Jaspal Singh vs Union of India and Others

Surya Kant, J.—Notice of motion to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 only at this stage. On our asking, Mr. Arun Gosain, learned standing counsel for Union of India accepts notice on their behalf.

Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to learned counsel for Union of India during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from respondent Nos. 1 to 4 or to serve respondent No. 5 at this stage.

The petitioner impugns the order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby his Original Application seeking a direction for revision of pay-scale on the basis of recommendations said to have been made by the Anomaly Committee, has been dismissed on the ground that the directions are not binding upon the Competent Authority.

It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner joined as Laboratory Technician in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs. 330-560. As per the revised pay-scales granted to paramedical staff w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the petitioner was entitled to and granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 but the authorities later on withdrew that pay-scale and reduced the same to Rs. 1200-2040. The petitioner approached the Tribunal but his Original Application was rejected on the ground that the matter was under consideration before the Anomaly Committee whose report was still awaited.

The further case of the petitioner is that the Anomaly Committee later on submitted its report recommending the grant of higher pay-scale. The petitioner represented the authorities for implementation of those recommendations but finding no response, he approached the Tribunal.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The Tribunal is right to the extent that mere recommendations made by the Pay Anomaly Committee are not binding on the Government nor such recommendations clothe an employee with a legally indefeasible right to seek the revised pay scale as may have been recommended by such Committee. However, once the authorities chose to constitute an Anomaly Committee who as expert body and if such Committee has made certain recommendations, it appears to us that the Competent Authority needs to consider those recommendations and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. In other words, while the Court would not give a direction to implement the recommendations made by the Anomaly Committee, it would certainly be within its jurisdictional ambit to direct the authorities to take a decision on such recommendations. We, thus, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that if there is any recommendation made by the Anomaly Committee, let the same be considered and a decision be taken within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.