The Union of India v. K Manivannan

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) Heard Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the final order to be passed in this Writ Petition, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and hence, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶2The respondents' claim to fix their pay scales on Rs.260-400 with effect from the date on which they were conferred with the Valve Man post by recognizing them as skilled categories with consequential revision of pay scales in accordance with the 4th and 5th pay commission revision, came to be rejected by the petitioners through their proceedings dated

25.02.2023. The respondents in their representation dated 07.10.2022, seeking for the aforesaid benefits, had predominantly placed reliance on various orders passed for similarly placed Valve Man. Through the proceedings dated 25.02.2023, the petitioners had rejected their request only on the ground that the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') relied upon by them, are in persona and not in rem. When this rejection order dated 25.02.2023, was challeged before the Tribunal by the respondents herein, the original application in O.A.No.862 of 2023 came to be allowed on 18.09.2024, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Inder Pal Yadav & others Vs. Union of India & others' reported in [1985 (2) CC page 648], wherein it was held that the benefits granted to one set of employees, required to be extended to the similarly placed employees, even if they did not have the benefit of the Court orders. The Tribunal had also placed reliance on the another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'State of Karnataka Vs. Lalitha' reported in [2006 (2) SCC 747]. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal dated

18.09.2024, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶3The decisions relied upon by the Tribunal, for extending the benefits to the respondents herein who are similarly placed to that of the set of employees who had the benefits of the Court orders, has been reiterated in several decisions of the Constitutional Courts and the law has been well established on this aspect.

¶4Since no other reason has been assigned by the petitioners while rejecting the respondents' claim, the Tribunal had rightly allowed the respondents' original application. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with such an order

¶5Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]

02.07.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Sni To

1.The Engineer in Chief, Union of India, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.

2.The Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Pune.

3.The Command Works Engineer, Military Engineering Service, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

M.S.RAMESH, J. and

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. Sni

02.07.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.07.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and W.M.P.No.26894 of 2025 1.The Union of India, Rep. by the Engineer in Chief, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. 2.The Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Pune. 3.The Command Works Engineer, Military Engineering Service, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Petitioners Vs. 1.K.Manivannan 2.M.Nagalingam 3.Udhayakumar (L.R. of E.Loganathan) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Tribunal in its impugned order dated 18.09.2024 in O.A.No.862 of 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Karthikeyan