5th CPC recommendation regarding Extending judicial decisions in matter of a general nature to all similarly placed

5th CPC recommendation regarding Extending judicial decisions in matter of a general nature to all similarly placed

5th CPC  recommendation regarding  Extending judicial decisions in matter of a general nature to all similarly placed

Para 126.5 . Extending judicial decisions in matter of a general nature to all similarly placed employees:

We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgement is only extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgement given by the full bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed and others Vs UOI and others(OA 451 and 541 of 1991) wherein it was held  that the entire class of employee who are similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties  to the original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld  by the supreme court in this case as well as in numerous other judgement like GC Ghosh vs UOI (1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC)dated 20.7.1988,K. I. Shepherd vs UOI (JT 1987(3) SC 600, Abid  Hussain vs UOI (JT 1987 (1) SC 147)etc. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Govt. should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other employees to approach the court of law for identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of general nature applicable to a group or category of government employees is concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of individual employees.

Government of India has agreed to implement judgements in rem to all similarly placed. ‘rem’ also stands explained by Hon’ble High court of Madras In C.L.Pasupathy v. Engineer in Chief (WRO) reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 491 which has achieved legal finality.

Besides, CAT Ernakulum. High courts of Madras, Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur & Indore)and Delhi have given favourable judgements considering  judgment in P. Ayyamperuam of Madras high court to be the law .

The Honourable Delhi  Court in W.P.(C) 5539/2019 ARUN CHHIBBER  versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.  O R D E R dated  13.01.2020 has rejected the contention of the respondents(UOI & othrs) that the judgment in P. Ayyamperuam had to be treated as one that was in personam and not in rem-BPS is now close to success on the issue of Notional increment to those who retire/retired  on completion of 365 days service on 30th June/31st of December and also implementation of judgements in ‘rem’ to all similarly situated.

S C Maheshwari

Secy.Genl;  Bharat Pensioners Samaj