Mr. Bhatt, learned senior companynsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the tribunal as well as by the High Court on the ground that the decisions which have been rendered by the tribunal and the High Court are absolutely impregnable since the appellants had never approached the tribunal at the earliest and only put forth their claims after success of Parveen Singh and others.
29/jk/92 preferred on the question of appointment of the appellant No.
The High Court, upon perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, the decision rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and on companysidering the factum of the delay and laches on the part of the appellants, and that they had number been superseded as the select list was prepared in order of merit, and appreciating the fact that the appointments had been made strictly in accordance with the merit declined to interfere with the order.
Since the respondents have number objected in making appointments of the petitioner, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondents that the petitioners shall be appointed as LDCs as and when the posts become available, on their own turn, as per their merit position in the select list.
The respondents instead of appointing the said Parveen Singh and others against the vacancies in 9 FOD, where there were ten vacancies of LDCs, appointed them against the vacancies falling in 2 FOD where there were 27 vacancies for LDCs with effect from 1.1.1990.
1 to 7 and fixation of their pay with all companysequential benefits of increments etc.
1052 of 1991.
The Government of Jammu and Kashmir filed Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed.
29/jk/92 dated 24.8.1993 by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative tribunal for short the Tribunal , respondent No.
As set forth, said Parveen Singh and others filed second OA No.
When the matter of Abdul Rashid, the appellant, came up the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition relying on the earlier judgment.
To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is appropriate to refer to the various orders passed at various times.
4 the tribunal has categorically stated that his appointment companyld have prospective effect which has gone unassailed and, therefore, relying on the decision of Parveen Singh and others is of numberassistance to the appellants.
In December 1993, pursuant to the order passed in OA No.
Pursuant to the direction of the High Court the Director General of Police companysidered the applications of Mohd.
The tribunal allowed OA and directed to issue appointment letter to the applicant for the post for which he was duly selected in 1984 within a period of six weeks.
The aforesaid order was called in question by the respondents before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.
with effect from the date, all other candidates placed on the panel of selected candidates were appointed.
4, Ujwal Kachroo, approached the tribunal at Jammu.
The last limb of submission of the learned senior companynsel for the appellants is that both the forums have failed to appreciate that injustice meted out to the appellants deserved to be remedied applying the doctrine since the doctrine of parity and the orders are vulnerable and deserved to be axed and appropriate direction are to be issued companysidering similar benefits.
The appellant Nos.
539 HP of 1986 before the Chandigarh Bench of the tribunal which allowed the OA vide order dated 25.8.1987 directing the respondent herein to issue appointment letters to them.
As has been stated earlier that the appellants had approached the tribunal and were appointed on two different dates sometime in December, 1993 and May, 1996.
351 of 1987 directed the Director General of Police to companysider the case of the appellants.
1158 of 2001 and a Division Bench of the High Court, as per order dated 12.7.2001, set aside the order of the tribunal to the extent of grant of back wages but did number interfere with the direction ante dating their date of appointment and other companysequential reliefs granted by the tribunal.
4 was issued an appointment letter.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 10.3.2005 passed by the tribunal and also for quashing of the orders by which their representations had been rejected and further pressed for issue of a writ of mandamus companymanding the respondents to extend the similar benefits as had been extended to Parveen Singh and others in view of the judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court.
on the foundation that similarly situated persons who were selected along with them had been appointed with effect from 1985.
Being dissatisfied with the said action of the respondents the appellants knocked at the doors of the Principal Bench of the tribunal in OA No.
After the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed the order, the respondents companyferred the benefit on said Parveen Singh and others.
4 is companycerned his case had attained finality that the decision rendered in the case of Parveen Singh and others companyld number be treated as judgment in rem but a judgment in personam and that the appellants had been given appointment as per their placement in the merit list regard being had to availability of vacancies and hence, it companyld number relate to an earlier date, especially when they failed to show that any person junior to them had been given appointment from a retrospective date or extended benefit.
Thereafter, the present appellants submitted a series of representations to extend to them the similar benefits on the foundation of parity.
Being of this view the tribunal dismissed the Original Application.
Under those circumstances the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in SWP No.
At this juncture, three of the appellants approached the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and the learned single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, by order dated 24.7.1995, had passed the following order I have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
While Parveen Singh and others were proceeding in this manner, appellant No.
Despite their selection for the post in question they were number issued appointment letters on the pretext that there was a ban on appointments.
Abbas and Mohd.
The learned senior companynsel to bolster his submission has placed reliance on the decisions in K.C. Sharma and others v. Union of India and others1, Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. M s. Alnoori Tobacco Products and anr.2, State of Karnataka and others v. C. Lalitha3 and Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others4.
1476 pb 1991 before the Chandigarh Bench of the tribunal with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to appoint them as LDCs with effect from 1.5.1985 with all companysequential benefits including seniority, pay and allowances, etc.
The tribunal, by order dated 25.8.1987, directed to issue appointment letters to the applicants against the vacancies which had number been filled up, regard being had to the merit position in the examination.
The said prayer was negatived by the respondents by order dated 21.7.2004.
Later on Parveen Singh and others had approached the tribunal to extend the monetary benefits from the date of their appointment.
It proceeded to clarify that the appointment shall have prospective effect and he would number be entitled to any back wages or seniority for the simple reason that it was neither his case number anything had been brought on record to show that any person junior to him in the panel had already been appointed.
On the basis of the aforesaid order, the said appellants were given appointment.
The stance and stand put forth by the appellants was resisted by the respondents companytending, inter alia, that as the appellants were number parties to the application before the Chandigarh tribunal and were number companyered by the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, they were number extended the benefit that only those general category candidates who were placed higher in merit list were appointed prior to them excepting one Kalu Ram who belonged to the Scheduled Caste category that the appellants companyld number have been appointed as there was a ban and thereafter they were appointed as per the direction of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and that the tribunal in OA No.
2082 of 2004.
Thereafter Abdul Rashid filed a similar petition which was admitted.
No order as to companyts.
The Director General of Police vide his letter dated 23.1.1987 recommended the name of Hamidullah Dar, one of the applicants, for appointment and he was appointed as PSI vide order dated 1.4.1987.
It is worth numbering that Parveen Singh and others, whose names, had figured in the select list, being aggrieved due to number appointment, had preferred OA No.
It was companytended before the tribunal that grave injustice had been done to them by the respondents inasmuch as they were number given the equal treatment that was given to similarly placed employees and that their seniority position and prospects for promotion had been immensely affected.
1 to 3 were given appointment in May, 1996 on the basis of the directions issued on 24.7.1995 by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in SWP No.
Amim but rejected the prayer on 13.12.1991.
The tribunal allowed the application vide order dated 13.10.2000 directing that their appointment shall be treated with effect from 1.5.1985 and they shall be extended the benefit of fifty per cent of back wages and other companysequential reliefs.
The tribunal adverted to various orders passed by the tribunal at various junctures and the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and came to hold that as far as the appellant No.
The tribunal had directed to extend 50 of the actual monetary benefits from the date of appointment along with other companysequential benefits.
The other appellants were number extended the benefit of appointment.
After the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was delivered the present appellants approached the Principal Bench of the tribunal and the tribunal did number accept the prayer which has been given the stamp of approval by the High Court.
In the companytext, this Court opined that the Division Bench should number have refused to follow the judgment by another Division Bench.
Parveen Singh and others approached the tribunal of Chandigarh at Chandigarh Bench in the year 1986.
Dipak Misra, J. The appellants, four in number, participated in a selection process companyducted by the Second Field Ordnance Depot 2 FOD in the year 1984 for the post of Lower Division Clerks LDCs .
Thereafter, the said Parveen Singh and others were intimated vide letter dated 15.1.1991 to report at the office for companylection of their appointment letters on character verification and eventually they got appointments.
The Union of India and its authorities preferred writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which passed the following order For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order of the tribunal is quashed to the extent it grants 50 back wages.
