Tailor's Trade Categorized as Skilled Workman; Financial Benefits Restricted to Three Years Prior to OA Filing.

The applicant, Gajender Singh, was appointed as a Tailor on October 1, 1994, in the pay scale of Rs 750-940 and was posted to various Military Hospitals, currently at 176 MH Sriganganagar since June 14, 1999.

He initially filed OA No. 358/2018 seeking the pay scale of skilled workmen, relying on judgments like Smt. Bhagwati v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 1425/2007.

His first OA was disposed of with a direction to file a detailed representation, which he did on April 25, 2022.

The respondents rejected his claim via a speaking order dated July 19, 2022 (Annex. A/1), stating that as per SRO-73 dated February 17, 1968, and Ministry of Defence letter dated October 15, 1984, the job of Tailor was not included in the skilled grade, and the cited judgments did not examine these specific rules.

Whether the respondents' rejection of the applicant's claim to be treated as a skilled workman, despite judicial precedents, was proper.

Whether the trade of Tailor should be categorized as a skilled trade for pay scale purposes.

The court primarily applied the principle of judicial mandate and adherence to precedents.

It relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Smt. Bhagwati v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 1425/2007 decided on August 19, 2010, which held that the trade of Tailor should be classified as skilled workmen.

This judgment affirmed the view taken by the Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 158/1994 decided on October 19, 1995.

The court found that the respondents' rejection of the applicant's claim was illegal, arbitrary, and against constitutional provisions because they disregarded a clear judicial precedent from the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court, after considering the categorization of posts and the Ministry of Defence letter dated October 15, 1984, had definitively ruled that the trade of Tailor falls into the skilled category.

The Tribunal emphasized that it was the respondents' bounden duty to follow the legal principles enunciated by higher courts when deciding representations, especially when directed by the Tribunal in prior litigation.

By sticking to the non-inclusion of Tailor in the skilled category in the 1984 letter, the respondents failed to comply with the judicial decision regarding the nature of a Tailor's work.

The Tribunal also implicitly rejected the respondents' argument about the delay in filing the OA by allowing for financial benefits retrospective to three years before the first OA.

The speaking order dated July 19, 2022 (Annex. A/1) passed by Lt Gen, DGMS (Army) was quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to treat the applicant's trade as skilled category from the beginning and grant him the corresponding pay scale as given to similarly situated employees.

However, the financial benefits due to this re-fixation of pay were restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of OA No. 358/2018.