Shivdeep Kumar Pandey & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Delivered By:- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)

By means of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicants have prayed for a direction to the respondents to accord the benefit of O.M. Date 12.12.2018 to them.

According to the applicants, at the time of fixation of pay under Revised Pay Rules-2016, they submitted wrong option for getting increment due to which they have lost one increment and the same is causing recurring loss to them. Therefore, the applicants preferred a representation dated 12.03.2021 before HQ Chief Engineer, Central Command, Lucknow (respondent no. 5) seeking the benefit of O.M. No. 4-13/17-IC/E-IIIA dated 12.12.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure on the subject “Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 – opportunity for revision of option to come over to revised pay structure”.

Sri Dharmendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants contended that since the aforesaid O.M was not circulated in the department by the higher authorities, the applicants could not submit their option in time as a result of which they have been deprived of the benefit of aforesaid O.M. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that immediately the applicants came to know about the aforesaid O.M from one Shri Ajeet Kumar Gupta, who submitted his revised option and accordingly got one increment, the applicants preferred representation dated 12.03.2021. But without considering the points raised in the representation, the same was returned with remark that “there is no any authority received so far to re-consider the change in option for pay fixation after lapse of stipulated time period”. Thereafter, the applicants vide application dated 06.09.2021 sought information about the circulation of O.M dated 12.12.2018 from HQ CWE, Allahabad who vide letter dated 07.09.2021 informed that O.M dated 12.12.2018 has neither been received in this office nor been intimated to any concerned individual (Annexure A-7 of OA).

Learned counsel for the applicant emphasized that the submission of option by Shri Ajeet Kumar Gupta, who is presently working under CWE, Port Blair reflects that the aforesaid O.M was circulated to him therefore, he could submit his option. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are also entitled to the benefit of the O.M dated 12.12.2018.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Shri Kamleshwar Singh argued that vide O.M dated 12.12.2018, one chance to choose their option in regard to pay fixation was given but the applicants failed to submit their option within stipulated period. Learned counsel for the respondents also denied the allegation of the applicants that the O.M. dated 12.12.2018 was never circulated to them and submitted that the O.M. dated 12.12.2018 was available in public domain and the employees in all over India have taken the benefit of this O.M. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that Shri Ajeet Kumar Gupta submitted his option within stipulated time, therefore, he was accorded the benefit of aforesaid O.M. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that it is not necessary to circulate and intimate to each employee individually about every O.M. Apart from this, the applicants have also not clearly mentioned about the date when they contacted Shri Ajeet Kumar Gupta. However, the representation dated 12.03.2021 so moved by the applicants after lapse of more than 834 days from the stipulated period of time in OA dated 12.12.2021 was duly considered by the competent authority who rightly turned down the same according to rules. .

We have considered rival submissions and have gone through the record.

Admittedly, the applicants submitted their option for fixation of pay under Revised Pay Rules-2016 and according to Rule 6(4) of Rules 2016, the option once exercised shall be final. However, at a later date they came to know that they have submitted their wrong option, and also came to know about the O.M dated 12.12.2018 from an employee of the department Shri Ajeet Kumar Gupta, they submitted their representation dated 12.03.2021 seeking the benefit of O.M. dated 12.12.2018.

We have gone through the O.M dated 12.12.2018. A perusal of the aforesaid OM reflects that it was issued in order to give another opportunity to re-exercise the option in view of certain hardships caused to certain employees. In the aforesaid O.M, following has been stipulated in para 3: -

From the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that revised option was to be exercised within a period of three months from the date of issue of these orders, but the applicants failed to avail the same. Now, they are taking the plea that the aforesaid O.M was not circulated widely and they came to know about the said O.M only from one Shri Ajeet Kumar Gupta, who is presently working at CWE, Port Blair. The learned counsel for the applicants neither in his pleadings nor during the course of arguments has put forward any particular date when the applicants came to know about the aforesaid O.M. However, the applicants have filed a copy of option submitted by Shri Ajeet Kumar Gupta at Annexure A-2 of OA, which reveals that Shri Ajeet Kumar Gupta had submitted his option on 02.03.2019 which was within stipulate period of time and therefore, he got the benefit of re-exercise of option whereas, in the instant case, the applicants submitted their representation for availing the benefit of O.M dated 12.12.2018 in the year 2021, which is much beyond the period stipulated in the O.M.

Further, the pleas taken by the applicants that the OM was not circulated widely cannot be accepted at this stage. The applicants ought to be vigilant about their right. The approach of the applicants towards their right is not acceptable because since December 2018 they kept mum and they woke up in 2021 taking the plea that they came to know about the O.M from some other employee of their department. It has been repeatedly held that if government employees sleep on their rights and are not alert, the Court cannot come to their aid/rescue and offer relief only because they were unaware of the Rules. The above view finds support from a judgment of High of Court Jharkhand in the case of Lal Bahadur vs. Jamshedpur Engineering & Machine Manufacture Company Ltd. [W.P. (L) No. 374 of 2014].

In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any ground for the applicant to get any relief and the present original application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the original application is dismissed.

All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off.

No order as to costs.