LIST OF 202 JUNIOR ENGINEERS PUBLISHED ON 01.01.1989 - Annexure R 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSURES CAREER PROGRESSION (ACP) SCHEME . - Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/00871 OF 2018 DATED 28.09.2018 OF CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH - Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A. NO. 180/00871 OF 2018 OF CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH - Exhibit P3 REJOINTER TO THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY APPLICANTS - Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLAY STATEMENT FILED. - Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2022 IN O.A. 180/00871/2018 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM