Facts
The six applicants are industrial employees (Ref Mech, V/Mech, P/Ftr, etc.) working for the Military Engineer Services (MES) in Kanpur.
Source reference: p. 1, 3Prior to the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC), they received uniforms and washing allowances.
Source reference: p. 3Following the 7th CPC and Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 02.08.2017, these allowances were subsumed into a composite Dress Allowance of ₹5,000 per annum.
Source reference: p. 3While initially granted this allowance for 2017–2020, the respondents later directed the recovery of these payments via letters dated 15.11.2019, claiming the entitlement of MES industrial employees was undecided.
Source reference: p. 3-4Several Benches of the Tribunal (Chandigarh and Guwahati) subsequently quashed similar recovery orders and directed the grant of the allowance.
Source reference: p. 4The applicants’ previous O.A. No. 1084/2024 resulted in a direction to the respondents to consider their claim, but they were denied relief on the grounds that they were not parties to a specific related case (O.A. No. 618/2024).
Source reference: p. 5The applicants filed the present O.A. after their representations dated 12.02.2025 and 10.04.2026 remained pending.
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the Dress Allowance @ ₹5,000 per annum w.e.f. 01.07.2017 in light of prevailing OMs and judicial precedents.
Source reference: p. 22. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the pending representations of the applicants in a time-bound manner.
Source reference: p. 5-6Law Applied
Government of India, Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 02.08.2017 and DoPT O.M. No. 14/4/2015-JCA 2 dated 31.08.2017, which implemented the 7th CPC recommendations regarding Dress Allowance.
Source reference: p. 3, 5Principle of parity and stare decisis based on Gurmit Singh & Others v. Union of India (OA No. 1228/2019, CAT Chandigarh) and UP Area MES Mazdoor Sangh v. Union of India (OA No. 1084/2024, CAT Allahabad), which established that similarly situated employees are entitled to the allowance and that arbitrary recovery without a hearing is impermissible.
Source reference: p. 4, 6Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the applicants are seeking benefits already recognized by various coordinates Benches, including the Chandigarh, Guwahati, Mumbai, and Jaipur Benches, for similarly situated MES employees.
Source reference: p. 4The applicants restricted their prayer during the hearing, requesting only a direction for the respondents to decide their representations in light of the aforementioned OMs and the specific judgment in UP Area MES Mazdoor Sangh.
Source reference: p. 5-6The respondents did not object to this limited prayer.
Source reference: p. 6Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the merits of the entitlement did not need to be adjudicated at this stage if the competent authority was directed to pass a reasoned order based on settled legal positions.
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application without entering into the merits, directing the Respondents/competent authority to decide the applicants’ representations dated 12.02.2025 and reminders dated 10.04.2026.
The decision must be made in light of the DoPT O.M. dated 31.08.2017 and the judgment in O.A. No. 1084/2024 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months.
Source reference: p. 6-7No order was made as to costs.
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
Ram Sharan and othervsM/O DEFENCE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in