Prakash Singh & Others vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicants are working as Assistant Engineers in the Prasar Bharati (PB). They were extended the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP as well as the 3rd MACP. Recently, they were extended the benefit of stepping up of their pay to be on par with one Mr. S. K. Sharma who is said to be their junior, vide Office Order dated 09.03.2020. Thereafter, the Head Office of the PB issued an order dated 03.03.2021 taking exception to the stepping up of the pay of the Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers due to the 3rd MACP and fixation under the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC), and directed the concerned authorities to withdraw the same. Similar order was passed on 17.02.2021. This OA is filed challenging the two orders referred to above.

The applicants contend that once they were extended the benefit of stepping up of pay, the respondents cannot withdraw the same, that too, without conducting any inquiry.

We heard Shri M. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri M. Srivastava for Ms. Vartika Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, at the stage of admission.

The Office Order dated 09.03.2020 mentions that the pay of the applicants is stepped up, to be on par with that of their junior, one Shri S. K. Sharma, Assistant Engineer. However, the order is silent as to what was the cause that resulted in the junior drawing higher pay scale. Here itself, it needs to be mentioned that if the disparity arises on account of the implementation of the MACP, it would not be a ground for stepping up the pay. In addition to that, the order dated 09.03.2020 makes it clear that it is subject to the post audit and the amount shall be liable to be recovered without notice, if it emerges that they are not entitled.

In matters of this nature, the Administration at various levels ought to have been careful before granting the benefit. The letter dated 24.01.2020 addressed by the Deputy Director of Administration in a way indicates lack of proper discipline or adherence to the procedure. On the one hand, it is stated that the entire issue is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and on the other hand, an indirect indication is given to consider the stepping up of the pay subject to the outcome of the Court's orders. To say the least, such an approach is irresponsible, particularly, when huge financial implications are involved. It is hoped that such things are not permitted to take place in the future.

Even at this stage, the highest authority in the establishment can examine the issue and decide finally, whether or not the applicants are entitled to be extended the benefit of stepping up of the pay. We do not propose to interfere with the impugned order and it shall be open to the applicants to pursue the remedies depending upon the outcome of the exercise indicated above.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA directing the highest Executive Authority in the PB to pass orders about the entitlement of the applicants for stepping up of the pay within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pending MA also stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.