AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
(i)Quash the order GCCO/11/24/PFXN/3/2023-ACCTS-PCCO-BZ dated 17.10.2024, Annexure 'A9', issued by the Respondent 3, as not lawful and as violative of Article 14/16 of the Constitution;
(ii)Declare F. No. dated Order A-23011/66/2021-Ad.IIA 10.04.2023, Annexure-A5, issued by Respondent No.1 instructing Respondent 3 to make the Judgement & Order dated 31.07.2021, Annexure 'A3', passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 33038-39/2016 to be personam, as violative of Article 141 of the Constitution and as such, the same is null and void;
(iii)Direct Respondent 3 to step up the pay of the Applicant in PB-2 + Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/-vis-à-vis his Junior with effect from the date the same is granted to his Junior with all consequential benefits including Pension benefits. and,
(iv)grant such other relief(s) including all consequential benefits including arrears and interest thereon as deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
The issue involved herein is no longer res-integra, in view of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.69/2023 and connected matters dated 20.12.2024 (R.S.Venkataram and others vs. Union of India and others).
This Tribunal elaborately considering the case of Shri C.R.Madhava Murthy and another vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition No.33038 & 33039 of 2016 (S-CAT) dated 31.07.2021, confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2087-2088 of 2022 reported in (2022) 6 SCC 183 (DD:06.04.2022) as well as Review Petition(C) Nos.314-315/2023 (Diary No.2034/2023) in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.2087-2088 of 2022, observed thus:
“11.The only difference between the case of Shri.C.R.Madhava Murthy and Another v. Union of India and Others and these cases are that the Madhava Murthy’s case pertains to the Assured Career Progression Scheme for the central government civilian employees issued vide O.M No.35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 9.8.1999 and the present case pertains to Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme for the central government civilian employees issued vide OM No.35034/3/2008.Estt(D) dated 19.5.2009. Also the differences that in the C.R.Madhava Murthy’s case, the applicants were joined as Lower Division Clerks in 1973 and they wanted parity with a person called Shri.C.K.Satish who was appointed as Inspector of Central Excise and Customs as a direct recruit and another Shri.B.S.Srikant who was also direct recruit Inspector of Central Excise and Customs and just before their promotion to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, the applicants therein were seniors to these direct recruitees. And as the direct recruitees got ACP due to which their salaries were consequentially more than the applicants and hence the applicants asked for parity and which although at Tribunal level was denied, which at other levels, i.e., at the Hon’ble High Court, and Hon’ble Supreme Court were granted. Hence, the applicants also in this case asked for similar benefits. They are emphasizing that their case is on a better footing as they are in identical position to their juniors. They are all direct recruits and are similarly placed persons (In O.A 69/2023 and 525/2022, applicants joined as Inspectors, except while in O.A 493/2022, applicants joined as Lower Division Clerks).
12.We have gone through the records to satisfy ourselves that whether the facts of the case before us have similarity to the facts and law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the C.R.Madhava Murthy’s case. Another difference between these three cases is that the respondents had actually given the benefit and passed some orders in some cases, which were later rescinded and in one case benefits were also paid to the applicant, and later it was recovered from the applicant in the case of Shri.MA Sreenath in O.A No.525/2022 vide Annexure A-5. Barring these minor differences, the facts of all these three cases do not differ.”
Further referring to the provisions in MACP OM dated 19.05.2009, it has been observed thus:
“15.The respondents emphatically claim that because of this provision in the MACP O.M dated 19.05.2009, which has not been discussed or set aside by the Hon’ble High Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of parity with a person who had got the benefit of MACP by the applicants is not justified, and the case of C.R.Madhava Murthy in respondent’s considered opinion remains a case in personam and it cannot be taken as a precedent to give the benefit to others as no law point has been decided nor its expressed provision in the O.M is set aside.
16.The respondents further pointed out that similar provisions were there in the case of Assured Career Progression Scheme also and they pointed out that in the O.M No.35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 9th August, 1999 with the subject ‘The Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government Civilian Employees’, for grant of benefits under the ACP scheme, condition no.8 reads as follows:
“8.The financial upgradation under the ACP scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position. As such, there shall be no additional financial upgradation for the senior employee on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got higher pay scale under the ACP scheme;”
17.The respondents further emphasized that this condition 8 also has not been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, in the considered opinion of the respondents the case of C.R.Madhava Murthy quoted supra cannot be considered as a judgment in rem to be applicable to other cases i.e., an exceptional case based on the facts and circumstances of the case of the C.R.Madhava Murthy’s case and the order was in personam only and not in rem. And as these provisions still hold good and have not been set aside by the said orders of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court, the cases of the applicants herein are governed by these provisions and they do not have any case for claiming parity with their juniors who had got the ACP benefit which is purely personal to the employee and it shall have no relevance to the seniority position. The applicants could not show us anything contrary to what was asserted by the respondents in the preceding few paragraphs.
18.The respondents have further emphasized that C.R.Madhava Murthy’s case is purportedly decided based on reference to Fundamental Rule 22 of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules, which reads the following: ……………………………………………………………….”
Further 14 SLPs pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court also being considered, the details of which are mentioned in Para-20 of the said order as under:
“1.SLP (Civil) NO. 33259 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Ram Lakhan Meena
2.SLP (Civil) NO. 35001 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Anr.
3.SLP (Civil) NO. 34997 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Hari Narayan Koli
4.SLP (Civil) NO. 35000 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Sanjay Mathur
5.SLP (Civil) NO. 36450 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Chand Sharma
6.SLP (Civil) NO. 32992 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Girvar Singh Rathore
7.SLP (Civil) NO. 34999 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Mendiratta
8.SLP (Civil) NO. 34998 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Sumat Prakash Jain
9.SLP (Civil) NO. 35002 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Vipin Gupta
10.SLP (Civil) NO. 34996 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Girdhari Lal Mangal
11.SLP (Civil) NO. 33512 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Rukma Nand Swami
12.SLP (Civil) NO. 36448 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Giriraj Prasad Gupta
13.SLP (Civil) NO. 37709 of 2016 Chief Commissioner & Anr. Vs. Rekha Bargava & Ors.
14.SLP (Civil) NO. 35004 of 2016 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Radheshyam Sharma & Anr. ”
Resultantly, in Paras 23 and 24, it is held thus:
“23.In the light of the above discussions and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment dated 31.7.2021 in Writ Petition No. 33038 & 33039 of 2016 (S-CAT) in the case of Shri.C.R.Madhava Murthy and Another v. Union of India and Others which was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2087-88 of 2022, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 183, decided on 6.4.2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the said High Court’s judgment and further the said apex court’s judgment was upheld by dismissing the Review Petition (c) No.OD No.2034/2023 in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.2087-2088 of 2022 on 21.2.2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, all the three Original Applications are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicants on par with their respective junior from time to time and grant the arrears of pay up to the date of retirement of the applicants along with other consequential benefits. Recovery, if any already made, the said amounts can be given back to the said applicant.
24.However as emphatically mentioned by the respondents that C.R.Madhava Murthy’s case is in personam only and condition 8 of either ACP or condition 10 of MACP mentioned clearly in the respective O.Ms are not set aside, and they still remain intact, hence this order remains subject to the decisions in the SLPs as mentioned in paragraph 20 above. “
In the light of the decision taken by us as above, the applicant herein is entitled to similar relief. Uniformity and Consistency being the hallmark of judicial decisions, we have no reason to take a different view in this case.
Resultantly, OA stands disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) in OA No.69/2023 and connected matters (DD: 20.12.2024) (R.S.Venkataram and others vs. Union of India and others).
No order as to costs.