Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Through ... vs M/O Defence on 13 February, 2026
Reserved on 10.02.2026.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
This is the 13th day of February, 2026.
Original Application No. 330/00801/2014
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, MEMBER (A)
1. Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh through its General
Secretary. 2 Navin Market, Kanpur.
2. Sudhir Kumar Tripathi s/o shri Ram Krishna Tripaths
T.NO.8266, OPF Kanpur.
3. Suresh Yadav son of Late Soney Lal. T.NO.8177 OPF Kr.
4. Bhupendra Kumar, s/o shri Babu Lal. T.No.8263 OPF Kr.
5. Sudhir Vikram singh,s/o V.B.Singh T.NO.8181/OPF
6. Durga Prasad Pandey, s/o late om Shanker Pandey,
T.NO.8962/OPF Kanpur.
7. Om Prakash s/o late Ram Charan T.No.8271,OPF Kanpur.
8. Narendra Kumar Nishad, s/o late Munni Lal, T.NO.8844/OPF
Kanpur.
9. Yogesh Kumar Pal, s/o Shri Ram Kumar, T.NO.7948/OPF
10. Mahendra Kumar Sharma, s/o Mool Shanker Sharma
T.NO.7938/OPF Kanpur.
11. Vikash Kumar sonker, s/o late Surendra Kumar Sonker
T.NO.7754/OPF Kanpur.
12. Ram Krishna Mishra, s/o Ram Abhilakh Mishra T.NO.8
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA 306/OP F Kanpur.
13. Ramendra Kumar Singh, s/o Late Mohan Lal, T.No.8261/OP
F Kanpur.
14. Santosh Kumar Shukla, s/o Bimal Kumar Shukla,
T.NO.8186/OPF Kanpur.
2
15.Prashant Agnihotri, s/o late Awadh Behari, T.NO.8691/OPF
Kanpur.
16. Jai Narain, s/o Mata Prasad T.NO.79 20/OP F Kanpur.
17. Rajesh Kumar Trivedi, s/o om prakash Trivedi,
T.NO.7933/OPF Kanpur.
18. Shyam Lal, s/o Badloo prasad, TaNo.7960/OPF Kanpur.
19. Raj Kumar, 5/o Chhote Lal., T.NO.8648/OPF Kanpur.
20. Somwati, w/o Raj Kumar, TNO.8780/OPF Kanpur.
21. Ravindra Kumar srivastava, s/o Late Vijal Bahadur Srivastava
T.NO.8272/OPF Kanpur
22. Surendra Pratap Singh, s/o late shyam Narain Singh
T.NO.8187/OPF Kanpur.
23. Anil Kumar Kushwaha, s/o Jai Ram Kushwaha
T.NO.8260/CPF Kanpur.
24. Ramesh Chandra Kashyap, s/o late Sunder Lal.
T.NO.7921/OPF Kanpur.
25. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, s/o Late Ghanshyam Lal
T.NO.8574/OPF Kanpur.
26. Devendra Kumar Vishwakarma s/o siya Ram Vishwakarma
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
T.NO.8275/OPF Kanpur.
27. Shiv Shanker Dhanuk, s/o late Guru Charan T.NO.8186/OPF
Kanpur.
28. Bashishta Munimal, s/o Babu Ram Mal, T.NO.8320/OPF
Kanpur.
3
29. Surendra Singh, s/o late Nand Kishor Singh T.NO.8191/OPF
Kanpur.
30. Neeraj Kumar Verma, s/o shri Jagdish Prasad T.No.8258/OPF
Kanpur.
31. Vikram Malhotra, s/o late Suresh Chandra Malhotra
T.NO.8779/OPF Kanpur.
32. Bitan Devi, s/o. D/O Kamlesh Kumar T.NO.8360/OP F
Kanpur.
33. Leela Devi w/o Bhaiya Lal, T.No.8376/OFF Kanpur.
34. Nirmala Devi, W/o Kali Prasad, T.NO.8685/CP F Kanpur.
35. Ram Pati, w/o late Ashok, TaNo.8555/OPF Kanpur.
36. Rajendra Prasad, s/o late Ram Sahai T.NO.6572/OPF Kanpur.
37. Shakira Khatoon, w/o Nijamuddin, T.No.8544/CPP Kanpur.
38. Shakuntala Devi, S/o late Shiv Dutta, T.NO.8728/OPF
Kanpur.
39. Laxman Prasad, s/o late Uma Shanker, T.NO.7934/OP F
40. Suresh Chandra. s/o late Badri Prasad, T.NO.8227/OPF
Kanpur.
MANISH KUMAR 41. Sudhir Kumar Dubey, s/o late Hare Krishna Dubey
SRIVASTAVA
T.No.8171/OP F Kanpur.
42. Kewal Kishor, s/o late Chaube Sonker T.No.8276/OPF
Kanpur.
43. Prakash Narain Tewari, 5/0 late Guru Prasad Tewari
T.NO.7580/OPF Kanpur.
4
44. Umesh Kumar Sharma, s/o Raja Ram Sharima, T.No.809
2/OPF Kanpur.
45. Roop Kumar Saxena, 5/0 Late GL. Saxena T.NO.8118/OPF
Kanpur.
46. Tribhuwan Narain Verma, s/o late Bulaki Das Sharma T.No.
7823/OPF Kanpur.
47. Jagdish Lal, s/o late Ram Lal. T.No.8153/OP F Kanpur.
48. Anil Kumar, S/O late Jagdish Narain, T.NO.8104/OPF
Kanpur.
49. Anil Kumar Shakya, s/o late Prem Kumar T.NO.8175/OFF.
50. Pramod Kumar Tewari, 5/0 late puttu Lal Tewari
1.No.8111/OPP Kanpur.
51. Umesh Kumar Yadav, s/o late Raja Ram Yadav
T.NO.8280/OPF Kanpur.
52. Ashok Kumar, s/o late Sunder Lal T.NO.7716/OP F.
53. Iliyas Topno, s/o late Ram Singh Topno T.NO.7495/OFF.
54. Anil Kumar Bajpai, s/o late Ram Bilas Bajpai,
T.NO.8832/OPF Kanpur.
MANISH KUMAR 55. Jai Shanker, s/o late Shiv Govind T.No.8463/OP F.
SRIVASTAVA
56. Meet Raj, s/o late Kathal, T.Ho.8734/OP 7 Kanpur.
57. Nawal Kishor Mishra, s/o late Ayodhya Prasad Mishra
T.NO.6915/OFF Kanpur.
5
58. Chandra Mauli Awasthi, s/o om prakash Awasthi
T.NO.7791/OPF Kanpur.
59. Nijamuddin, s/o late Rahimuddin, T.No.8334/OPF Kpr.
60. Ram Swarup, s/o Thakur Das, T.No.8080/oPF Kanpur.
61. Devi Charan Kashyap, s/o Late Shyam Lal Kashyap T.NO.81
28/OP7 Kanpur.
62. Jitendra Kumar Chopra, s/o Prithvi Raj Chopra
T.NO.7736/OPF Kanpur.
63. Rakesh Kumar Rawat, s/o Shiv Gopal Rawat T.NO.7742/OPF
Kanpur.
64. Jaspal Singh Khera, s/o Guru Darshan Singh Khera
T.NO.7035/OP F Kanpur.
65. Kamlesh Kumar, s/o Ram Krishna, T.No.7739/OPP Kanpur.
66. Jyanto Kumar Chatterjee, s/o late Sudhir Kumar Chatterjee,
TNO.7757/OPF Kanpur.
67. Rakesh Srivastava, s/o late Shiv Prasad Srivastava
T.NO.7762/OPF Kanpur.
68. Kunwar Bahadur, s/o late Pratap Singh, T.NO.8162/OPF
Kanpur.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
69. Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, s/o late Raj Karan Tripathi
T.Ho.7733/OPF Kanpur.
70. Vinod Kumar, s/o Devi Shanker, T.No. 7930/OP F Kanpur
71. Manoj Kumar Sajjan, s/o Ram Nath Sajjan T.NO.7916/OPF
Kanpur.
6
72. Anil Kumar, s/o Chhote Lal, T.NO.7925/OPF Kanpur
73. Dinesh Kumar Verma, s/o late Hari Kishan Verma
T.NO.7922/OPF Kanpur.
74. Surendra Kumar Singh, s/o Narmada Prasad Singh
T.NO.7917/OPF Kanpur.
75. Sanjay Kumar Awasthi, s/o Suresh Chandra Awasthi
T.NO.8189/OPF Kanpur.
76. Satish Kumar Srivastava, s/o amar sath Srivastava
T.NO.8182/OP7 Kanpuг.
77. Kripa Shanker Verma, s/o late Jai Wafain T.NO.8733/OPF
Kanpur.
78. Rajoo, s/o late Hanuman Prasad T.NO.6348/OPF Kanpur.
79. Balwan Singh, s/o late Shambhoo Dayal Yadav,
T.NO.8699/OPF Kanpur.
80. Ajai Kumar, s/o late Ram Prasad T.NO.8917/OPF Kpr.
81. Manmohan singh, s/o Joginder Singh T.No.8317/OPF Kr.
82. Mohd. Naim, s/o late abdul Haqeem T.NO.8225/OFF Kr.
83. Vijai Kumar Singh, s/o Late Siya Saran Singh T.NO.8410/OP
F Kanpur.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
84. Rajendra Kumar, 5/0 late arij Lal T.No.8697/CPF Kr.
85. Sanjai Kumar Srivastava. s/o late Heera Lal Τ.ΝΟ.7746/OP2
Kanpur.
86. Prem Prakash Mishra, s/o Ved Prakash Mishra
T.NO.7750/OPF Kanpur.
7
87. Rajoo Srivastava, s/o Brijendra Kumar Srivastava
TNO.7772/OP F Kanpur.
