CAT - ['Chennai']Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

CAT Directs Dress Allowance for 71 MES Employees, Quashes Challenged Order and Sets One-Month Deadline

K Manikandanv.DEFENCE

CAT Directs Dress Allowance for 71 MES Employees, Quashes Challenged Order and Sets One-Month Deadline. K Manikandan vs DEFENCE. CAT - ['Chennai']. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants, as similarly placed MES employees, were entitled to dress allowance in accordance with the Tribunal’s earlier orders in OA Nos. 1413 and 1872 of 2024.

The court held

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the third respondent’s order dated 27 January 2026 and directed the respondents to grant dress allowance to the applicants within one month of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

The OA was allowed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicants, described as industrial employees of the Military Engineering Services (MES), challenged the third respondent’s order dated 27 January 2026.

p. 3

They sought dress allowance of ₹5,000 per annum from 1 July 2017, arrears with 12% interest, and parity with MES employees covered by earlier Tribunal orders.

p. 3

They relied particularly on the Tribunal’s orders in OA Nos. 1413 and 1872 of 2024, which directed dress allowance for the applicants in those matters and similarly placed MES industrial employees and Group-C employees.

pp. 3–4

The applicants submitted that those orders had been implemented.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants, as similarly placed MES employees, were entitled to dress allowance in accordance with the Tribunal’s earlier orders in OA Nos. 1413 and 1872 of 2024.

pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether the third respondent’s order dated 27 January 2026 should be set aside as contrary to those earlier directions.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in OA Nos. 1413 and 1872 of 2024, which directed the respondents to grant dress allowance to the applicants in those cases and similarly placed MES industrial staff and Group-C employees.

p. 4

That decision reasoned, among other things, that the absence of a policy decision and piecemeal implementation of Tribunal orders raised concerns of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution; it also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No. 1943/2022.

p. 4

In the present order, the Tribunal relied on that earlier direction and its stated application to similarly placed employees.

p. 5

04Reasoning

The Tribunal accepted that the applicants were similarly placed to the MES employees covered by the earlier orders and noted the submission that those orders had been implemented.

p. 4

Applying the view it had already taken, the Tribunal held that these applicants were entitled to dress allowance and found the impugned order to be contrary to its earlier direction.

p. 5

It did not separately determine the applicants’ specific claims for arrears from 1 July 2017 or 12% interest in the operative order.

p. 3, 5

05Holding

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the third respondent’s order dated 27 January 2026 and directed the respondents to grant dress allowance to the applicants within one month of receiving a copy of the order.

p. 5

The OA was allowed, with no order as to costs.

p. 5
CAT - ['Chennai']

Original Court PDF

K ManikandanvsDEFENCE

CAT - ['Chennai'] · October 14, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment