Subhash Chandra Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors.

( By Hon’ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member(Administrative)

This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following relief :-

The facts of the case of the applicant is that the applicant was initially appointed as Ticket collector on 03.07.1982 and retired on 31.08.2013 from the post of Deputy C.I.T. S.P.N. Division, Moradabad. And since July, 2010, the applicant was getting pay scale of 9300-34800 in Gr. Pay of 4600/- which he continuously received till August 2012 and without assigning any reason without complying due procedure of law, the respondents authorities have reduced the pay scale 9300-34800 in Gr. Pay of 4200/- since Sep-Oct 2012. The applicant further states that since April-May, 2013, he was getting pay scale of 9300-34,800 in Gr. Pay of Rs. 4200 with basic pay Rs. 20,430. But without assigning any reason and without complying due procedure of Law the authorities have made his basic pay Rs. 21,050 and he further says that from February-March, 2011 his basic pay which should have been similar to Jitendra Prasad which was Rs. 19,640, Narendra Prasad whose basic pay was Rs. 19,640 whereas the applicant was assigned to have been his basic pay was at Rs. 18,910 with Grade Pay of Rs. 9300-34800 in Gr. Pay of Rs. 4600/- which is malafide and discriminatory. Whereas both Narendra Prasad and Jitendra Prasad were similarly situated as him and were junior to him and drawing higher salary than him. The applicant retired on 31.07.2013 and his retiral dues were also not completely given then, he filed O.A. No. 1062/2015 and this Tribunal passed an order on 03.09.2015 directed the respondent authority concerned to decide the representation of the applicant dated 08.10.2014. The applicant gave a representation which was decided by the authorities on 30.10.2015.

The authorities’ order dated 30.10.2015 was challenged by the applicant vide O.A. no. 199/2016 in the case of Subhash Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India and others and the same was quashed and the Tribunal directed the respondents to pass a reasoned and a speaking order vide their order dated 17.10.2017. The applicant again gave a representation dated 05.11.2017 which was decided on 09.03.2018 and the applicant is challenging the compliance letter dated 09.03.2018 in the present OA. The main ground of contention is that the applicant’s junior Jitendra Prasad and Narendra Kumar were getting pay scale of 4600 whereas the applicant who is a senior employee on the same post getting pay scale 4200. The applicant states that in the entire reply dated 09.03.2018 of the respondents, the respondents’ authorities have stated that entry of promotion of JIT dated September, 2004 in grade pay of Rs. 5500-9000 was not recorded in his service Register and it is grossly negligent act of the respondents. Hence, the same need to be corrected and he must get his terminal dues with basic pay of Rs. 21,050/- and he must get all the reliefs sought.

The respondents have filed their counter reply wherein they state that the applicant had earlier filed an Original Application No. 1062/2015, Subhash Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India and others, for payment of arrears of salary of the applicant including Rs. 1,00,000/-+ Rs. 18,000/- with 18% interest and it was further prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the difference of salary with increment of each year from July, 2012 onward. The aforesaid Original Application No. 1062 of 2015 was decided vide order dated 03.09.2015 with a direction to the respondent department to decide the representation of the applicant dated 08.10.2014. In compliance of order dated 03.09.2015 passed in OA. No. 1062/2015, the representation of the applicant dated 08.10.2014 was decided by Divisional Railway Manager, Moradabad vide order dated 30.10.2015. While passing the order dated 30.10.2015, the competent authority recorded following:-

The order dated 30.10.2015 was then challenged by the applicant by filing Original Application No. 199 of 2016 where the applicant prayed for the setting aside of the order dated 30.10.2015 and for payment of arrears of salary including Rs. 36191+ 18000/- with 18% interest on late payment of gratuity and other retiral dues. The applicant further prayed for payment of difference of salary with the increment of each year from July, 2012 onward. The applicant did not raise any objection till his retirement on 31.07.2013 and that the amount of Rs. 18000/- in favour of the applicant was passed through CO7 No. 50 dated 19.04.2016. The said OA was decided on 17.10.2017 whereby the order dated 30.10.2015 was set aside by observing that the said order was not a reasoned and speaking one and accordingly the Tribunal remitted the case back to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation dated 08.10.2014 and further in respect of Rs. 1800/- which was paid during the pendency of original application and also in respect of payment of interest on the delayed payment. The Tribunal while directing as above, recorded that it has not gone in the merit of the case. In compliance of order dated 17.10.2017 passed in Original Application No. 199 of 2016, the competent authority i.e. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad passed a detailed, reasoned and speaking order dated 09.03.2018 and recorded that at the time of retirement of applicant his last pay was Rs. 21050/- and the D.A. was 90% and, as such, the last pay drawn at the time of retirement of applicant was Rs. 39995/- and not Rs. 40626/- as claimed by the applicant. The total service of the applicant was 30 years 11 months and 26 days and after deducting LWP of 04 months and 26 days, the net service period comes to 30 years 07 months and 02 days and not 31 years 38 days as claimed by the applicant. The DCRG of a sum of Rs. 609924/- was calculated on the basis of service period 30 years 06 months which included Rs. 32101/- towards the difference of DCRG according to enhanced D.A. From total payable Rs. 609924/-, deduction of Rs. 36191/- towards commercial debit and Rs. 21060/- towards medical and identity card, was made and accordingly a sum of Rs. 552673/- was paid and thereafter no amount remained due. The applicant had asked that his Grade Pay was Rs. 4600/- in July 2012 and after that his grade pay was reduced to Rs. 4200/- in November of the same year, the applicant was informed that he was given benefit of grade pay Rs. 4600/- under the M.A.C.P. and his promotion was up to Dy. CIT in grade pay 4200/-.

