K.K. Joy vs Union Of India & Others

Sunil Thomas, Member J

The applicant commenced his service as a Tradesman (Skilled) on 15.11.1983. His junior one Mr. Sasidharan M.K. commenced his service as Tradesman (Skilled) on 22.12.1986. Both were promoted as Tradesman Highly Skilled Grade-II on 1.11.1988 and 12.4.1989 respectively. Consequent to the Vth Central Pay Commission, both the grades of Tradesman Highly Skilled Grade-II and Tradesman Highly Skilled Grade-I were merged in Tradesman Highly Skilled (TMHS) and both were placed in the merged category.

On 1.2.2004 the applicant was placed as Master Craftsman (MCM) in higher pay scale. Later, on 23.6.2006 applicant and Mr. Sasidharan M.K. were promoted as Chargeman. However, with effect from 1.1.2006 the merged cadre of TMHS was again bifurcated to TMHS-II and TMHS-I. Consequently the junior to the applicant was placed as TMHS-I as on 1.1.2006. He was appointed as MCM with effect from 24.1.2006, consequent to increase in the number of posts of MCM due to restructuring. The pay of the junior in the cadre of Craftsman as on 23.6.2006 was increased due to the intermediary fixation of pay granted to him. The appointments were made with retrospective effect with effect from 7.11.2011.

Claiming that the junior of the applicant was receiving higher pay, he submitted Annexure A2 representation which was rejected by Annexure A4. Annexure A5 was subsequent representation submitted by him which was also not accepted by the authority. Consequently the applicant has approached this Tribunal with a prayer to direct the respondents to step up the pay with effect from 1.7.2006 with all consequential benefits including the pay and allowances with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on delayed payment.

The respondents appeared and filed a reply statement traversing various allegations and disputing the right to claim stepping up. It was stated in the statement that Artisan cadre in the Indian Navy was restructured retrospectively with effect from 1.1.2008 consequent to the implementation of the VIth Central Pay Commission. Accordingly, industrial employees were granted promotion to the respective grades of Highly Skilled Grade-II, Highly Skilled Grade-I, Master Craftsman and Chargeman under relaxed standards as a onetime measure and granted fixation benefits as applicable. The respondents relied on Annexure R-1 to support it. However, individual who were already promoted as Highly Skilled to Chargeman were not to be taken into consideration for restructuring as they were already placed in the non-industrial cadre. However, those who were granted promotion to the post of MCM on or after 1.1.2006 were given additional increment for the reason that the MCM and Chargemen were carrying the same Grade Pay. It has resulted in disparity wherein those employees who were already promoted to the post of Chargemen prior to 1.1.2006 received only one fixation i.e. from Highly Skilled to Chargeman, whereas those employees who were promoted to the post of MCM retrospectively were granted financial benefits on the basis of their promotion. This led to a situation of juniors drawing higher pay than their seniors, who got their promotion.

Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision reported in Gurcharan Singh Grewal & Anr. v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. – (2009) 3 SCC 94 to contend that in a situation wherein the senior was paid lesser salary than his junior resulting in disparity in wages, it warranted stepping up. The learned counsel to further buttress the argument referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac (2022) 2 KLT 536 and in Director, National Institute of Technology Calicut & Ors. v. Dr. Muraleedharan C. & Ors. – 2020 SCC Online Ker 1755.

There is no dispute that both the persons belong to the same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted or appointed are identical. It is also not disputed that the scales of pay to the lower and higher post in which they are entitled to draw are also identical. This resulted in a situation wherein junior draw more salary than senior. The anomaly is patent and is liable to be rectified. Consequently, the applicant is entitled for an order of stepping up.

Thought it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that he is entitled for the benefit with effect from 1.7.2006 with all consequential benefits with interest, the learned counsel for the respondents relying on the decision reported in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh – (2008) 8 SCC 648 contended that if at the relief of interest is granted, the period has to be limited to three years period preceding the filing of application. It was contended that the Original Application was filed only in 2018 and hence the claim for benefits with effect from 1.7.2006 cannot be granted.

It seems that immediately on this anomaly Annexure A2 representation was submitted which was rejected by Annexure A3 reply. The applicant seems to have been pursuing his remedies thereafter. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it was a recurring and continuing wrong and thereby the question of limitation will not apply. However, Annexure A3 was passed in 2014. He approached this Tribunal only in 2018. Having considered this, we are inclined to partly uphold the contention of the applicant and to direct to clear the anomaly with effect from 1.7.2006, with all consequential benefits thereon. The above shall be computed and paid to the applicant with 6% interest calculated for 3 years prior to the filing of OA, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Original Application is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs.