The Union of India and Others vs The Central Administrative Tribunal and Others

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

The Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Divisional Fire Officer of the Department of Fire Services of the Government of Pondicherry have come up with the Writ Petition, challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the Original Application filed by the 2nd respondent and dismissing a Review Application filed thereafter by the writ petitioners.

Heard Mr. Syed Mustafa, learned Government Pleader [Service] appearing for the Union Territory of Pondicherry and Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

The 2nd respondent herein was originally appointed as a Fireman on 31.5.1984 in the Department of Fire Services of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. After completion of 12 years of service, he was granted the first Assured Career Progression [ACP] w.e.f. 1999 in the scale of pay for the next higher post of Leading Fireman, as per the Government of India instructions, whereby the Government implemented the Assured Career Progression Scheme.

Upon completion of 24 years of service, the 2nd respondent became eligible for the second ACP on 31.5.2008. Since it was not granted, the 2nd respondent filed an application in O.A.1418/2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. Finding that as per the Scheme, the 2nd respondent was entitled to the second ACP and also finding that eight other persons similarly placed had been granted the benefits, the Tribunal allowed the application of the 2nd respondent by an order dated 10.9.2012.

Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the Union Territory of Pondicherry came up with a Writ Petition in W.P.20306/2013. In the Writ Petition, the Union Territory of Pondicherry relied upon a subsequent development, viz., the issue of a Government Order in G.O. Ms.No. 32, Home Department, dated 11.7.2013, by which the benefits granted to similarly placed employees was withdrawn by the Government.

But, since the petitioner/Union Territory of Pondicherry relied upon a subsequent development, that took place after the disposal of the case by the Tribunal, the petitioner chose to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to go before the Tribunal and seek a review of the original order. It was permitted by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25.7.2013.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Review Application in Rev.A.16/2014 contending that the arguments relating to equality of treatment was no more available to the 2nd respondent, in view of the subsequent development. But the Tribunal dismissed the Review Application by an order dated 28.8.2014, on the short ground that the grounds raised by the petitioners did not fall within the purview of an application for review. Therefore, the Union Territory of Pondicherry has come up with the above Writ Petition.

As a matter of fact, there are two issues that have actually arisen for consideration, but both of which have been mixed up by the Tribunal. The first issue is as to whether the 2nd respondent, on principle, is entitled to the benefit of second ACP, upon completion of 24 years of service or not; the second issue was as to the scale of pay to which the 2nd respondent would be entitled to, in the event of the second ACP being granted to him. But, unfortunately, the fact that there were two issues appear to have been lost sight of by the Tribunal. This is due to the fact that there was some confusion about the scale of pay to which the persons who were granted the first and second ACP were entitled to on the basis of the recommendations of the V and VI Pay Commissions. The confusion can be realised only if we look into what the V Pay Commission did and what the VI Pay Commission did.

In the Department of Fire Services, there are four categories of posts. They are, Fireman, Leading Fireman, Station Officer and Assistant Divisional Fire Officer. The post of Fireman is in the lowest cadre. The V Pay Commission constituted by the Government of India recommended the scales of pay of Rs. 2610-3540, 3050-4590, 4000- 6000 and 5000-8000 respectively for the posts of Fireman, Leading Fireman, Station Officer and Assistant Divisional Fire Officer.

But, unfortunately, the Union Territory of Pondicherry, without any authority, appears to have constituted a Single Member Committee not merely for the purpose of working out anomalies, but also for something more. The Single Member Committee appears to have recommended different scales of pay for these posts, viz., Rs. 3050-4590, 3200-4900, 5500-9000 and 6500-10500, respectively for the posts of Fireman, Leading Fireman, Station Officer and Assistant Divisional Fire Officer.

It was this recommendation of the Single Member Committee that has led to a conflict between the Central Government and the Union Territory of Pondicherry. When the Central Government came to know about the implementation of the recommendations of the Single Member Committee, which granted a benefit over and above what was granted by the V Pay Commission, the Central Government took exceptions to the same. This is why the Union Territory of Pondicherry took action for revising the pay scales of all persons including that of the persons on par with whom the 2 nd respondent claimed equality of treatment. Without realizing that what the petitioners were seeking was only a review of that portion of the order whereby, the enhanced pay scales were sought to be revised, but not the grant of the benefit of a second ACP, the Tribunal mechanically applied the principle of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC and dismissed the Review Application. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

For better appreciation, the petitioners have also given in two tabular columns the scales of pay as recommended by the V and VI Pay Commissions for these four categories of posts and scales of pay as recommended by the Single Member Committee constituted by the Union Territory of Pondicherry, in paragraph Nos. 3 and 6 of their affidavits in support of the Writ Petition. These tabular columns are as follows:-

What the Union Territory of Pondicherry now wants is to grant the benefit of the second ACP to the 2 nd respondent, but as per the scale of pay as recommended by the V and VI Pay Commissions and not as per the scale of pay recommended by the Single Member Committee. This, the Union Territory of Pondicherry has already done in respect of other persons on par with whom the 2nd respondent claimed equality of treatment.

It is true that upon revision of the pay scales, those other persons have now approached the Tribunal and filed O.A. Nos. 1010 and 1081/2013 and obtained interim orders of stay of recovery. But what has been stayed was only the recovery. The revised pay scales have come to be implemented even in respect of the other persons.

It should be pointed out that the claim made by all persons on the basis of the recommendations of the Single Member Committee, de hors the recommendations of the V and VI Pay Commissions, would have a serious spiraling effect with one pointing out the other. The purpose of constitution of the One Member Committee is to remove the anomalies while implementing the recommendations of the V and VI Pay Commissions. Therefore, the Union Territory of Pondicherry was right in rolling back the mistake committed by them in following the Single Member Committee''s Recommendations and the same cannot be found fault with.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal passed in the Original Application and in the Review Application are set aside and modified to the following effect:-

a] the 2nd respondent will be entitled to the benefit of second ACP, with effect from the date of completion of 24 years of service, viz., 31.5.2008;

b] however, the benefit of such second ACP will be as per the recommendations of V and VI Pay Commissions and not on the basis of the Recommendations of the Single Member Committee; and

c] the petitioners shall work out the benefits as per this order and pay the arrears within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

[d] No costs.

[e] M.P. No. 1 of 2014 is closed.