It was further stated that the pay scale of applicant’s juniors Shri Jitendra, Dy. CIT/SPN and Shri Narendra Kumar, Dy. CIT/SPN was checked and it was found that their pay scale as on 01.07.2013 was Rs. 21470/- whereas the applicant’s pay scale as on 01.07.2013 was Rs. 20150/- and the juniors to the applicant were getting more salary than the applicant and on verification it was found that the applicant’s promotion as JIT in grade pay Rs. 5500-9000/- in September, 2004 was not recorded in the service record of applicant. The pay of the applicant was then fixed at Rs. 6200/-. Therefore, in order to fix the salary of applicant equivalent to his junior, the matter is being referred to the Accounts Section and PPO will also be updated with grade pay Rs. 4600/-. And after retirement, the amount of CTG Rs. 18000/- was paid to the applicant through check No. 967194 dated 21.05.2014, but due to non-submission of check in time, the applicant requested re-issuance of check, which after completion of formalities by the accounting branch, was passed on 19.04.2016 and payment of same was made to the applicant. Therefore, there is no provision for paying interest on this amount. The applicant has been paid all his dues after retirement. Another order dated 30.05.2018 the entry of promotion as JIT Grade Rs. 5500-9000/- was not made in the service record of applicant, as such, now the entry of promotion as JIT Grade Rs. 5500-9000/- is being made and accordingly the pay is revised as under:-

All the arrears on account of entry of promotion as JIT Grade Rs. 5500-9000/- in the service book of the applicant has also been paid to him. Apart from it, the revised PPO showing his Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- has also been issued. Now, this OA is filed by the applicant for issuance of an order/direction, directing the respondent No. 2 & 3 to pay the difference of salary, gratuity, funds with increments award by the department calculating at the rate of actual pay scale at the time of retirement and after retirement with interest at the rate of 18% on the late payment paid to applicant on different dates after retirement from the date of retirement upto date of actual payment. The applicant has not brought on record the facts of the order dated 30.05.2018 as well as the entry made in his service book and payment of arrears in pursuance thereof and also the issuance of revised PPO has already given him his balance due. And in the light of above, entire payment due to the applicant as claimed in the prayer clause of the present original application has already been paid to the applicant and nothing remains due to be paid to him from the department and in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the present OA is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder on behalf of the applicant where he reiterated the facts as in the Original Application and prays that the relief claimed should be granted to the applicant.

The case came up for final hearing on 01.12.2023, Shri Manish Hayaran, counsel for the applicant and Shri K K Ojha, counsel for the respondents were present and heard.

I have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions advanced by the counsels for the parties.

From the very critical perusal of the OA, it is evident that it is very incoherent and it is very difficult to understand what exactly the applicant wants in relief. The applicant should have specifically challenged the speaking order of the respondents dated 09.03.2018 which was pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 17.10.2017 in O.A. No. 199/2016 as he was aggrieved by the same. Instead of doing so, he has asked for vague relief. If I see the order dated 09.03.2018 which reads following:-

Simple examination of the same shows that it also gives certain findings so those findings like in para 3 & 4 where it is indicated that it was still in action. If I see the statement of respondent in para 14 of the counter which makes amply clear that the said order was followed up by an another order dated 30.05.2018 which corrected many of the things which are at page 70 of the counter and at page 72, the revised PPO is also issued with grade pay Rs. 4600/- to the applicant. Vide letter dated 10.02.2021, the applicant was informed about these corrections.

Subsequently, again not waiting for the authorities’ further action which were in process and prematurely coming before this court for the 3^rd time only creates confusion. It is further compounded by a vague relief clause in this case. As from the pleadings, it is not very clear that if any of the grievances and claim of the applicant still remains unfulfilled.

In this unusual case with long history of litigation, end of justice will be met if I direct the applicant to make a fresh application to the respondents. If at all the applicant has any of his claim still not fulfilled he will have liberty to give detailed application and a calculation sheet as per his understanding of his unpaid dues and claims to the respondents and within four months thereafter the respondents may examine and consider the same and pass a speaking order on each of the such claim. With these observations, I pass following orders:-

This Original Application is disposed of with a liberty to the applicant to give a fresh application to the respondent department clearly describing and substantiating his claims with supporting documents, which he still thinks have not been decided by the Department. This Application should be given within two weeks’ after getting a certified copy of this order and after receiving the said application the respondents shall consider the same within a period of four months.

All associated M.As. also stand disposed of accordingly. Parties to bear their own cost.