AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
The correctness of the order dated 5 5-2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Bangalore, in Original Application Nos. 949/2003 and 235-236/2004 is questioned in this writ petition.
The respondents herein are working as Sound Recordists in Doordarshan which is under Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Government of India. The Government of India brought Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) providing for upgradation of pay of Central Government civilian employees twice in service � one alter completion of 12 years and another after completion of 24 yeans of service. When the respondent claimed the said benefit, the same was turned down by the petitioners. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (herein after called as ''Tribunal'') seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to extend the said benefit under the (ACP Scheme).
The Tribunal, by the impugned order, allowed the applications and issued a direction to the petitioners to the petitioners to consider the claim of applicant respondents. Being aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.
The ground of attack is that the impugned order is passed by the Tribunal without, proper appreciation of the fact that, respondents are drawing more pay than the pay recommended by the Vth Pay Commission and hence they are not entitle to the relief sought for by them. Another ground of attack is that the impugned order is contrary to the recommendations of with Pay Commission.
Learned counsel Mr. Vishnu Bhat for the petitioners submitted that if the benefit of ACP Scheme is granted to the respondents by way of financial upgradation it will create anomaly among the employees of the same cadre, which would be volatile of Articles 14 and 30(d) of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on the basis of earlier Order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 322/2001 decided on 5-12-2002, in the case Doordarshan Programme Professionals Union (Regd) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. is against the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Sri Vikram Phadke. learned counsel for respondents seriously rebuts the aforementioned contentions placing reliance on the Condition No. 5(1) of Annexure-1 to Office Memorandum dated 9-8-1999 relating" to ACP Scheme. The learned counsel submitted that the Government of India has framed the ACP Scheme taking into consideration all relevant, aspects and the benefit of the said scheme shall be extended to respondents herein as they are undisputedly employees of Central Government Learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following decisions of Apex Court in support of the propositions of law that equal pay for equal work, when posts in two wings of the same Government departments are identical and involve same nature of duties, the equal pay can not be denied as it amounts to violation of Articles 14, 16. 37 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
1 Y.K. Mehta and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another,
2 Doordarshan Cameramen''s Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and another,
With reference to the rival legal contentions. We have examined the correctness of the impugned order. No doubt, the Tribunal has not adverted to the ACS Scheme. However, it has relied upon its earlier decision in O.A. No. 322/200] wherein the Tribunal did not accept similar contentions raised herein by the petitioners. In order to understand the real issue involved in this case. Condition No. 5(1) stipulated in Annexure 1 to Official Memorandum dated 9-8-1999 under which ACP Scheme was introduced is extracted hereunder:
5.1 Two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme in the entire Government service career of an employee shall be counted against regular promotions (including in-situ promotion and fast track promotion availed through limited departmental competitive examination) availed from the grade in which an employee was'' appointed as a direct recruit. This shall mean that two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme shall be available only if no regular promotions during (he prescribed periods (12 and 24 years) have been availed by an employee. If an employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall quality for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. In case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under the ACP Scheme shall accrue to him.
A plain reading of the above would make it clear that employees are entitled for two financial upgradations in entire service if regular promotions are not got. The condition also makes clear that if one promotion is secured. second financial upgradation could be granted on completion of 24 years of service and d two promotions are agency got the benefit will not accrue
In the instant case, the benefit, is denied on the ground that respondents are drawing higher pay than the pay recommended by Vth Pay Commission We have carefully gone through the other conditions in Annexure 1 to Official Memorandum. Condition No. 2 is the only restriction imposed that the benefit of ACP is not available to (hose who are drawing pay beyond Rs. 14.300 - 18-300. But we found no restriction for graining the financial upgradation if an employee is drawing higher pay than the pay recommended by Vth Pay Commission.
It. is not the ease of petitioner herein that respondents are drawing pay beyond Rs. 14.300 - 18,300 and above. That means, the petitioners herein are denying the benefit to respondents on untenable ground and without any basis. The reliance placed by the Learned Counsel for the respondents referred to supra would aptly applicable in support of their claim and impugned order.
In the circumstances and for the reasons state above, the impugned order is perfectly justified and there is no ground made out by the petitioners to interfere with the same by the court in excise of its discretionary and supervisory jurisdictions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner is devoid of made and able to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.