88. Govind Gopal Tewari, s/o Loknath Tewari T.NO.8222/OP F
Kanpur.
89. Laeeq. S/o Bashir Ahmed, T.No.8224/OPF Kanpur.
90. Irfan Ahmed, s/o Mohd. Anis, T.No.8824/OP F Kanpur.
91. Ashvak Ahmed, s/o Nisar Ahmed T.No.8646/OPF Kanpur
92. Daya Shanker, s/o late Dhani Ram, T.No.9170/OP F
93. Khem Chandra, s/o late Hardev Singh T.No.8398/OFF.
94. Ram Chandra Yadav, 5/o late Bhagwan Deen T.No.8158/OPF
Kanpur.
95. Anand Kumar, T/o late Raja Ram, T.No.8347/OPF Kanpur.
96. Pappu Srivastava, s/o late Ram Chandra T.NO.8150/OPF
97. Ahmed Jafat, s/o Abdul Rajjak T.10.8626/OP F Kanpur.
98. Mohd. Wasim, s/o Abdul Rasheed T.Jio.8693/OPF Kanpur.
99. Lal Singh, s/o late Chhedi Singh T.NO.7447/OPF Kpr.
100. Sarvesh Kumar Bhadauri s/o late Krishna Kumar Bhadauria,
T.No.8633/OPF Kanpur.
101. Taj Mohd. s/o late Wali Mohd.T.No. 7645/OPF Kanpur.
102. Bhanu Pratap Singh Chauhan, s/o Sheetala Bux Singh
T.NO.9081/OPF Kanpur.
103. Dinesh Batham, s/o late Rameshwar Prasad T.NO.8642/CPF
Kanpur.
104. Sharad Kumar Saini s/o late Raja Ram T.No.8678/OPF.
105. Shiv Charan, s/o late Ram Charan, T.No.8882/OPF Kpr.
106. Mahesh Kumar, So late Krishna Verma T.NO.8549/OP F.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA 107. Rajnish Srivastava, s/o late Garebe Lal Srivastava
T.NO.8569/OPF Kanpur.
108. Bikram Singh, s/o shiv Narain Singh T.No.7932/OP F
109. Sandeep Neelu, s/o Ram Kishan, T.No.8647/op F Kanpur
110. Shahabuddin, s/o shafiuddin T.No.8390/OPF Kanpur
111. Santosh Kumar, s/o late shiv Kumar Verma T.NO.8605/OPF
Kanpur.
8
112. ISAC FRANCIS S/o FRANCIS T.No.8213/OPF Kanpur.
113. Naresh Chandra Verma, s/o Deen Dayal, T.No.8636/OP F
114. Ajai Mukherjee, s/o late S.N.Mukherjee T.No.8303/OP F
115. Nisar Ahmed, s/o late Ramzan T.No.8228/OPF Kanpur
116. Hansraj, s/o late Kali Charan T.NO.8232/OPF Kanpur
117. Hari Krishna Shukla, s/o late Dev Narain shukla
T.NO.8236/OP F Kanpur.
118. Dilip Kumar Srivastava, s/o late Bhairon Prasad
T.No.6980/OPF Kanpur
119. Santosh Kumar, s/o late Hausala Prasad, T.NO.7457/OPF
Kanpur.
120. Virendra Singh Verma, s/o Kedar Nath Verma T.NO.7759
121. Vinai Kumar Bajpai, s/o J.Bajpal T.NO.7778/OP F
122. Dildar Ahmed, s/o Abrar Ahmed T.No.8846/OPF Kanpur.
123. Riyaz Ahmed, s/o Mohd. Hanif T.No.8547/OPF Kanpur
124. Ajai Kumar, s/o Raja Ram Pandey, Talio. 7354/CPF Kanpur.
125. Sita Ram, s/o Kodai, T.No.8412/OPF Kanpur.
126. Vinod Kumar, s/o Dhoodha Mal, T.No. 7468/OPF Kanpur.
127. Sanjeev Kumar, s/o Moti Ram Bali, T.NO.8498/OPF Kpr.
128. Amar Nath Sahu, s/o Anand Kumar Sahu, T.No.8696/OPF.
129. Om prakash, s/o Ganga Prasad, T.No. 7922/OPF Kanpur.
130. Shakeel, s/o zamil Ahmed T.No.8910/OPF Kanpur.
131. Ram Prakash Pal, 5/0 Puttu Lal Pal, T.No.8143/OPF Kpr
132. Harish Chandra Singh, s/o Ram Sunder Singh,
T.NO.8887/OPF Kanpur.
133. Ram Achal, s/o Sambharu T.No.8209/OPF Kanpur
MANISH KUMAR 134. Vinod Singh, s/o sone Lal, T.10.6983/OPF Kanpur
SRIVASTAVA
135. Subodh Kumar Mishra, s/o Ranjeet Misra, T.NO.8323/OFF
136. Mohd. Aslam, s/o Kamruddin T.No.8546/OP F Kanpur
137. Madan Lal, s/o sunder Lal, T.No.8789/OPF Kanpur
138. Kali Shanker Bajpai, s/o Frem Shanker Bajpai
T.NO.8838/OPF Kanpur.
