S. Ravichandran - Petitioner @HASH Union of India and Others

Mr. Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. - The petitioner was initially appointed on 14-9-1976 in the Office of Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Chennai as Lower Division Clerk and promoted as Upper Division Clerk with effect from 10-9-1986 and thereafter promoted to the post of Head Clerk with effect from 30-6-1994 in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-50-2300. He was promoted as Works Assistant, Grad-I with effect from 1-5-1997. As is clear from the document at Annexure-E, dated 3-10-1997, petitioner was given promotion with effect from 1-9-1997. The pay scale attached to the post of Works Assistant, Grade I to which the petitioner was promoted and taken charge in the said post on 1-9-1997 was Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance gave effect the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission on 1-1-1996 granting revised scale of pay of Rs. 4500-125-7000 and Rs. 5000-150-8000 as replacement scale of pay instead of pay of Rs. 1400-2300 and Rs. 1400-2600 applicable to the posts of Head Clerk and Works Assistant, Grade-I respectively

On his promotion to the post of Works Assistant, Grade I, the petitioner was entitled to pay fixation in accordance with the provisions of FR 22(1)(a)(1) as was done in respect of several seniors and juniors to the petitioner. Since the said pay fixation was not done in respect of the petitioner''s case, he submitted a representation dated 11-9-2003 to the third respondent which came to be rejected on 9-9-2005, on the ground that petitioner''s pay can be fixed under FR 22(1)(a)(2) as the duties and responsibilities assigned to the post of Works Assistant, Grade-I are not higher than that of Head Clerk. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-4-2011 as Administrative Officer, but unfortunately his pay was not refixed as per the pay scale attached to the post of Head Clerk as well as to the Works Assistant, Grade I during the relevant point of time.

Another representation came to be made by the petitioner in the form of appeal before the second respondent on 2-11-2005, which was also not considered. Being aggrieved by the denial of his pay fixed in accordance with FR 22(1)(a)(1), the petitioner herein filed O.A. No. 516 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, which came to be dismissed on 4-9-2013, on the same ground that the post of Works Assistant, Grade I does not carry higher duties than that of Head Clerk. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is impugned in this writ petition.

It is not in dispute that pre-revised scale attached to the post of Head Clerk was Rs. 1400-40-1800-50-2300. It is also not in dispute that pre-revised scale of pay attached to the post of Works Assistant, Grade-I was Rs. 1400-40-1800-50-2300-60-2600. After revision of pay scale pursuant to acceptance of the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission, the pay scale in respect of the post of Head Clerk was modified to Rs. 4500-125-7000. So also, the revised scale of pay of Works Assistant, Grade-I was Rs. 5000-150-8000.

From the above, it is clear that the pre-revised scales of pay attached to both the posts as well as the revised scales of pay attached to both the posts substantially vary. Aforementioned facts clarify that the pay scale attached to Works Assistant, Grade I is definitely higher than the pay scale attached to Head Clerk. Obviously, the said pay scale was fixed considering the higher degree of duties attached to the post of Works Assistant, Grade I.

It seems, the Department has taken up the contention that the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Works Assistant, Grade-I are not higher than that of Head Clerk in the Department based on the assumption that both the posts are merged by virtue of an order. Such assumption, in our consideration, is incorrect inasmuch as though there was a recommendation for merging those posts at an earlier point of time, such recommendation was not accepted. On the other hand, both the posts are not merged and have been retained under a separate identity.

It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that till this day, the posts of Head Clerk as well as the Works Assistant, Grade-I remained independent and separate. At this stage, it would be relevant to note the order dated 20-12-2013 issued by the Archaeological Survey of India to the petitioner herein under Right to Information Act, 2005 (copy of which is produced at Annexure-AA along with the additional documents), which reveals that the cadre of Head Clerk and Works Assistant, Grade-I, have not been merged as yet. It is also made clear that the recruitment rules to the effect of merging of Head Clerk and Works Assistant, Grade-I, have not been revised. Thus, as on 20-12-2013 both the posts had not been merged and they had retained their separate identity. Both the posts continued independently. In view of the same, the petitioner should be given the benefit of the order of promotion and the pay scale attached to the promotional post. As per the documents at Annexure-E, dated 3-10-1997 and Annexure-K, dated 2-6-1998, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to revised pay scale attached to the post of Works Assistant, Grade-I. It is also made amply clear therein that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale under FR 22(1)(a)(1) after accrual of annual increment on 1-9-1997. Hence, in our considered opinion, the Department as well as the Central Administrative Tribunal are not justified in negativing the contention of the petitioner.

It is also relevant to note that Sri E. Subramaniam, who is junior to the petitioner is already given the benefit of pay attached to the promotional post of Works Assistant, Grade-I. The same is evident from the document at Annexure-M, dated 16-7-2003. From the said document, it is clear that Mr. E. Subramaniam who is junior to the petitioner herein also promoted to the post of Works Assistant, Grade-I and he is paid salary attached to the post of Works Assistant, Grade-I with effect from 16-7-2003 itself. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioner is denied the said benefit.

Accordingly, the following order is made:

Impugned order dated 4-9-2013 vide Annexure-A, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. No. 516 of 2012 stands quashed. The Department is directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner keeping in mind the aforesaid observations made during the course of this order as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of four months from today.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.