Rajkumar vs Union Of India And Others

MA 1555/2018

Vide this MA, the respondents seek condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the counter affidavit. In view of the averments made in the application,

delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned.

Same is taken on record.

MA stands disposed off.

OA 914 of 2018

Arguments heard.

Vide separate order, OA stands disposed off.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

By way of present OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs

(a) Call for the records based on which the Respondents have not extended the more beneficial provision in case of the Applicant for fixation of pay

as mandated in Para 14 of the SAI 1/5/2008 at the time of the fixation of pay in the 6th pay commission consequent to promotion of the Applicant in

the Rank of Naib Sub and Sub as well and thereafter declining the stepping up of pay on the ground of inability of the Applicant to exercise his option

and thereafter quash all such orders resulting in gross disparity in pay fixation.

(b) Direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of fixation of pay to the Applicant to ensure the more beneficial fixation of pay from the date of

promotion as Naib Sub in the revised pay scale in 6th CPC with effect from 01.04.2008 either allowing him to opt the same now as done in case of

Sub Dhyan Singh or by applying the more beneficial clause and accordingly step up the pay of the Applicant in the Rank of Naib Sub and Sub with

further direction to grant the Applicant arrears of such pay fixation along with the interest @ 12 percent from the same was due till its actual

realization.

(c) Pass any other order/ orders as deemed appropriate by this Honble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the maintainability of the OA on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, there is no

impugned order. It is further submitted that before filing the present OA, neither any representation nor any appeal was preferred by the applicant and,

therefore, before exhausting statutory remedies, the OA is premature.

Since large number of 0As have been filed before the Tribunal on this issue, therefore, for the time being, we are leaving the issue of jurisdiction

open. One thing is clear that before filing the OA, either no representation was made by the applicant or if made, same was not disposed of.

Therefore, it will be desirable that the OA be treated as redressal of grievances by the Competent Authority, which will dispose of the rederssal of

grievances in the light of the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed in O.A. No. 113 of 2014 titled Sub Chittar Singh and others Vs. Union of India & Ors.

and judgment dated 09.12.2016 in O.A. No. 1610 of 2016 titled Sub Sadeesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed by the Principal Bench of

AFT.

In case, the applicant is entitled for the relief(s) in the light of the aforesaid judgments, same be granted to him, otherwise a speaking order be

passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, which be communicated to the applicant.

In case the applicant still feels aggrieved by the order so passed, he will be at liberty to take legal recourse at appropriate Forum.

The respondents are also at liberty to take appropriate objection including jurisdiction in case any subsequent proceedings are initiated by the

applicant.

In view of the foregoing, OA stands disposed of.

Copy of this order be given `Dasti' to the learned counsel for the parties.