139. Om Karan, s/o Nand Lal Ji, T.No.8293/OPF Kanpur
9
140. Nirmohi, s/o Ram Karan, T.No.8382/OP F Kanpur
141. Prem Chandra, s/o Guru Charan T.No.8145/OPF Kanpur
142. Gyan Prakash, s/o Bachchoo Lal T.No.8606/OPF Kanpur
143. Brij Kishor, s/o Maikoo Lal T.No. 7965/OPP Kanpur
144. Santosh Kumar, S/o Devi Prasad T.NO.7720/OPF Kanpur
145. Vijal Bahadur, s/o Shree Krishan T.No.8392/OPF Kanpur
146. Nirmal Kumar Verma, s/o Chandra Kishore Verma
T.NO.8102/OPF Kanpur.
147. Rajjan Srivastava, s/o Mukut Bihari T.No.8151/OP F
148. Yogendra Singh s/o Yamuna Prasad T.No.7784/OPF
149. Qadir Ahmed s/o Mohd.Jaki T.No.8134/OP F Kanpur.
150. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, s/o Chandra Nath Tewari
T.NO.7743/OPF Kanpur
151. Uma Shanker, s/o Kalloo, T.NO.8135/OPF Kanpur
152. Sayeed Ahmed, s/o Sazade, T.No.8237/OP F Kanpur.
153. Ashok Kumar Pande, S/O Stya Deo Pandey. T.NO.7732/OPF
Kanpur.
154. Surya Kant Dixit, s/o Hari Kishan Dixit. T.NO.7745/OPF
Kanpur.
155. Chintamani Pandey, s/o Ram Niwas Pandey. T.NO.8154/CP
F Kanpur.
156. Smt.Rajani Trivedi, W/o Rajendra Trivedi, T.NO.8826/OPF
Kanpur.
157. Malka Bano, W/O Afaq Ahmed, T.NO.8651/OPF Kanpur
158. Sumanlata, w/o Satish Kumar Verma T.NO.8677/OPF Kr.
159. Suman Devi Jaiswal, W/O A.K.Jaiswal, T.NO.8698/OP F
MANISH KUMAR 160. Urmila Devi S/o Ram Pal, T.NO.8791/OP F Kanpur.
SRIVASTAVA
161. Manorama, w/o Kali Charan T.No.8601/CPF Kanpur
162. Chanda Devi w/o Munnoo Lal, T.NO.8885/OPF Kanpur
163. Ram Kumari Verma, w/o Goptal Verma T.No.8783/OP F
164. Smt.Anita Ghosh, w/o P.K. Ghose, T.NO.8784/OPF Kanpur
165. Smt.Sarla Devi, W/o Ram Swarup T.NO.8793/OPF Kanpur
166. Ravi Shanker, s/o Lalta Prasad T.NO.8497/OPF Kanpur
10
167. Manoj Kumar, s/o Nanhkaru Prasad T.NO.8201/OPF Kanpu
168. Tarun Kumar, s/o Ram Babu Sonker T.NO.8727/OP F Kpr.
169. Pramod Singh, s/o Bhagwan Singh T.No.9161/OPF Kanpur
170. Ram Narain, s/o Vidya Sagar Gupta, T.No.8457/OPF Kpr
171. Shree Kant, s/o shiv Dutt Lal. T.NO.7669/OPF Kanpur
172. Kishan Kumar, s/0 Ram Prasad Shukla T.NO.8511/OFF
173. Virendra Kumar singh S/o shyam Bahadur Singh
T.NO.8419/OPF Kanpur.
174. Parvez, s/o Sirazuddin T.No.8397/OPF Kanpur.
175. Suresh Chandra, s/o Prasadi, T.NO.7950/OPF Kanpur.
176. Sanjay Puri s/o S.C. Puri, T.NO.7744/OPF Kanpur.
177. Akhileshwar Singh s/o Raj Kishor Singh, T.NO.7756/OPF
Kanpur.
178. Sushil Kumar Srivastava, s/o Shiv Sagar Srivastava
T.NO.7748/OPF Kanpur.
179. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, s/o Lallan singh, T.NO.8307/OPF
Kanpur.
180. Ramesh Chandra, s/o Bhagwan Singh, T. No.8160/OFF Kpr.
181. Dayanand Prasad Verma, s/o Dharmanath Prasad
T.NO.8310/OP F Kanpur.
182. Surendra Kumar Srivastava, s/o Vishwanath Srivastava
T.NO.9 200/OPF Kanpur
183. Taufiq Ahmed, s/o Ramzan, T.No.8423/OP F Kanpur
184. Mahesh Kumar, s/o Jay Ram, T.NO.8668/OPF Kanpur
185. Vinod Kumar Sahu, s/o Chandra Pal Sahu, T.NO.8309/OPF
Kanpur.
