w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

P. No. 488714, Shambhu Nath, Washerman, Office of the Commandant & Others v/s The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New delhi & Another

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- NATH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31908PN2013PTC148540

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- NATH AND CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15141KL1946PLC000796

    Original Application No. 042/00130 of 2019

    Decided On, 22 April 2019

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati


    For the Applicants: Adil Ahmed, D. Goswami, A. Theyo, Advocates. For the Respondents: ----

Judgment Text

Oral Order:

1. On being mentioned by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants, this case is being taken up today as unlisted.

2. At the outset, prayer for grant of permission under Section 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 to move this application jointly is allowed as they are seeking similar relief from the same respondents.

3. By this O.A., applicants pray for a direction upon the respondents to pay them License Fee at the rate of 10% compensation per month to them in lieu of Rent Free Accommodation w.e.f. 01.07.1987 in reference to the orders and judgments passed by this Tribunal, Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

4. Mr. Adil Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that all the applicants are Defence Civilian Employees of Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Presently, all of them are working as Cook, Chowkidar, Mali, Barber, Safaiwala, Washerman and Trade Mate (Mazdoor) in the Office of the Commandant 183 Military Hospital, Pin – 900269, C/O 99 APO. According to Mr. Ahmed, this Tribunal had entertained and passed various judgments and orders in the case of similarly situated employees and in view of that, learned counsel prays similar direction in the case of the present applicant.

5. The aforesaid matter is no longer res integra. On identical issue, this Tribunal has decided the matter vide common judgment and order dated 06.11.2000 in OA No. 143 of 1999 (Shri Krishna Sinha and 267 ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.). Relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced here as under:-

“3. In the light of the decision rendered by this Tribunal the Application is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay license fee at the rate of 10% of monthly pay with effect from 1.7.1987 or from the actual date of posting in Nagaland whichever is later and continue to pay the same till the compensation is not withdrawn or modified by the Government of India or till Rent free accommodation is not provided.”

6. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide order dated 21.02.2013 in WP(C) No. 830 of 2013. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court is reproduced here as under:-

“Considering the fact that the decision of this Court, rendered by the order, dated 06.03.2012, passed, in WP(C) No. 2975/2011, as well as the subsequent order, dated 06.03.2012, passed in the Misc. Case, whereby the petitioners were allowed extension of time to comply with the directions, stand dismissed by the Supreme Court, we are clearly of the view that a fresh writ petition challenging the findings which were arrived at, and the directions, which were given, in WP(C) No. 2975/2011, would not lie.

Situated thus, we find no option, but to dismiss the writ petition.

In the result and for the reasons discussed above, the writ petition stands dismissed.”

7. Against the order of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court dated 21.02.2013, the respondents approached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) ….CC No (s) 8050/2014 where the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.07.2014 dismissed the said SLP preferred by the respondent authority on the ground of delay as well as on merit.

8. On identical issue of Defence Civilian working in the State of Nagaland has already been settled by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 830 of 2013 (Union of India and another Vs. Shri Bahadur Sonar and Ors.) where the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 21.02.2013 dismissed the said Writ Petition.

9. It is noted that this Tribunal had passed order on 12.11.2015 in favour of some similarly situated Defence Civilian Employees working in the Office of the Administrative Commandant, Station Headquarters, Rangapahar who approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 377/2015 and the said order was upheld by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide order dated 02.03.2016 in W.P(C) No. 1329/2016.

10. It is further noted that this Tribunal on identical issue, had passed an order on 21.04.2014 in O.A. No. 70/2014 in favour of the applicants therein and accordingly, the respondent authority vide order dated 30.11.2018 has implemented the said order of this Tribunal dated 21.04.2014.

11. In view of the above, respectfully following the decisions of this

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Tribunal as well as Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and also Hon’ble Supreme Court, I direct the respondents to verify the case of the present applicants as to whether they were similarly situated with the applicants mentioned above and if so, similar benefits to be extended to the present applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt copy of this order. 12. With the above directions, O.A. stands disposed of accordingly at the admission stage. No order as to costs.