Virendra Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

V. Ajay Kumar, J

M.A. No.13/2017

Heard both the sides.

The instant MA No.13/2017 in OA No.2425/2016 has been filed by the applicants seeking execution of the orders dated 22.07.2014 in OA No.2425/2014 whereunder the OA was finally disposed of and the said order reads as under:-

"The applicant has filed this OA seeking a direction that his case is squarely covered by the order of this Tribunal in OA No.551/2002 Nand Kishore & Ors. Vs. UOI decided on 30.04.2004. He has also stated that based on the aforesaid order, a number of other OAs have also been decided.

In view of the above position, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in the light of Nand Kishore's case (supra). If his case is covered by the aforesaid order, he may also be extended the same benefits. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicate the decision to the applicant.

For the sake of convenience of the Respondents, Registry is also directed to send a copy of this OA to them. The Original Application is accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs".

The respondents vide their additional affidavit dated 28.02.2018 while submitting that they have fully executed the orders in OA, drawn our attention to the various documents enclosed thereto including the Speaking Order dated 15.02.2018 (Annexure AA-1).

The said order dated 15.02.2018 clearly indicates that out of 4 applicants, the respondents have considered the claim of the applicants and granted relevant benefits to those 2 applicants, whereas in respect of other 2 applicants, namely, Shri Sunil Kumar and Shri Naresh Kumar, they have rejected their claim basiing on their individual facts and also by stating that they are not identically situated like Nand Kishore and Others. However, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that in respect of certain identically placed persons, the respondents have granted the benefits but denied the same to the Sunil Kumar and Naresh Kumar illegally. He further submits that the action of the respondents is also against to various decisions of this Tribunal and also of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The OA of the applicants was disposed of summarily without adjudicating the lis on merits, i.e., whether the applicants were entitled for the benefits claimed or whether the applicants were identically placed like Nand Kishore and Others etc. The only direction given to the respondents was to consider the case of the applicants in the light of Nand Kishore's case (supra). The respondents, in fact, considered the claims of 2 of the applicants out of 4 and while granting the benefits to those 2 applicants, rejected the same to Sunil Kumar and Naresh Kumar by holding that they were not entitled for the benefits and also that they were not identically placed like Nand Kishore and Others and accordingly passed a specific Speaking Order on 15.02.2018 (Annexure AA-1). Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the respondents failed to execute the orders of this Tribunal is unsustainable.

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the MA is dismissed. However, if the applicants are aggrieved by the reasons given by the respondents in the Speaking Order dated 15.02.2018, they may avail their remedies, in accordance with law. No costs.