Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J): Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By virtue of the present OA, an order passed on 4.7.2005 is being assailed by the applicant whereby on implementation of the decision of the Tribunal in OA-3189/2003 dated 3.12.2004, the applicant has been denied the benefit of skilled grade from the date of initial recruitment.
3. Learned counsel for applicant states that one Mohd. Sulaiman, working in MES, by virtue of OA-2304/2005 decided on 30.5.2006 when approached for claiming the benefit of the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in OA-804/98 decided on 15.9.2000, by holding that Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma v. Union of India & others, 1998 (1) SLJ SC 54 allowed such a benefit to be extended to the similarly circumstanced, the applicant, who is similarly situated with that of applicant in OA-3189/2003 and Mohd. Sulaiman, is entitled for accord of the same benefits.
4. On the other hand, learned proxy counsel for respondents firstly took preliminary objection of delayed claim of the applicant and further stated that in the case of Raj Kishore v. Union of India & others (OA-2697/2003) decided on 5.8.2004, the scale was accorded from the date of initial appointment, subject to the outcome of SLP already filed in Hari Ram Shukla v. Union of India (OA-804/98) decided on 15.9.2000.
5. It is trite law that unless a decision of the Tribunal, which is affirmed by the High Court, is not set aside or is stayed by the Apex Court, would still remain a binding precedent to be followed.
6. In the matter of granting similar benefit of extension of the directions by the Tribunal, it has to be seen whether one is similarly circumstanced or not. As the applicant immediately on preferring a representation on the decision of Hari Ram Shuklas case (supra), his representation being rejected, gives a fresh cause of action to him and we do not find any latches or inordinate delay in the claim of the applicant. Moreover, in the matter of pay and allowances, the cause of action is always recurring.
7. In the above backdrop, we are satisfied that the applicant being similarly circumstanced to that of Hari Ram Shukla (supra) and Mohd. Sulaiman, is legally entitled for accord of benefit of the decision of the Tribunal (supra).
8. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to accord to the applicant the skilled grade from the date of initial recruitment, with all arrears and consequential benefits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It also goes without saying that in pending SLP what has been done in compliance in case of Raj Kishore (supra) that may be adopted by the respondents. No costs. ( Chitra Chopra ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/