Yogesh Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

V. Ajay Kumar, J

The applicants 1, 3 to 8 are the individual employees and the 2nd applicant is the Association of Radio & Television Engineering Employees and they jointly filed the OA No.2575/2018 seeking the following reliefs:-

"(pp) Quash the Order dt. 31.01.2018, issued by the respondents, in continuation of order dt. 08.09.2014, and (qq) Quash the Order dt. 06.04.2018 & 26.06.2018 or any other consequential order (s), issued by the Respondents, in continuation of orders dt. 31.01.2018 and dt. 08.09.2014, and (rr) Direct the respondents not to treat the pay scales granted vide O.M. dt. 25.02.1999, not as an upgradation but as Restoration and Replacement scales for all the purposes, including for ACP/MACP, with all consequential benefits, including restoration of pay and allowances and refund of the recovery, if any made by the Respondents, in pursuance of the impugned orders. (ss) Allow the OA with all consequential benefits of pay allowances and promotion, with all arrears, and costs and pass any other or further order(s), in favour of the Applicants, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just & proper in the above-mentioned facts & circumstances."

This Tribunal, by order dated 13.07.2018, while issuing notices to the respondents, as an interim measure, restrained the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the applicants, who have joined in the application personally, barring the Association (applicant No.2) in the OA.

The said interim order has been extended from time to time.

The instant MA No. 3612/2018 is filed by the 2nd applicant, i.e., the Association of Radio and Television Engineering Employees seeking to modify the aforesaid interim order dated 13.07.2018 by extending the benefit of the same to the 2nd applicant, i.e., to the Association also.

Heard Dr. Ashwani Bhadwaj, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mrs. Anupama Bansal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri S.M. Arif, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 and perused the pleadings on record.

Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submit that the 2nd applicant Association is a Registered Association vide Registration No.923/1967-68 and 4600 members of the said Union, whose list was enclosed to the MA, were also equally affected by the impugned orders, like the other individual applicants in the OA and hence, they are also entitled for the same protection. The learned counsel submits that the OA was filed along with MA No.2815/2018 filed under Rule 4(5)(a) and (b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which, enables an Association to file an OA espousing the cause of its members, along with at least one individual affected employee and hence the Association and thereby all its members, a list of whom was enclosed to the instant MA are entitled for grant of the same interim order.

On the other hand, Mrs. Anupama Bansal and Shri S.M. Arif, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the applicant No.2 Association is a Registered Association, but not a recognized Association and hence the interim order dated 13.07.2018, cannot be extended to either to the Association or its members. They further submit that though earlier the respondents were recognizing the Associations but as on today, no Association is recognized by the Director General, All India Radio. They also submit that the respondents are not recovering any amount from any employee, including from the alleged members of the 2nd applicant Association. As per the Annexure-A to the instant MA, list of members who are about 4600 are posted all over the country and it is not possible to verify their whereabouts and individual service particulars and any general order passed may lead to unwarranted filing of umpteen contempt cases. Accordingly, they pray for dismissal of the MA.

In our view, Rule 4(5)(b) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, enables an Association to join along with affected individual employees to espouse the common cause. But it cannot be said that the members of the said Association, who were not parties in their individual capacity before the Tribunal, are also entitled for any individual reliefs, automatically.

It is also seen that this Tribunal on 13.07.2018 only restrained the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the individual applicants in the OA. No such order can be passed in respect of the Association.10. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the MA and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.