MANISH KUMAR 186. Nand Kumar Pathak, s/o Janak Pathak T.NO.7740/OP F
SRIVASTAVA
187. Shishu Pal, s/o Mahabir Singh T.NO.8703/OPF Kanpur
188. Gulab Singh, s/o Sampat T.NO.8140/OPF Kanpur
189. Vijai Singh, s/o Budhi Lal, T.NO.8792/OP F Kanpur
190. Sundar Lal, s/o Ram Bali T.NO.8108/OPF Kanpur
191. Ram Dhani, s/o Ram Lal, T.No.8641/OPF Kanpur
192. Mohd. Shamim s/o Abdul Gani T.NO.8568/OPF Kanpur
11
193. Noor Mohd.. 5/o Zia Mohd. T.No.8322/OPF Kanpur
194. Raj Kumar, 5/0 sidhdha Gopal singh, T.NO.8229/CPF
Kanpur
195. Uma Shanker, s/o phool Chandra, T.No.8753/OPF Kpr.
196. Buchchi Lal. s/0 Maikoo Lal T.No. 7602/OFF Kanpur
197. Nanhe Lal, s/o Sita Ram, T.NO.8196/OPF Kanpur
198. David Maise, 5/0 Iqbal Maise T.NO.7089/OPF Kanpur
..........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri S.J.Ishtiaque
Versus
1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Deptt. of Defence production and Supplies, South Block,
NEW DELHI 110 011.
2. Union of India, Through the Secretary. Ministry of Personnel,
public Grievances & Pensions, Deptt. of Personnel &
Training, NEW DELHI-110 011.
3. Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination & Services) 10, A-
Shaheed Khudiram Bose Road, Kolkata - 700001.
4. The Chairman & Managing Director, Gliders India Ltd.,
Kanpur.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Shri Arvind Singh
(O R D E R)
MANISH KUMAR BY JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)
SRIVASTAVA
The present O.A has been filed by the applicants under
section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking
following reliefs:-
(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the
orders dated 20.06.2011 and 01.12.2010 and pass same order which
12
is passed in similar circumstances in OA No. 1401 of 2012 on
30.8.2013.
(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct to the
respondents to give all consequential benefits to the applicants on
the basis of aforesaid direction.
(iii) To pass any order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit under the
circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award cost in favour of the applicants".
2. The brief facts of the OA are as follows:-
Applicant No.1 is a registered Trade Union under the Trade
Unions Act, 1926, and applicants Nos. 2 to 198 are posted as Highly
Skilled Grade I/Master Craftman in Ordnance Parachute Factory,
Kanpur. The cadre of Artisan staff in Defence Establishments was
restructured with effect from 01.01.2006 by order of the Hon'ble
President of India. As a one-time measure, employees were placed
in higher grades without any trade test. Later, by letters dated
01.12.2010, the respondents treated the placement of Highly Skilled
Workers from Grade Pay Rs.2400 to Rs.2800 as a promotion and,
on that basis, denied them financial upgradation under the
ACP/MACP Scheme. In similar circumstances, the CAT,
Hyderabad Bench, held that such placement on restructuring is not a
promotion and employees are entitled to financial upgradation. This
view was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and finally by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Following the same principle, the CAT,
Principal Bench in OA No. 4101/2012 quashed the letters dated
01.12.2010 and 20.06.2011 and held that Highly Skilled Workers in
Grade Pay Rs.2400/2800 are entitled to Grade Pay Rs.4200 on
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. Despite this
clear judgment, the respondents did not grant the benefit to the
applicants. Therefore, the present Original Application has been
filed.
3. Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit
stating therein that as per Ministry of Defence letters dated
13
01.12.2010 and 20.06.2011, issued in consultation with the
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), the placement of 50%
of the existing Highly Skilled Workers from Grade Pay ₹2400 to
Highly Skilled-I with Grade Pay Rs. 2800 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 has
been clearly treated as a promotion for the purpose of ACP/MACP.
Accordingly, financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme
was not admissible. It is further stated that no fresh circular or
notification has been issued by the Ministry of Defence after the
judgments relied upon by the applicants, and therefore the said
letters dated 01.12.2010 and 20.06.2011 are still operative. The
respondents also submit that similar matters are pending before
different Benches of the Tribunal. In OA No. 801/2014, it has been
brought to notice that although CAT, Kolkata Bench quashed part of
the MoD letter dated 01.12.2010, the said order has been challenged
by Rifle Factory, Ichapur before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court
and the matter is sub judice. Hence, it is contended that it would be
appropriate to await the final decision of the Hon'ble High Court, as
the issue involves a policy decision regarding cadre restructuring,
which will have uniform applicability to all Ordnance Factories.
4. In reply to the counter affidavit, applicants have filed
rejoinder affidavit opposing the contentions as made in the counter
affidavit while reiterating the averments as already advanced in the
OA. Nothing new has been averred in the rejoinder affidavit.
5 We have heard Shri S.J Ishtiaque, learned counsel for the
applicants and Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the
MANISH KUMAR respondents and perused the record.
