AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri S.K. Singh Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Sharma holding brief of Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
“(i)Issue an order or direction to respondents to set aside the impugned order dated 10.03.2021 passed by respondent No.3.
(ii)Issue an order or direction to the respondents to give arrear of differences to the applicant since the date, it occurred, with all consequential benefits with 18% interest.
(iii)Issue an order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(iv)Award cost in the favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Class IV on 29.01.1986 under the respondent No.3. Thereafter, he was promoted as LDC on Adhoc basis on 28-09-1995. In pursuance of order dated 08-03-2006 passed by Hon'ble C.A.T Allahabad in O.A. No. 193 of 2003 M.K. Gupta Vs. Union of India and order of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, the applicant has given regular seniority from 21-06-1996. Vide letter dated 25/31-10-2017, a seniority list of the LDC has been published by respondent No.2, in which the applicant’s name was arrayed at Sl. No.17. That applicant being a senior to Mr. Prem Prakash, LDC, Lucknow Bench, still used to get less salary than. Mr. Prem Prakash, LDC who is getting total salary of Rs. 63565/- as per his pay slip dated 20-02- 2020 while the applicant is getting total salary of Rs. 53444/- as per pay slip dated 24-02-2020. When, it came to the knowledge of the applicant about this mistake of the department, he preferred a representation dated 13-08-2020 to the respondents through proper channel in which it was mentioned about the pay anomalies and requested to remove the same. Vide order dated 10-03-2021, the respondent No.3 rejected the claim of applicant stating that he has not fulfilled the conditions of stepping up. It is submitted that the impugned order is a Cryptic order as for stepping up anomalies would apply for the same cadre. It is also submitted that both employees belong to the same cadre. Earlier both were IV Class. Later on both were promoted in LDC. Pay scale of both employees in earlier grade was same and in the LDC cadre, the applicant is senior from Mr. Prem Prakash from the date of appointment. It is also submitted that it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no senior can get less pay than his junior. Hence, the applicant is entitled to get equal pay to his junior. Therefore, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to remove the pay anomalies and give salary equal to his junior Mr. Prem Prakash, LDC in the interest of justice. Hence, this OA.
In their counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that the applicant was appointed as Peon on 29.01.1986 and promoted as LDC on 21.06.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.950-1400/-. He got 2nd ACP/MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 (Rs. 2000/-GP) and 3rd MACP w.e.f. 29.01.2016 and where as Prem Prakash of Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench was appointed as Peon on 25.09.1986. He was appointed as Sr. Lib. Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400/- w.e.f. 01.03.1990. Due to SIU cut, the post of Sr. Lib. Attendant was substituted with Jr. Lib. Attendant which carries the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150. However, he was allowed to remain at Lucknow in the lower post of Jr. Lib. Attendant in September, 1996 by protecting his pay which he was drawing at that time. The applicant was subsequently promoted as LDC on Adhoc basis w.e.f. February 1996. Further he filed Original Application No. 70/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.07.2012. It is further submitted that on implementation of Court's order in OA No. 70/2011, he got 1 ACP w.e.f. 01.03.2002 in the Grade pay of Rs. 2400/- and 2nd MACP on completion of 20 years in the grade of 2800/- w.e.f. 01.03.2020. It is submitted that the applicant has submitted representation dated 13.08.2020, praying for pay parity with Shri Prem Prakash Jr. Attendant of C.A.T., Lucknow Bench. According to the applicant, Shri Prem Prakash is a Jr. Attendent and junior to him and is getting more pay as compared to him. It is also submitted that consequent upon his passing the typing test conducted on 02.05.2001, the annual increments of the applicant were released w.e.f. that date without any arrears for the earlier period. The increment of the applicant (appointed as LDC) continuously from 21.06.1996 to 02.05.2001 were notional. Therefore, it is clear that pay of Mr. Prem Prakash Jr. Attendant was fixed twice, firstly as per CAT Lucknow Bench Office Order No. 20/2013 dated 17.04.2013 and secondly vide CAT Lucknow Bench Office order No. 02/2019 dated 21.01.2019 both are placed opposite for kind perusal whereas the applicant got two MACP's i.e. 2008 and 2016 respectively. On the basis of above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted to dismiss the OA as devoid of merit.
In rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the same facts as given in the OA and added that Mr. Pem Prakash was reverted as Jr. Lab. Attendant on 24-09-1996 in pay Scale of Rs. 800-1150 (which is less than applicant pay scale). It is further submitted that it has been mentioned by respondents that an Order dated 27-07-2012 was passed by Hon'ble C.A.T Lucknow in O.A. No. 70/2011 regarding 1st MACP. It is pertinent to mention here that no order of the Hon'ble Tribunal was annexed as evidence. Hence, in such circumstances, the averments of respondents are false. No Group "D" employee of Central Administrative Tribunal used to get in pay Scale of 950-1500. Hence, the chart mentioned by respondents are wrong and against the documentary evidence. Third mistake has been committed by the authority that at time of first MACP Grade Rs. 2400/- was given to the Prem Prakash while applicant was given Rs. 1900/- similar mistake was committed by respondent at time of granting 2nd MACP,. In 2nd MACP Grade Pay Rs 2800/- was given to Prem Prakash while in spite of senior applicant grade pay was given Rs. 2000/-.
Considered the rival submissions and verified the documents available on record.
It is admitted fact that Shri Prem Prakash, LDC, CAT, Lucknow Bench is junior to applicant. The respondents have mentioned that for the following reasons, applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed which is quoted below :-
“(a)Both the junior and the senior government servant should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted/appointed should be identical in the same cadre;
(b)The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which the junior and senior officer are entitled to draw pay should be identical;
(c)The anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments or on any other account, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of senior officer.”
The contention of the respondents that Mr. Prem Prakash was promoted to Sr. Lib. Attendant, retained on Jr. Lib. Attendant with pay protection at Lucknow Bench on abolition of post of Sr. Lib. Attendant whereas applicant was promoted to LDC after Mr. Pram Prakash was promoted to Sr. Lib. Attendant so the applicant is not entitled for stepping up his pay on par with his junior, as they are dissimilar case does not stand on a reasonable ground.
As cadre of Mr. Prem Prakash and applicant is the same and their unified seniority was maintained at the Principal Bench, we fail to understand and appreciate the view of respondents in the impugned order. The impugned order dated 10.03.2021 is cryptic, without any reason and non-speaking which is liable to be set aside and accordingly is set aside. The OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order based on rules/regulations keeping in mind the common seniority maintained by Principal Bench within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.