O. A. No.060/00100/2017. Case: 1. Charanjit Singh 2. Pawan Kumar 3. Ravinder Kumar 4. Bhupinder Kaur 5. Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O. A. No.060/00100/2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sh. D.R. Sharma, counsel |
| Judges | Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J). |
| Issue | Administrative Law |
| Judgement Date | January 31, 2017 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J), (Oral), (Chandigarh Bench)
-
The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants seeking mainly the following relief(s):-
8(ii). The respondents be directed to pay subsistence/duty allowances to applicants (UT Home Guard Volunteers) on Punjab pattern w.e.f. 11.03.2015, without any further delay in terms of directions of the Honble Supreme Court, with all the consequential benefits along with interest.
-
Sh. D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, very fairly submitted that before approaching this Court, applicants have already made a representation pursuance to recommendations dated 01.07.2016 made by the Govt. of India in terms of Judgment dated 11.03.2015 in Civil Appeal No.2759 of 2015 of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. He also apprised this Court that in terms of notification dated 13.01.1992 issued by Govt. of India if Chandigarh Administration has not framed any rule governing service conditions of their employees then the service rules applicable to their counter parts in the State of Punjab will ipso-facto applicable to the employees working in Chandigarh Administration on the corresponding posts. He argued that in terms of recommendations dated 01.07.2016 issued by Govt. of India, all the States and Union Territories except Chandigarh Administration, had already implemented the recommendations but Chandigarh Administration has not taken any view despite the fact that they have to implement the recommendations in terms of Govt. of India notification dated 13.01.1992 as the State of Punjab had already extended benefit to their employees, who were similarly situated like the applicants. Lastly, he submitted that the applicant will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondents to decide their representation in a time bound manner.
-
Issue notice to the respondents. Sh. Mukesh Kaushik, Advocate, who is...
To continue reading
Request your trial