E. Parmasivan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14029 of 1996
Petitioner: E. Parmasivan & Ors.
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14029 of 1996
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 14, 2002
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Writ petitions – Maintainability – Limitation – Retired officers of MES – Retirement between 31.1.74 to 31.5.85 – Application before tribunal in 1995 – Reliance on OM dated 12.1.76 – Fixation of pay in terms of said OM – Dismissal on grounds of limitation – Plea that cause of action continuing – Judgments of central administrative tribunal relied upon pertaining to serving officers. Held that tribunal was right in dismissing application on grounds of limitation. (Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This case stands on a different footing from the other cases of the group i.e., civil appeal nos. 2490-91/1994 and civil appeal nos. 7496-97 of 1997 which were disposed off on February 13, 2002.
2. The petitioners in this case, who are 15 in number, are retired officers of the military engineering services in ministry of defence, government of India. They retired from service between 31.1.1974 to 31.5.1985 while holding posts of senior administrative officer (SAO) or senior barrack stores officer (SBSO) or principal barrack store officer (PBSO). They filed original application, OA No. 1935/95 in the central administrative tribunal (for short ‘CAT’), principal bench, Delhi, claiming fixation of their pay on promotion in terms of the concordance table notified in the ministry of defence O.M. dated 12.1.1976. The main basis of their case is that in similar cases, O.A. Nos. 211/86 and 498/86, the principal bench, CAT by judgment rendered on 13.11.1992 directed the Union of India and the officers concerned to treat the applicants therein as entitled to pay fixation in terms of the aforesaid O.M. The applicants also cited the judgments of benches of the CAT at a different place wherein relief had been granted to similarly placed officers of the MES cadre. The tribunal by its judgment dated 6.2.1996 dismissed the original application on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The Tribunal rejected the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the grievance made by them in the case is continuing and the cause of action for the application is a continuing cause of action, in such a case question of limitation does not stand on the way of the claim made by them. As noted above, all the petitioners had retired from the service long before the judgment of the principal bench, CAT, dated 13.11.1992. In the judgments of different benches of CAT, copies of which have been placed on record in the case, the applicants were officers in service. The anomaly in the scale of pay of the petitioners arose as early as on 12.1.1976 when the government of India declined to extend the revised scale of pay in terms of the concordance table to members of the cadres of the store officers and administrative officers. Therefore the petitioners would have raised objection regarding the anomaly in their scale of pay at that point of time. Even thereafter when they retired from the service they could have made the claim for pay fixation in terms of the concordance table and for calculation of pension on that basis. They did not take any step in that regard till 1995.
3. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in our view, was right in holding that the original application filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation and hence no relief as claimed by them could be granted to them. Thus the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
1. This case stands on a different footing from the other cases of the group i.e., civil appeal nos. 2490-91/1994 and civil appeal nos. 7496-97 of 1997 which were disposed off on February 13, 2002.
2. The petitioners in this case, who are 15 in number, are retired officers of the military engineering services in ministry of defence, government of India. They retired from service between 31.1.1974 to 31.5.1985 while holding posts of senior administrative officer (SAO) or senior barrack stores officer (SBSO) or principal barrack store officer (PBSO). They filed original application, OA No. 1935/95 in the central administrative tribunal (for short ‘CAT’), principal bench, Delhi, claiming fixation of their pay on promotion in terms of the concordance table notified in the ministry of defence O.M. dated 12.1.1976. The main basis of their case is that in similar cases, O.A. Nos. 211/86 and 498/86, the principal bench, CAT by judgment rendered on 13.11.1992 directed the Union of India and the officers concerned to treat the applicants therein as entitled to pay fixation in terms of the aforesaid O.M. The applicants also cited the judgments of benches of the CAT at a different place wherein relief had been granted to similarly placed officers of the MES cadre. The tribunal by its judgment dated 6.2.1996 dismissed the original application on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The Tribunal rejected the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the grievance made by them in the case is continuing and the cause of action for the application is a continuing cause of action, in such a case question of limitation does not stand on the way of the claim made by them. As noted above, all the petitioners had retired from the service long before the judgment of the principal bench, CAT, dated 13.11.1992. In the judgments of different benches of CAT, copies of which have been placed on record in the case, the applicants were officers in service. The anomaly in the scale of pay of the petitioners arose as early as on 12.1.1976 when the government of India declined to extend the revised scale of pay in terms of the concordance table to members of the cadres of the store officers and administrative officers. Therefore the petitioners would have raised objection regarding the anomaly in their scale of pay at that point of time. Even thereafter when they retired from the service they could have made the claim for pay fixation in terms of the concordance table and for calculation of pension on that basis. They did not take any step in that regard till 1995.
3. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in our view, was right in holding that the original application filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation and hence no relief as claimed by them could be granted to them. Thus the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
