AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.M. Quddusi, J.
The petitioners, Union of India and Ors. have filed this Writ Application against the Order dated 7.1.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 177 of 2001 by which the O.A. of the opposite party was allowed and it was directed that Consolidated Over Time Allowance (COTA) should be paid to the opposite party from January, 1993 till issue of Order dated 22.1.2001.
The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party was appointed as Radio Technician in the year 1983 and was posted at Decca Navigation Chain Station at Savarkundla in Gujarat. At that time the scheme existing for payment of COTA was at the rate of 20% of the monthly pay along with D.A. The said allowance was paid for the work on all holidays and weekly off days to such staff including the opposite party. Vide Order dated 17.12.1992 the petitioners had discontinued the COTA with effect from 1.1.1993 Paragraph 3 of the order speaks as under :
"Payment of Consolidated Over Time Allowance sanctioned Vide Ministry of Surface Transport Letter No. A. 27016/3/92-SL dated 8.8.1992 will be discontinued with effect from 1.1.1993".
The above order was amended vide Order dated 15.11.1993 as under :
"I am directed to refer to this Ministry''s letter of even number dated 17.12.1992 on the above subject and to convey the sanction of the president to amend Para 3 thereof as follows :
The payment of Consolidated Over Time Allowance (COTA) will be discontinued in phased manner is as follows :
(a) in the case of 27 Light houses where the additional residential accommodation is available/not to be provided, immediately if additional staff is provided;
(b) in respect of 63 Light houses after the additional quarters are constructed and thereafter additional staff is provided;
(c) in respect of 12 DNC houses, after additional staff is in position and hourly over time Scheme is sanctioned;
(d) COTA will continue in respect of 32 scantly manned stations".
According to the opposite party his case was covered by Clause (c) above and COTA having been denied to him, he filed the above-mentioned O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal with the following relief :
"To direct the respondents to sympathetically consider the case of the applicant to grant Over Time Allowance with effect from January, 1993 till the year ending December 2000 at the rate defined under Rule-F.R. 9(21)(a) for operative staff".
The O.A. was contested by the petitioners and ultimately the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the same; but the Tribunal directed that COTA is payable to the applicant from January 1993 till the issue of Order dated 22.1.2001.
The contention raised by Mr. Barik, Learned Additional Standing Counsel (Central Government) that the petitioner himself had not sought the relief for grant of COTA in his favour, yet the Tribunal has granted him COTA beyond the relief claimed by the applicant-O.P., i.e., even though the petitioner had claimed for Over Time Allowance (OTA).
In view of the facts and circumstances quoted above, the contention raised by the Learned Additional Sanding Counsel (Central Government) appears to be correct one. The Tribunal has granted relief to the opposite party beyond what was claimed by him. The opposite party has also submitted that he had sought relief for allowing him the OTA and he had not claimed COTA in his O.A..
Here it is also necessary to mention that the Tribunal has referred to the Order/letter-dated 22.1.2001 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport (Shipping Wing). This order is a decision of the petitioners for payment of OTA to operative staff restraining the same to fifteen hours in a month for performing extra duty on working days/holidays/weekly off days. This order has not been implemented retrospectively but has prospective effect. Therefore, it goes without saying that the Learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief to the opposite party beyond what was claimed by him and inasmuch as he was not entitled for the same. The time claimed was up to December 2000 but the Tribunal has granted relief to him up to 22.1.2001.
In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the Writ Application is allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the opposite party shall be allowed OTA with effect from January 1993 till the year ending in December, 2000 as per the F.R. 9(21)(a) for the operative staff. It is also to be mentioned that OTA will be payable to the opposite party strictly in accordance with the rules which were existing at the relevant time and the entire money be calculated and paid to him within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs.
N. Prusty, J.
I agree.