Union of India vs R. Geetha, S.G. Doshetty, Shobha and Sharada Devi S. Patil

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ Petition by the Union of India is directed against the order by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore on 15.12.2011 in OA 186/2011 - annexure C. Under the impugned order, Tribunal had directed the Union of India to maintain the step up pay in favour of the four applicants before it which had been stepped up to bring it on par with their juniors who had been given time bound promotions as a one time measure much later to such promotions which had been given to the applicants. But, the pay which had been stepped up to bring it on par with the juniors who got promotion later had been withdrawn in view of certain audit objections and the Union of India started recovering the amount from the applicants before the Tribunal. In this background, the applicants had approached the Tribunal and had drawn the attention of the Tribunal that there was a general order of the Tribunal on 20.6.2008 in OA 417/2007 which was also a similar application at the instance of an employee in the service of the Postal Department like that of the applicants before the Tribunal and whose pay scale though stepped up to bring it on par with the juniors, had subsequently been withdrawn due to certain audit objections, etc., and therefore, no exception can be taken in so far as the applicants are concerned. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal allowed the applications. The difference in the pay scale was directed to be restored in the sense, the step up pay was maintained and the difference between the step up and the pay that was being drawn from the date of withdrawal was directed to be paid to the applicants with interest at 8% p.a. It is aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition by the Union of India.

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner submission of Sri. Prakash Kulkarni is, the withdrawal of the step up pay was done even as early as in 2002 and even at that time, the employees kept quite but a representation was made belatedly perhaps got inspired by the order or the Tribunal rendered in OA 417/2007 and though this came to be rejected in the year 2010, it is still one year thereafter the applicants had approached the Tribunal. There was delay all along and irrespective of the merits of the matter, Tribunal should not have entertained the applications because of the delay. It is also submitted, though the respondent applicants before the Tribunal were themselves to be blamed for the delay, nevertheless, Tribunal awarding interest on the arrears is also not proper and amounts to virtually placing premium on the delay attributable to the applicants.

On the other hand, Sri. A.R. Holla, counsel for the respondents submits that delay cannot be a justification or the reason for withdrawing the pay scales which had been stepped up earlier, just because the audit raised an objection, employer could not have withdrawn the stepped up pay without any application of mind, even otherwise, when such stepping up was as per the rule and a decision being taken in general, there cannot be discrimination between employee and employee and that the employer was required to implement the same in respect of similarly situate persons and driving some of the employees to approach the Tribunal was not correct and in this view of the matter, Tribunal thought it fit to allow the applications and there was no scope for interference.

While we find that the restoration of the pay which had been stepped up on par with the pay scales of their juniors particularly, who had received time bound promotion later to the respondents herein cannot be said to be either improper or illegal, as submitted by Sri. Prakash Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioner, directing interest to be paid on the arrears amount may not be justified as it was the respondents who had not sought for relief as and when but had approached the Tribunal at a much later point of time and the order that came to be passed is only on 15.12.2011. In the circumstances, we feel that the order of the Tribunal has to be modified in to one with a direction to pay the difference amount but, without any interest at 8% and we are told at the Bar, as per the order of the Tribunal, all difference amount is already paid by stepping up the pay scales of the respondents on par with their juniors. Interest alone is not paid and therefore, we think it just and proper the order for interest at 8% cannot be mulcted on the employer because of the circumstance of delay on the part of the employees. The order of the Tribunal is modified only to the extent of the awarding interest at 8% on the difference payable to the respondents by setting aside the same. Writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above in so far as it relates to ordering 8% interest in favour of the employees. In all other respects order of the Tribunal is left in tact.