Kailash Narain Saini vs Secretary

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant joined the service of the Directorate of Printing, Ministry of Urban Development, as Mechanic in the year 1985. Since he did not earn promotion to the next higher post for a period of 12 years, he was extended the benefit of first ACP and was put in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000/- with a Grade Pay of Rs.2800, through an order dated 09.08.1999. Four years thereafter, he earned regular promotion as Head Mechanic and was continued in the same scale of pay and Grade Pay. Thereafter, the second MACP was extended to him w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and third MACP w.e.f. 29.07.2015.

The applicant contends that the Government issued orders in the year 2009, enhancing the pay scale for the post of Mechanic from Rs.4000-6000/- to Rs.4500-7000/-, on par with the pay scale for the post of Head Mechanic, with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. He contends that the respondents were under obligation to correct the anomaly that came into existence on account of fixation of the same scale of pay for the post of Head Mechanic and its feeder post, the Mechanic.

The respondents filed counter affidavit in the OA. It is stated that consequent upon the recommendations of the 6 th CPC, 50% of the posts of the Mechanic were upgraded in terms of pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2800, and by the time such decision was taken, the applicant has already moved to the second MACP in the year 2008. According to them, the so called anomaly was on account of the upgradation of the post of Mechanic one the one hand, and retention of the same pay scale to the post of Head Mechanic, on the other.

We heard Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

It is not in dispute that the pay scale for the post of Mechanic at the relevant point of time was Rs.4000-6000/. The applicant was extended the benefit of first ACP and he was put in the scale of Rs.4500-7000 with Grade Pay of Rs.2800. To that extent, the applicant did not have any grievance.

Through an order dated 20.11.2009, the respondents have upgraded 50% of the posts of Mechanic to Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2800. However, the corresponding change in the pay scale for the post of Head Mechanic was not undertaken. In the table furnished in the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that for the post of Mechanic also, the pay scale was enhanced from Rs.4000-6000/- to Rs.4500-7000/-. With this, a situation emerges wherein the promotional post and its feeder category post carried the same pay scale and the Grade Pay. A clear anomaly comes into existence.

It is no doubt true that by the time a decision to that effect was taken, the applicant has moved to 2nd MACP. The fact, however, remains that he continued to hold the post of Head Mechanic. He certainly has a genuine grievance, if a feeder post is carrying the same pay scale. However, in the context of granting relief, the Tribunal has its own limitations, and the matters of this nature needs to be dealt with by the expert agencies of the Department itself.

We, therefore, allow the OA and direct the respondents herein, to take necessary steps to correct the anomaly in the pay structure for the post of Mechanic on the one hand, and the Head Mechanic on the other, in the department and to ensure that the promotional post i.e. Head Mechanic carries a higher pay scale, compared to its feeder category. The exercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We leave it open to the applicant to make a necessary representation in this behalf, duly enclosing the relevant material.

There shall be no order as to costs.