Kamla Devi vs Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Shri A.D Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

By way of the present Original Application, the applicant is claiming arrears of salary for the period from 24.04.1995 to 16.11.2004 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, in compliance with the direction given by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2260/1996, decided on 19.07.2004, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the applicant was reinstated in service. However, salary for the period during which he remained out of service has not been paid. The applicant submitted a representation dated 08.09.2006 before the Competent Authority, but the same has not been decided so far. It was further submitted that, before filing the present OA, the applicant had approached the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court for the same relief. The writ petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, the applicant filed Special Appeal No. 1687 of 2012 before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, which was also dismissed on 03.10.2012. However, the cost imposed upon the applicant was reduced to Rs.2,000/-. Referring to the order dated 03.10.2012, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant was permitted to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the present OA has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of the Delay Condonation Application, learned counsel further submitted that the consequential benefits granted to the applicant in OA No. 2260/1996 would include salary for the period during which he remained out of service. Since the applicant was kept out of service due to the illegal punishment, the respondents were required to release the salary for the said period and to take a decision on his representation. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the Delay Condonation Application may be allowed and the delay in filing the present OA may be condoned. Learned counsel has also referred to paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the Delay Condonation Application.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that OA No. 2260/1996 was decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal by setting aside the punishment imposed upon the applicant and directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. If the salary for the period claimed in the present OA has not been paid, the applicant ought to have approached the Bench which had decided OA No. 2260/1996 for implementation of the directions contained therein. It was further submitted that the grounds taken in the Delay Condonation Application are not sufficient to condone the delay. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the Delay Condonation Application may be rejected and the applicant may be permitted to approach the Bench which had finally decided OA No. 2260/1996.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

Before considering the facts and merits of the Delay Condonation Application, I find it necessary to examine whether this Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the issue raised in the present OA.

It will be useful to quote paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the order dated 19.07.2004 passed by the Principal Bench in OA No. 2260/1996:

It is not in dispute that the applicant was reinstated in service in compliance with the direction given by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the aforesaid OA. However, according to the applicant, salary for the period during which he remained out of service has not been paid. Since the issue of consequential benefits had already been considered and decided by the Principal Bench in OA No. 2260/1996, the same issue cannot be re-agitated before this Bench. If the directions contained in the aforesaid OA have not been fully complied with, the appropriate remedy available to the applicant is to approach the Bench which passed the original order for implementation of the said directions. The present OA, filed before a Bench different from the Bench which decided OA No. 2260/1996, cannot be entertained for granting a relief which is directly connected with the implementation of the order passed in the earlier OA.

Although the applicant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal and the OA No. 2260/1996 was filed against authorities falling within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, the nature of the relief claimed in the present OA is directly connected with the implementation of the order passed by the Principal Bench. Therefore, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the issue raised in the present OA cannot be adjudicated by this Bench.

Since the present OA itself is not maintainable before this Bench, there is no necessity to examine the merits of the Delay Condonation Application. Accordingly, the present Original Application along with the Delay Condonation Application is dismissed as not maintainable before this Bench. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Misc. Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.