AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs:
"i. The record of the case may be called for.
ii. The impugned judgment dated 17.12.2018 in review application No.2/2012 (Annex-P/2) to the extent of directing the respondents to work out the applicant's salary on the basis of merger on 09.02.1996 be declared illegal and the respondents be directed to treat the date of merger as 01.01.1996 instead of 09.02.1996.
iii. That the respondents shall further be directed to make the payment of salary as per the pay fixation dated 27.01.1997 (Annex.-8 to the TA) with all the consequential benefits.
iv. That the respondents may further be directed to refund the recovery made on account of wrong fixation from the salary of the petitioner."
Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3181/2007 (Sh.A.N. Ram Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.) before this Hon'ble Court against the respondents seeking his pay fixation which was made on 27.01.1997 (Annexure-8 to that writ petition) under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, and also sought the relief to quash the orders dated 09.03.2007 (Annexures 11 and 11-A of the said writ petition).
During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the controversy raised by the petitioner was decided by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No.262/2002 (R.L. Mahajan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) vide its judgment dated 24.09.2008, whereby it was held that the merger of two cadres i.e. JTOs and Assistants (Assistant Superintendent Telegraphic Traffic) shall be given effect to with effect from 01.01.1996 in the revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500.
In the meanwhile, due to the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, the aforementioned writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Jodhpur and was registered as Transfer Application No.2/2011, and the learned Tribunal, while allowing the transfer application, quashed the refixation order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal, while allowing the aforesaid transfer application relied upon the aforementioned judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court, but in the concluding para, the date of merger was mentioned as 09.02.1996 and the consequential benefits were ordered to be given on the basis of merger on 09.02.1996, whereas the benefits were to be given w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, made a limited submission that the date of applicability of the fixation in accordance with the impugned order was to be 01.01.1996 instead of 09.02.1996.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in accordance with Annexure-8, as mentioned above, which has to be made applicable as per the impugned order, itself speaks of applicability of the refixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions.
Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
This Court, looking into the limited submission, disposes of the present petition, while clarifying that in the impugned order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Transfer Application No.02/2011, the salary of the present petitioner shall be fixed on the basis of the merger on 09.02.1996, in accordance with the above-referred Annexure-8, with effect from 01.01.1996 which is also according to the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment. All pending applications also stand disposed of.