Similarly situated industrial employees are entitled to Dress Allowance under established precedent.

The 37 applicants are Group ‘C’ civilian and industrial employees working as Tradesman Mates in the office of the Commandant, 2 Corps, Ordnance Maintenance Company, Ambala.

Before implementation of the Seventh Central Pay Commission recommendations, employees similarly situated to the applicants were supplied Dangris/uniforms and paid Washing Allowance. Supply of Dangris was discontinued with effect from 1 January 2016, while Washing Allowance continued until 2017.

The Government of India issued Office Memoranda dated 2 August 2017 and 31 August 2017, subsuming Uniform Allowance and Washing Allowance into Dress Allowance of ₹5,000 per annum for eligible Group ‘C’ and erstwhile Group ‘D’ employees who were supplied uniforms and required to wear them regularly.

Relying on the Tribunal’s decision in Gurmit Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 1228/2019, decided on 5 June 2020, which was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 4 October 2021, and on the Tribunal’s decision in MES Workers’ Union (Area Committee), Ambala v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 842/2020, the applicants sought Dress Allowance with effect from 1 July 2017 and consequential arrears.

1. Whether the applicants, being industrial Group ‘C’ employees who had been supplied Dangris and/or paid Washing Allowance, were entitled to Dress Allowance under the Government of India Office Memoranda dated 2 August 2017 and 31 August 2017 with effect from 1 July 2017

2. Whether the respondents could deny the applicants the benefit of the Tribunal’s decision in Gurmit Singh, when the applicants were similarly situated to the employees who had already received that benefit

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicants invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

It relied on the Government of India Office Memoranda dated 2 August 2017 and 31 August 2017, which consolidated existing Uniform Allowance and Washing Allowance into Dress Allowance of ₹5,000 per annum for eligible employees supplied uniforms and required to wear them regularly.

The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Gurmit Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 1228/2019, decided on 5 June 2020, as upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 4 October 2021, and referred to MES Workers’ Union (Area Committee), Ambala v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 842/2020, decided on 20 May 2022.

It further applied the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated employees recognised by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) SCT 354, holding that employees similarly situated to those who had secured relief could not be denied the same benefit.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were industrial employees working as Tradesman Mates and were similarly situated to the employees covered by Gurmit Singh.

The relevant Office Memoranda expressly subsumed Washing Allowance and other uniform-related allowances into Dress Allowance, while the departmental circular dated 2 August 2018 recognised its applicability from 1 July 2017.

Although the respondents argued that employees entitled to Dangris were excluded, the Tribunal considered that contention insufficient to justify differential treatment, particularly because the benefit had already been granted to similarly situated employees pursuant to the earlier Tribunal decision, which had been upheld by the High Court.

Applying the principle that similarly situated employees must receive equal treatment, the Tribunal held that the respondents could not deny the applicants consideration and consequential benefits on the same basis.

The respondents were directed to examine and decide the applicants’ claim for Dress Allowance in light of the Tribunal’s decision in Gurmit Singh and to grant the applicants the relevant benefits within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The order did not itself quantify or directly award arrears but required the respondents to determine and extend the admissible benefits in accordance with the applicable precedent. No order as to costs was made.