SRIVASTAVA
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that
the issue involved in the present matter had already been decided in
Ch. Sadanandam and others Vs. Union of India and others passed
in OA NO. 447 of 2008 on dated 27.7.2010 by the Hyderabad
Bench of this Tribunal. It is also argued that order passed in the OA
No. 447/2008 (referred to above) was challenged before the Hon'ble
14
High Court of Judicature in Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in writ
petition No. 3719 of 2011. Hon'ble High Court on dated 21.02.2011
dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order passed by the
Tribunal in the O.A. It was next argued that orders passed in the OA
as well as in the aforesaid writ petition was challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court through Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
/2011 (CC 20442/2011) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed
the same vide order dated 26.9.2012. Thus, issue raised in that
matter has attained finality. It was next argued that similar issue was
also come up for consideration before the Principal Bench of
Central Administrative Tribunal in Satyvir Singh and others passed
in OA No. 4101 of 2012 and it was decided on dated 30.08.2013
and orders dated 20.06.2011 and 01.12.2010 challenged in present
OA and also challenged in the OA before the Principal Bench of this
Tribunal have been set aside. Thus also, argued that issue raised in
the present matter between the employees of the same department
have also attained finality. Referring to the judgment and order
passed in the OA No. 4101 of 2012 (referred to above), learned
counsel for the applicants further argued that present OA is also
squarely covered with the judgment and order passed in the
aforesaid matters. Thus, OA be allowed in similar terms as has been
allowed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the counter
affidavit argued that judgment and order passed in OA No. 4101 of
2012 is judgment in personam and ratio laid down in the said
judgment cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA present case. Referring to the observation recorded in the impugned
order, it was further argued that relief claimed in the matter cannot
be allowed.
8. Refuting the argument advanced by the learned counsel for
the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants argued that ratio
decided in the cases relied by the applicants is judgment in rem. It
15
was applicable to all similarly situated employees. Respondents
ought to have implemented the decision taken by the Principal
Bench of this Tribunal in the OA., in respect of all the similarly
situated employee. It is also argued that impugned order challenged
in the matter has already been set aside/quashed by the Principal
Bench of this Tribunal.
9. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire
records.
10. Before discussing the submissions raised across the bar, it
will be useful to quote the orders of Hyderabad Bench of this
Tribunal, judgment and order of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High
Court and Principal Bench of this Tribunal relied upon by the
learned counsel for the applicants:-
(i) Order of Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal passed in OA
No. 447/2008:
"CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH AT HYDERABAD
OA No. 447 of 2008
Date of Order 27.07-2010
Between
1. Ch. Sadanandam S/o Ch. Sarvaiah, Age 51 years.
2. Ch. Appa Rao/o Ch. Pothu Raju, Age. 52 years
3. M.K.Reddy S/o M.S.N.Reddy, Age: 53 years.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA 4. M.Nanaji S/o M.Satti Babu, Age: 51 years
5. N.V.M.Varma Sio Viswanadha Raju, Age: 51 years
6. G. Dharma Kao Sio Atchannaidu, Age: 50 years
7. M. Nageswara Rao S/o Adinarayana, Age: 50 years
8. S.Khareswara Rao S/o Appa Rao, Age: 51 years
9. Abhimanyu Swain S/o Kelu Charan Swain, Age: 52 years
16
10. K.K.Sagar S/o Durga Prasada Rao, Age: 50 years
11. B.M.P. Kumar S/o B.Bangar Rao, Age: 49 years
12. Angalakuduru Ranga Rao S/o A.Sambasiva Rao, Age: 48 years
13. Biswajit Mondal S/o S.K.Mondal, Age: 54 years
14. Pilla Veerraju S/o P.Polaile Age: 43 years
15.Haridas Mohandas S/o Haridas, Age: 56 years
16. Gepal Chandra Mishra Sio Chakradhar Mishra, Age 50 years
17. Ramachandre Müdull Sio Baldhara Muduli, Age 50 years
18.M. Kutumba Rao So M. Sanyasi Rao Age: 50 years
19. Sasapu Raja Ratnam S/o S.Satyanarayana, Age 50 years
20 P Jogeswara Rao So P.Rama Krishna, Age: 50 years
21 Dibya Lochan Swain S/o Lokanath Swain, Age: 49 years
22 Shree Bhagwan Das S/o Shree Thakur Prasad, Age: 48 years
23.K.Bappa Rao S/o Raghavulu, Age: 52 years
(All the applicants are working as Master of Crafts Men and the 2nd
applicants is Highly Skilled-1 under the control of Admiral Superintendent,
Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam).
Applicants
And
1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, M/o Defence, New Delhi.
2. The Sr. Administrative Officer for Admiral Superintendent, Naval
Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
3. The Chief of the Naval Staff (for PDCP), Integrated Head Quarters of the
Ministry of Defence (Navy), New Delhi.
4. The Flag Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, Head Quarters, Eastern Naval
Command (For SSOCP), Visakhapatnam.
5. The Sr. Accounts Officer O/o FA to ASD. Naval Dockyard,
MANISH KUMAR Visakhapatnam
SRIVASTAVA
Counsel for the Applicants : Dr. A.Raghu Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.Lakshmana Rao, Addl. CGSC
....Respondents
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. BHARATI RAY MEMBER (JUDL)
17
THE HON'BLE MR'R. SANTHANAM MEMBER (ADMN
(Order her Han'ble Mr. R.Santhanam: Member FA31
This application has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondents for
granting of second Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefit to the
applicants as they have completed more than 24 years of service
2. The applicants were appointed as Turner-I in the Naval
Establishment under the control of Admiral Superintendent,
Visakhapatnam, during the yours 1978 and 1979. They are presently
working as Master Craftsmen and the second applicants is working as HSK-
I in the scale of Rs.5000-8000. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, vide
letter dated 8.4.1986 had issued instructions regarding the fitment of
industrial workers in pay scales recommended by the 3rd Pay Commission,
according to which a three grade structure in 23 common category jobs
which have been allowed bench mark percentage in HS II and I category
was introduced. Pursuant to the introduction of ACP for Central
Government Civilian employees, the applicants were granted first ACP on
29.9.2000 effective from 9.8.1999. Though the applicants have completed 24
years of service by 2002 and 2003 they have not been granted the second
ACP benefit. It is the applicants' case that though they have passed the
qualifying examination in respect of eligible candidates, the benefit has not
been given and the matter is under negotiation between Administration and
the Union. The applicants have stated that the Ministry of Defence had taken
a stand that the placement of the applicants in the scale of HSK-II i.e.
Rs.330-400 was not a promotion but only a fitment. But this has been
wrongly interpreted by the Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard,
Visakhapatnam, as a promotion and the second ACP being is denied to
them. Though the matter has been taken up.
Category Scale Benchmark percentage
(a) Highly skilled Rs. 330-480 15%
Grade I
(b) Highly skilled Rs. 330-480 20%
Gr. II
(c) Skilled Rs. 260-400 65%
However while implementing the scheme instead of using the term
'fainéant', the term "Promotion" has been used. It is the applicants'
contention that the original scheme of fitment introduced by MoD on
16.10.1981 and the scheme of 15.10.1984 both speak in terms of 'fitment of
industrial worker and the nomenclature given by the Respondents while
implementing the orders is illegal and beyond the scope of the scheme. They
have also pointed out that the Government while issuing clarifications on the
implementation of ACP Scheme have clarified that when two pay scales are
MANISH KUMAR merged as a result of rationalization, the mobility under the ACP shall be in
SRIVASTAVA the hierarchy after the merger of pay scales by ignoring the promotion. An
employee who got the promotion from lower pay scale to higher pay scale as
a result of promotion before the merger of pay scales shall be entitled for
upgradation under the ACR ignoring the said promotion as otherwise he
would be placed in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis the persons entering
into the next merged grade. In the instant case the placement of the
applicants in the scale of Rs.330-480 had taken place in 1985, much before
the introduction of ACP Scheme. It was done based on the recommendations
of the Anomalies Committee. It is seen from MoD Lr. dated 15.10.2004,
enclosed as Annexure II to the Reply Statement that 20% of the jobs in the
enumerated trades (including Turner) were earmarked for Highly Skilled
18
Gr. Il in the scale of Rs.330-480. No trade test of length of service was
stipulated. The applicants were given this scale by letter dated ----
4. The applicants have filed a rejoinder reiterating their case.
5. We have heard Dr. Raghu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants
and Sri P. Lakshmana Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
Respondents.
6. The short issue that arises for consideration is whether the
applicants claim that they are eligible for second ACP in the scale of
Rs.5500-9000 is sustainable in law.
7. It is seen from the material papers furnished that on 16.10.1981 the
pay scales of Turner category were revised as follows:-
Existing Revised
1. Turner A Rs.380-560 Rs.380-560
2. Turner B Rs.260-400 Rs.260-400
3. Turner C Rs. 225-308 Rs.260--400
The above revision was done in pursuance of 3rd Pay Commission
Recommendations. 5% of the posts were upgraded from Skilled/HSK.II to
HSK.II/I respectively in certain specified trades. On 15.10.1984 based on the
recommendations of Anomalies Committee, the MoD issued directions for
fitment of industrial workers of Indian Navy into pay scales recommended by
the 3rd Central Pay Commission for provisional introduction of HS Gr. Il
(Rs.330-480) and HS Gr.1 (Rs.380-560) from common category jobs
classified as Skilled. The job of Turner was also one of the 21 Trades in the
list of common category Skilled jobs. The following was the bench mark
percentage by the Unions with the Respondents, there has been no positive
action from the Respondents so far. Hence this O.A.
