V.N Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Both the Original Applications are being decided with the consent of learned counsels for the parties by a common order as the reliefs and controversy involved in both the cases are similar and identical. OA No. 330/00067/2015 is being treated as a leading case.

The applicants have filed these Original Applications under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-

The brief facts of both the OAs are that all the applicants had entered in the Defence Accounts Department as Clerks/Auditors and consequent upon passing of Sub Ordinate Accounts Services Examination, they were promoted to the post of Section Officer (Accounts). Thereafter they were promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Senior Accounts Officer on seniority cum fitness basis. They were selected for promotion to Group ‘A’ post of IDAS cadre and posted as ACDA and thereafter retired from service on different dates of the years 2010 to 2015. On recommendation of sixth CPC, the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- was given to the employees, which were posted from the post of Auditors to the post of ACDA, due to which, anomalies amongst various categories of the officers working in the Group ‘A’ & Group ‘B’ posts in Defence Accounts Department occurred. Aggrieved against the aforesaid anomalies, some of the officers as well as members of Association moved a representation before the concerned authority. Applicants came to know that Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 1238/HP/2013 Kalyan Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others has allowed the petition relating to aforesaid anomalies vide order dated 10.09.2013 granting higher Grade pay of Rs. 6600/- with PB-3 in the pay band of Rs. 15600/- to Rs. 39100/- with effect from the date they were promoted as ACDA’s in the cadre of IDAS along with all consequential benefits. Similar relief has also been granted by CAT, Madras in its order dated 26.04.2010 (T.R. Krishnamurty Vs. Union of India and others – OA No. 35/2009). Applicants prayed to extend them the benefits of the aforementioned court orders as their case are identical to the case of applicants of Chandigarh and Madras. In this regard, applicants preferred representations before the Competent Authority, but the same were rejected vide impugned orders dated 01.02.2014, 11.02.2014, 07.04.2014, 27.06.2014 and 25.02.2014. The aforesaid impugned orders are challenged in this OA.

We have heard Shri B.D. Tiwari learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Ram Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that respondents denied the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- to the applicants on promotion from Sr. Accounts Officer to the post of ACDA Group ‘A’ cadre of IDAS which is arbitrary, illegal and against the principle of natural justice as the same has already been paid by the respondents in pursuance to the judgment of CAT, Madras Bench judgment dated 26.04.2010 passed in OA No. 35/2009. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the recommendation of 6^th Central Pay Commission, MACP was granted to all the Central Government Civilian employees. According to MACP, Auditors, who have completed 30 years of their service, 3^rd financial upgradation became eligible for enhanced rate of Grade Pay from Rs. 4800/- to Rs. 5400/-per month. Aggrieved against the above anomaly, Assistant Accounts Officer Group ‘B’ officers went to the CAT, Madras Bench vide OA No. 966/2009 S. Prabhu and others Vs. UOI and others and OA No. 967/2009 S. Ranga Rajan and others Vs. Union of India and others and CAT, Madras vide order dated 29.12.2010 found anomaly as has been claimed by the applicants in that OA and allowed the aforesaid OAs and granted the benefit of Rs. 5400/- to the Assistant Accounts Officer Group ‘B’ officers. Learned counsel for the applicants lastly submitted that all the applicants have been promoted from Senior AO Group ‘B’ gazetted post to Group A post of ACDA after 01.01.2006. The applicant before promotions from Senior AO were getting PB-3 scale of pay Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- and after promotion from Senior AO Group ‘B’ to the post of ACDA Group ‘A’ have been given the same running grade pay of Rs. 5400/- in pay band -3 of Rs. 15600-39100, thus, they have not benefited monetary benefits after promotions from Senior AO Group ‘B’ to the post of ACDA Group ‘A’ posts. Thus, respondents have acted arbitrarily, illegally, without following the norms of 6^th CPC recommendations.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents argued that on implementation of recommendation of 3^rd Pay Commission, the scales were bifurcated into following three scales of pay.

Further on implementation of 4^th Pay Commission, the scales of pay were bifurcated into following four scales of pay:

As per 5^th Pay Commission, the scales of pay were further bifurcated into following four scales of pay:

After the approval of 6^th Pay Commission, the pay scale were again bifurcated into following three pay scales:-

Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that pay scale of all the posts in the Defence Accounts Department are according to the Government of India’s orders/regulations. The claim of the applicants that they should be granted pay scale of STS cadre after promotion from the post of Sr. AO is not supported with any rule or order. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that against the order dated 10.09.2013 passed in OA No. 1238-HP-2013, writ petition No. 512/2014 has already been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Hon’ble High Court stayed the effect and operation of order of the Chandigarh CAT. Learned counsel for the respondents next argued that the scheme of MACP provides the financial up-gradation on the basis of stagnation of an employee in the service. The benefit of up gradation under MACP scheme is purely personal. Under the scheme benefit of up-gradation in next grade pay is allowed without any change in designation or powers. The person who gets the benefit remains on the same post but seniors to him cannot get the advantage of up-gradation because they have earned all the three promotion in terms of the scheme of MACP. In such situation, the senior cannot claim for stepping up by enhancing in grade pay.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings available on record.

From perusal of order passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1238-HP-2013, it is evident that CAT, Chandigarh Bench has decided that the case of applicants were squarely covered by the decision of Madras Bench passed in OA No. 35/2009 dated 26.04.2010 (T.R. Krishnamurty Vs. Union of India and others). In this order, the Tribunal specifically relied upon the decision of CAT Madras Bench in the case of T.R. Krishnamurty (supra). For proper adjudication of this case, the relevant portion of order of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal is reproduced below:-

Thus, relying upon the order passed by the CAT, Chandigarh Bench wherein the Tribunal relied upon the case of T.R. Krishnamurthy (supra), which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court, the O.A. is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed and impugned order dated 25.02.2014, 03.03.2014, 07.04.2014, 11.02.2014, 27.06.2014, 25.02.2014 are hereby set aside. Respondents are hereby directed to re-consider and decide the claim of the applicants for grant of STS pay scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15200 (revised in PB 3 in the pay band of Rs. 15600/- to Rs. 39100 with grade pay of Rs. 6600/- from the date they were promoted as ACDA in the cadre of IDAS, in view of the judicial pronouncements noted above. If the applicants are similarly situated to the applicants in the aforementioned case, they be granted the relevant benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Copy of judgment be also kept in the record of OA No. 678/2014.