Akshay vs DEFENCE

1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 1340/2025

th
Chandigarh, this the 11 day of August, 2026

HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

1. 23526906H-Akshay S/o Inder Singh Age-37 yrs working as T/Mate, in the
office of the Commandant, 2 CORPS, OMC, Ambala, Haryana-133001.
2. 23526354A-Lokesh S/o Suresh Kumar Age-33 yrs working as T/Mate.
3. 23526933M-Pardeep S/o Jai Parkash Age-32 yrs working as T/Mate.
4. 23527164A-Pintu S/o Mohan Lal Age-32 yrs working as T/Mate.
5. 23532361F-Ajay S/o Ranbir Singh Age-33 yrs working as T/Mate.
6. 23535303N-Rohit S/o Ramesh Chander Age-31 yrs working as T/Mate.
7. 23529260N-Mainpal S/o Vedpal Age-32 yrs working as T/Mate.
8.
23523556W Sukhvir Singh S/o Milkhi Singh Age-44 yrs working as
T/Mate.
9. 23535902F Chandra Shekhar S/o Man Singh Age-22 yrs working as
T/Mate.
10. 23534898H-Pardeep S/o Karan Singh Age-25 yrs working as T/Mate.
11. 23533481X-Nikhil S/o Krishan Kumar Age-26 yrs working as T/Mate.
12. 23534883P-Sumit S/o Suresh Kumar Age-23 yrs working as T/Mate.
13. 23532331W Sunil Kumar S/o Ishwar Singh Age-27 yrs working as T/Mate.
14. 23534885M- Paras Yadav S/o Hariom Yadav Age-27 yrs working as
T/Mate.
15. 23533228W-Pankaj S/o Kuldeep Singh Age-27 yrs working as T/Mate.
16. 16.23534904M-Dipu Yadav S/o Radhe Shyam Yadav Age-27 yrs working
as T/Mate.
17. 23534897F-Sumit Chauhan S/o Lakhmi Singh Age-26 yrs working as
T/Mate.
18. 23534890X - Vikash Rao S/o Rakesh Rao Age-23 yrs working as T/Mate.
19. 23534896Y- Ramesh Kumar S/o Jhabar Mal Verma Age-23 yrs working as
T/Mate.
20. 23534895W-Vishnu S/o Mohan Shyam Age-23 yrs working as T/Mate.
21. 23528546W-Manjeet S/o Satyawan Age-30 yrs working as T/Mate.
22. 23534916F-Sonu S/o Satyanarayan Age-23 yrs working as T/Mate.
23. 23535327X-Babu Lal Jat S/o Narsa Ram Age-25 yrs working as T/Mate.
MANDEEP SINGH
MANDEEP SINGH

2

24. 23534915Y-Manjit Singh Parmar S/o Yashvir Singh Age-24 yrs working as
T/Mate.
25. 23534891A-Nikhil S/o Pawan Kumar Age-21 yrs working as T/Mate.
26. 23534886P-Jaiprakash S/o Brahmdev Age-26 yrs working as T/Mate.
27. 23534893L-Awdesh Kumar S/o Ramjanm Ram Age-25 yrs working as
T/Mate.
28. 23535328A Kuldeep Singh S/o Partap Singh Age-23 yrs working as
T/Mate.
29. 23534900W - Adrash Kumar S/o Ramashish Gond Age-24 yrs working as
T/Mate.
30.
23525066F Manoj Kumar S/o Surender Singh Age-36 yrs working as
T/Mate.
31. 23518628L-Hari Pal S/o Sadhu Age-56 yrs working as T/Mate.
32. 23527878N-Bajinder S/o Jai Kumar Age-31 yrs working as T/Mate.
33. 23534887X-Harikrishan S/o Chander Pal Age-26 yrs working as T/Mate.
34. 23533342N- Sonu Kumar S/o Sitaram Age-30 yrs working as T/Mate.
35. 23523558F- Jarnail S/o Roop Chand Age-43 yrs working as T/Mate.
36. 23528422F - Sandeep S/o Prem Singh Age-28 yrs working as T/Mate.
37. 23529048W - Suresh S/o Satvir Singh Age-30 yrs working as T/Mate.
All the applicants are working in the office of the Commandant, 2 CORPS,
OMC, Ambala, Haryana-133001.

(All the applicants are Group-C Civilian Employees & Industrial employees)

…Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. K.B Sharma)

VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, New
Delhi-110011. (E-Mail: [email protected]).
2. The Director General of Ordnance Services, Master General of Ordnances
Branch, Army HQ, DHQ, PO, New Delhi.
3. The Commandant, 2 CORPS, OMC, Ambala, Haryana-133001.
4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pay) Western Command, Sector - 9,
Chandigarh-160009.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)
MANDEEP SINGH
MANDEEP SINGH

3

O R D E R(Oral)

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):

1. This Original Application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief: -
(i) That the complete record of the case be called for.