3. The Respondents in their reply affidavit have stated that the
applicants were appointed as Grade-1 on completion of Apprenticeship from
Dockyard Apprentice School, Visakhapatnam in the scale of Rs. 260-400
during the years 1978-79. They had been promoted to Highly Skilled Grill
during 1984-85 in the pay scale of Rs.330-480 (pre-revised) and upgraded to
the pay scale of Master Craftsmen on selection basis in the pay scale of
Rs.4500-7000 but not in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 as mentioned in the
O.A. Since the applicants were promoted to Highly Skilled Gr.Il, they were
not entitled for first ACP. However, they were entitled for second ACP on
completion of 24 years and accordingly they were granted ACP in the pay
scale of Rs.5000-8000. They have disputed the contention of the applicants
that they were working as Master Craftsmen besides working as Highly
Skilled Gr.1 in the scale of Rs.5000-8000. The pay scale of Highly Skilled
MANISH KUMAR Gr.l is Rs.4000-6000 and that of Master Craftsmen is Rs.4500-7000.
SRIVASTAVA According to the Respondents the post of Master Craftsmen is not a
promotional post. It is a post carrying upgraded pay scale of Rs.4500-7000.
They have submitted that the contention of the applicants that since they
were drawing the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 they were entitled to second
ACP in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 is not tenable since the applicants were
recruited in the erstwhile pay scale of Rs.260-400 (now Rs.3050-4590) and
promoted to the scale of Highly Skilled Gr. Il in the pay scale of Rs.330-480
(now Rs.4000-6000).
20.2.1985 (Annexure-lll to reply). Though this letter uses the word
promotion, in effect it was only fitment.
19
8. Learned counsel for the applicants relied on a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kashmiri Lal & Others Vs. State Bank of
Patiala in Civil Appeal No. 566/1983 (with IWP No. 13067-68 of 1983)
decided on 9.2.1988 in which it was held that fitment does not amount to
promotion. This was reiterated in Tarsem Lal Gautam Vs. State Bank of
Patiala & Others in Writ Petition No. 13369/1984 decided on 9.2.1988. In
Director General, Rice Research Institution, Curtack Vs. K.M.Das (AIR
1995 SC 122), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a promotion is different
from fitment by way of rationalization and initial adjustment. In P.S.Rajput
& 2 Others Vs. Union of India & Others, a Full Bench of this Tribunal
(Allahabad) held that the upgradation of a cadre as a result restructuring or
adjustment of existing staff will not be termed as promotion. Applying this
principle, the upgradation of the applicants to the scale of Rs.330-480 in
view of the benchmark percentage fixed for different categories can only be
termed as a 'fitment' and not as 'promotion'.
9. Consequent to the implementation of 4th and 5th Central Pay
Commission scales, the earlier scales had been revised as follows:-
3rd CPC 4th CPC 5th CPC
Rs.260-400 Rs.950-1400 Rs.3050-4590
Rs.330-480 Rs.1200-1800 Rs.4000-6000
Rs.380-560 Rs 1320-2040
'It is seen from the above that the 5th Central Pay Commission had merged
the two scales of Rs.1200-1800 and Rs.1320-2040 to a common scale of
Rs.4000-6000. Since the scale corresponding to the scale Rs. 330-480 in
which the applicants had been placed earlier was Rs.4000-6000 after the 5th
Central Pay Commission, recommendations they were given first ACP to Rs
5000-8000. The earlier order placing them the scale of Rs. 4500-7000 has
been modified to Rs.5000-8000 in Civil Establishment order/A/12/2004 dated
9.1.2004, a copy of which was famished by the learned counsel for the
applicants and taken on record. This order shows that the applicants have
been given the first upgradation to the scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect
from 9.8.1999. It therefore follows that they are entitled for second
upgradation if they had not obtained any promotion after 1999 to the pay
scale of Rs.5500-9000.
10. In the result, the OA is allowed and applicants are entitled for
second ACP in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 or completion of 24 years of
service. The Respondents are directed to issue orders accordingly and pay
arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order
11. No order as to costs".
MANISH KUMAR (ii) Judgment and order of Hon'ble High Court, Andhra
SRIVASTAVA
Pradesh passed in Writ Petition No. 3719/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT
HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO
THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
20
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
And
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 3719 of 2011
Between
1 The Union of India, rep by Secretary to Govt. of India Ministry of
Defence, New Delhi
2 The Sr. Administrative Officer for Admiral Superintendent
Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
3 The Chief of Naval Staff (for PDCP) IHQ of Ministry of Defence (Navy)
New Delhi,
4 The Flag Officer Commanding in Chief Eastern Naval Command
[SSO(CP)), Visakhapatnam
5 The Sr. Accounts Officer.
Olo. FA to ASD, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
PETITIONERS
AND
1 Shri Ch. Sadanandam, Sio Ch. Sarvalah, T.No. 7267, MCM, Naval
Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530 014.
2 Shri Ch Appa Rao, Sio. Ch. Pothu Raju. T.No. 7995, MCM, Naval
Dockyard. Visakhapatnam-530 014.
3 Shri MK Reddy, S/o MSN Reddy. T.No 4574, MCM, Naval Dockyard,
Visakhapatnam-530 014
4 Shri M. Nanaji, Sio. M. