Dr. N. John Chellappan vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -

The applicant was appointed as a Processing Assistant under the 3^rd respondent on 18.4.1980. His scale of pay from 1.1.1996 was fixed at Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. The 1^st ACP in the scale of pay of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- was granted to him from 9.8.1999 on completion of 12 years of service in the same grade. On completion of 24 years of service, on 17.4.2004, the applicant was considered for the 2^nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- which was granted to him from 18.4.2004. On completion of 30 years of service on 17.4.2010, the case of the applicant was considered for the 3^rd MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600/- with effect from 18.4.2010. It seems that there were several proceedings by which initially he was not granted the benefits on the basis of the grading in his ACRs. After a long drawn litigation, the 3^rd MACP was granted to him in Pay Band-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600/- with effect from 18.4.2010.

While so, alleging that there was anomaly in the grant of the benefits under the Scheme, the applicant submitted Annexure A2 representation dated 10.1.2018. The applicant placed reliance on the OM of the DoP&T dated 19.5.2009. He placed reliance on clause 5 of Annexure I of Annexure A1 Scheme. Placing reliance on the above provision, as well as the illustrations ‘A’ and ‘B’ it was contended that the promotion/upgradation granted under the ACP to the pre-revised scales of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- and Rs. 6,500-10,500/- prior to 1.1.2006, will be ignored on account of merger of three revised scales of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-, Rs. 5,500-9,000/- and Rs. 6,500-10,500/- as recommended by the VI^th CPC. Accordingly, it was contended that the 1^st ACP sanctioned from Rs. 5,000-8,000/- to Rs. 6,500-10,500/-was nullified/ignored/merged to a single grade as the VI^th CPC recommendation with effect from 1.1.2006. According to him he lost the first/one ACP benefit and was sanctioned only two ACP/MACP benefits in his whole service. So he claimed that the Government has to sanction another ACP/MACP to the next higher level with effect from 18.4.2010, with all consequential benefits at the time of completion of 30 years of service. Accordingly, he claimed that he may be sanctioned the 3^rd MACP in the pay scale of Rs. 37,400-67,000/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 8,700/- with all consequential benefits, claiming that he lost the 1^st ACP based on Annexure A1 OM. He claimed the benefit with effect from 18.4.2010. It seems that few representations were submitted by him claiming the same relief, which was declined by Annexures A4, A5 and R2 replies.

Aggrieved by the above the applicant has approached this Tribunal with the prayers, inter alia, as follows:

The specific case set up by the applicant is placing reliance on clause 5 of Annexure I of Annexure A1, the OM dated 19.5.2009. It states as follows:

Relying on their detailed reply statement it was contended by the respondents that the applicant was demanding the 3^rd MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 8,700/- in consequence of merging of three pay scales of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-, Rs. 5,500-9,000/- and Rs. 6,500-10,500/- because he was granted benefit of 1^st ACP in the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. According to the respondents, applicant was appointed as Processing Assistant on 18.4.1980 on regular basis. The scale of pay of the post on 1.1.2006 was Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/- and he was granted the 1^st financial upgradation under the ACP scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/- with effect from 9.8.1999. The claim of the applicant was that he lost the 1^st ACP which was sanctioned to him from the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- to Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. It was contended that as per OM No. 1/1/20081C of the Department of Expenditure dated 13.11.2000 the scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-and scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- did not merge in the CPC. The respondents placed reliance on the above OM, which is produced as Annexure R3.

Paragraph 3 of Annexure R3 reads as follows:

It is clear from the above that as per Annexure R3 the scale of pay of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- and Rs. 6,500-10,500/- did not merge in the 6^th CPC. Evidently, the applicant was proceeding on the basis of Annexure A1 alone. In the light of subsequent OM, Annexure R3, it is clear that the applicant was claiming a relief on the basis of a misconception. Though the applicant has claimed that similar benefits have been granted to other persons, there was absolutely no material to show that he was similarly placed as that of the persons with whom he sought comparison.

The above stand seems to have been conveyed to him by Annexure A5 dated 15.3.2019. Though Annexure A5 is cryptic and does not give actual reason for declining the relief, sought by the applicant, it is clear from the earlier reply given to him as Annexure R3. In the light of the above, though the reply given to him which are impugned as Annexure A5 as well as Annexure R2 does not clearly state the reasons, in the light of Annexure R3 it is clear that the applicant is not entitled for any benefit as sought for. It seems that the DoP&T was also consulted before taking a decision on this.

On an evaluation of entire facts we find no ground for interference. The OA fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.