(ii) That an appropriate direction be issued to the
respondents to grant Dress Allowance to the applicant
w.e.f. 01.07.2017 onwards and in future as well, etc
by extending them benefit of decision rendered by
the Tribunal in the case of in the case of Gurmit
Singh and Ors. vs UOI and Others , O.A. No.
1228/2019, allowed on 5.6.2020(Annexure A-6) and
upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court
vide order dated 4.10.2021, in the interest of justice.
(iii) That it be declared that the applicant is entitled to
benefit of Dress Allowance w.e.f. 1.7.2017 and in
future as well in terms of the O.M. dated 2.8.2017
and 31.08.2017 issued by Government of India along
with all consequential benefits like arrears etc.
2. The case of the applicants is that all the applicants are industrial
employees i.e. Trademan Mate (Industrial Staff) and is Group-C employee
under the control of respondent No. 3. The applicants are aggrieved by
the in action of the respondents for non-payment of Dress Allowance,
which was earlier known as Washing Allowance.
3. Prior to implementation of recommendations of 7th CPC, the Industrial
employees like applicants were provided Dangri (Dress) yearly and
Washing Allowance per month. But on the recommendations of 7th CPC,
MANDEEP SINGH
MANDEEP SINGH

4

the respondents stopped providing same to the employees like applicants.
The members of applicant-union continued to get Washing Allowance till
2017 and providing Dangri was stopped to them w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The
Government of India issued O.M. dated 02.08.2017 whereby a decision
was taken and existing orders relating to Uniform Related Allowance,
Washing Allowance etc. were subsumed in a single Dress Allowance
amounting to Rs. 5000/- per annum.
4. Subsequently, the Government of India issued O.M. dated 31.08.2017
whereby all the existing orders relating to admissibility of Uniform
Allowance/Washing Allowance etc. to common categories of Group-C and
erstwhile Group-D employees of various Ministries/ Department who are
supplied uniform and required to wear them regularly, they shall be paid
Dress Allowance @ Rs. 5000/- per year. In para 2 of the aforesaid O.M, it
has been clearly mentioned that the Uniform Allowance/ Washing
Allowance etc. have been subsumed in Dress Allowance. Since, the
members of applicant-union were supplied Dangri and were being paid
Washing Allowance, therefore, they are entitled to Dress Allowance as per
O.M.s issued by the Government of India.
5. The respondents issued Circular dated 02.08.2018 whereby all the Sub
Offices were directed to grant Dress-Allowance to the employees
(Industrial/ Non-Industrial) who are wearing Uniform and/or were
drawing Washing Allowance. In the aforesaid circular it has been
mentioned that the Dress Allowance is applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2017.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the identical issue
regarding entitlement of Industrial employees to Dress Allowance @
Rs.5000/- per annum has been considered and decided by this Tribunal in
a bunch of matters with leading case titled Gurmit Singh and Ors Vs.
MANDEEP SINGH
MANDEEP SINGH

5

Union of India & Others (O.A. No. 1228/2019 decided on 05.06.2020)
wherein the applicants (therein), who are similarly situated like the
applicant herein, have been held entitled to Dress Allowance and a
direction has been issued to respondents to refund the recovered amount
towards dress allowance. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of
Gurmit Singh (supra) has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 04.10.2021 in CWP No. 19317 of
2021 titled Union of India & ors Vs. Vinod Kumar and Others . It is
submitted that the similar issue has been decided by this Tribunal in case
of MES Worker’s Union, (Area Committee), Ambala through its
Branch President & Another vs Union of India and others, O.A
No.842/2020 and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.05.2022
directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Dress Allowance. It has
been submitted that the order dated 05.06.2020 of this Tribunal have
been implemented qua the applicants therein. The respondents, however,
have illegally denied the payment of dress allowance to the applicants
herein, who are similarly situated like the applicants in the case of
Gurmit Singh (supra). It has been prayed that the applicant being the
similarly situated like the applicants in the case of Gurmit Singh (supra)
be granted the benefit of decision dated 05.06.2020 in the case of
Gurmit Singh ( Supra), as affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana. It is further submitted that one of the units of the
respondents’ department issued a letter dated 23.08.2022, wherein, it
has been clearly mentioned that the benefit of Dress Allowance has been
restricted to the applicants in the O.As decided on 05.06.2020 and not to
others and the applicants being similarly situated are denied the benefit.
MANDEEP SINGH
MANDEEP SINGH

6

7. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the
applicants and submitted that no dress allowance will be paid to the
industrial person who was entitled to Dangris.
8. I have gone through the pleadings and perused the decision of this
Tribunal in the case of Gurmit Singh (supra) and judgment dated
04.10.2021 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the
C.W.P. No. 19317/2021 challenging the decision of this Tribunal. The
applicants herein are similarly situated like the applicants in the case of
Gurmit Singh (supra), who have already been granted the benefit of
dress allowance, therefore, the respondents cannot deny the similar
benefit to the applicants herein, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Satbir Singh
Vs. State of Haryana , 2002 (2) SCT 354.
9. In view of the above facts and law position on the issue, the present
Original Application is disposed of with a direction to respondents to
decide the claim of applicants for grant of Dress Allowance in the light of
the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Gurmit Singh (supra) and grant
them the relevant benefits, within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.

(SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
Member (J)
ms*

MANDEEP SINGH
MANDEEP SINGH