1. The petitioners in these petitions are aggrieved of and have called in question a composite order and judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench [‘the Tribunal’], passed in OA No. 061/00081/2017 titled Bishamber Dass and ors v. Union of India and other clubbed matters by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court vested by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to set out few facts germane to the disposal of the controversy raised in these petitions.

3. The petitioners commenced their services in Military Engineering Service [‘MES’] as Mazdoors between the years 1974 to 1978. They were promoted as Valveman in the un-revised pay scale of Rs. 210- 290 which was the pay scale attached to the semi-skilled category. The petitioners asserted before the respondents that Valveman should be treated in the skilled category and placed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 260-400.

4. Some of the petitioners and other Valveman of the MES working in different Garrison Engineers filed SWP No. 1393/1994 seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent- Union of India to treat the category of Valveman as skilled one and accordingly place them in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 16-10-1981. The writ petition came to be allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 12-03-1997, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of grade of Rs. 260-400 to the petitioners with effect from 16-10-1981 by treating them and other Valvemen of MES under skilled category.

The LPA filed by Union of India before the Division Bench came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12-03-1999. The judgment passed by the Writ Court and up-held by the Division Bench was implemented by respondent No.3 vide order dated 05-05-1999 subject to outcome of Special Leave Petition proposed to be filed before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The writ petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (un-revised) with effect from 16-10- 1981 and the arrears on account of such placement were released in their favour. Ultimately the Union of India preferred SLP before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. While the SLP was pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, other similarly situated Valvemen including the petitioners in some of these petitions, filed SWP No. 1351/1999 titled Ram Dass and ors vs. Union of India and ors before this Court. This writ petition was also allowed vide judgment dated 23-07-1999.

5. The Special Leave Petition filed before Hon’ble the Supreme Court came to be disposed of vide order dated 06-10-2005 and Amar Nath’s case was remanded to the Division Bench of this Court for fresh consideration. The matter was once again considered by the Division Bench of this Court on remand alongwith LPA filed by the Union of India against the judgment passed in Ram Dass’s case. Vide common judgment dated 19-08-2010 the LPAs in Amar Nath’s case and Ram Dass’s case came to be disposed of by directing the appellants therein (respondents herein) to treat the petitioners as skilled workers and place them in the un-revised pay scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 16-10-1981 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The judgment dated 19-08-2010 was accepted by the respondents and no appeal against the said judgment was preferred.

6. The respondents vide order dated 05-01-2012 implemented the judgment and accorded sanction to the placement of Valvemen in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (un-revised) with effect from the date of their initial appointment/promotion as Valveman or 16-10-1981 whichever was later. It was provided in the order that the re-fixation of pay will be notional and the actual arrears shall be restricted for 18 months from the date of filing of OA. The controversy with regard to treatment of Valveman under the skilled category, in the case of petitioners, came to be settled in the year 2012. However, in the year 1999 the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, with a view to eradicate the problem of stagnation had introduced Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme for the Central Government civilian employees vide Office Memo dated 09-08-1999. As per the ACP scheme, the benefit of 1st non-functional promotion was available after 12 years and 2nd on completion of 24 years of service. Later on the ACP was modified on 19-05-2009 and given effect from 01-09-2008.

7. As per the modified ACP scheme, the three non-functional financial up-gradations under the scheme were provide at the intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous service. The claim of the petitioners, as is projected before the Tribunal, is that they became entitled to 1st ACP on 09-08-1999, 2nd ACP on 28-12-2003 and to the 3rd MACP on 28-12-2009. In the aforesaid background and giving the benefit of ACP scheme, the salary of the petitioners was fixed by giving the benefit of 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with grade pay of Rs. 2400 and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with grade pay of Rs. 4200. The petitioners were, however, not granted the benefit of modified ACP scheme which was due to them on completion of 30 years of service i.e. 28-12-2009. The pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4600 continued to elude the petitioners.

8. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed SWP No. 625/2014 titled Bodh Raj and ors v. Union of India and ors which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 07-03-2014. The judgment passed in Bodh Raj’s case was implemented by the respondents vide order dated 30-04-2015 vide which the earlier order dated 05-01-2012 was amended by omitting and substituting the words thereby giving arrears with effect from 16-10-1981.

9. While the controversy had come to be settled after issuance of order dated 13-04-2015, the Commander Works Engineer, Jammu issued another order dated 03-08-2015 whereby directing all the Garrison Engineers under his command to pay the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 260-400 by treating the same as ACP-I, and after completion of 24 years service ACP-II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and ACP-III in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 2800, with a further direction to effect recovery of all other benefits wrongly granted/ over paid while implementing the judgment passed by this Court. The respondents re-opened the issue as to whether the petitioners, who were working as Valveman, are required to be treated as semi skilled or skilled, though the same had already been decided by this Court authoritatively relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court.

10. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 03-08-2015 issued by the Commander Works Engineer Jammu, the petitioners filed OAs before the Tribunal which have been dismissed vide order and judgment impugned in these petitions.

11. The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is challenged by the petitioners inter alia on the ground that order dated 03-08-2015 which was challenged before the Tribunal was illegal, arbitrary and issued in violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is also challenged on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the order dated 03-08-2015 challenged before it was an attempt to over reach a final judgment passed by this Court and was contemptuous in nature. It is submitted that the issue as to whether Valvemen are to be treated in the semi skilled category or skilled category was no longer res-integra and had been finally decided by this court in cases of Amar Nath and Ram Dass. The Commander Works Engineer, Jammu, could not have sat over the judgment passed by this Court and taken the plea that the issue was not finally determined and per the rules of MES the category of Valveman falls under the semi-skilled category and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to be placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (un-revised).

12. Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that as per the recruitment rules and charter of duties issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are working as Valvemen, are not entitled to be treated as ‘skilled’ and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400. However, the learned counsel then representing the Union of India failed to bring to the notice of the Court the relevant recruitment rules and charter of duties and, therefore, the Division Bench passed the order holding the petitioners entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (un-revised), payable to the skilled category.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the controversy in correct perspective.

14. Undoubtedly, the petitioners were entitled to be placed in the pay grade of Rs. 260-400 (un-revised) with effect from 16-10-1981 pursuant to the decision of this Court. Needless to say that the decision of this Court, giving the benefit of pay scale of Rs, 260-400 to the petitioners, was passed on the principle of equal pay for equal work. This Court, while dismissing the LPAs filed in the cases of Amar Nath and Ram Dass shall be presumed to know the rule position but agreed with the petitioners that they were entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 16-10-1981 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Commander Works Engineer could not have sat in appeal against the concluded judgment of this Court and held that the petitioners were required to be treated as ‘semi-skilled’ as per the recruitment Rules governing their service. The judgment passed by this Court overrides the statutory service rules to the contrary, if any, and the opinion of the authority howsoever high it may be.

15. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the manner, in which the Commander Works Engineer has acted, was not only vindictive but contemptuous in nature. Since the petitioners were held entitled to skilled scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 16-10-1981, therefore, the benefit of 1st ACP with effect from 09-08-1999, 2nd ACP from 28-12-2003 and the 3rd MACP with effect from 28-12-2009 etc. was required to be given. The petitioners were thus entitled to 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, the 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and to the 3rd MACP in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4600. The order dated 03-08-2015, which treated the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 granted to the petitioners with effect from 16-10-1981 as 1st ACP, was erroneous on all counts. The pay scale of Rs. 260-400 was the pay scale to which the petitioners were held entitled to on the principal of equal pay for equal work and by treating their category as skilled. So the 1st ACP which was applicable to the petitioners after completion of 12 years of service ought to have been the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and the 2nd ACP, after completion of 24 years of service, in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. Similarly the next grade was to be given as 3rd MACP. The communication dated 03- 08-2015 issued by the Commander Works Engineer Jammu was based on erroneous assumption that, notwithstanding the judgments passed by this Court holding the petitioners entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 (pre-revised) with effect from 16-10-1981, the petitioners were to be treated as ‘unskilled category’ in the pay scale of Rs. 210-290. It was also erroneous on the part of the Commander Works Engineer to direct that petitioners were entitled to their 1st ACP after completion of 12 years service in the grade of Rs. 260-400. This aspect of the matter has not been understood by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not correct in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners were seeking to be treated in the skilled category, for, this issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by this Court. The Tribunal was called upon to adjudicate the communication of the Commander Works Engineer dated 03-08- 2015, which, on the face of it, was contrary to the concluded judgment passed by the Division Bench in LPAs in the cases of Amar Nath and Ram Dass.

16. For all these reasons, we find merit in these writ petitions and while allowing the writ petitions, we set aside the order impugned passed by the Tribunal. The OAs filed by the petitioners are allowed and communication dated 03-08-2015 issued by the Commander Works Engineer, Jammu, is quashed. The petitioners are held entitled to 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, the 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and the 3rd MACP in the pay scale of Rs. 9300- 34800 with effect from completion of 12 years, 24 years and 30 years of service. They shall also be entitled to re-fixation of their salary and release of arrears.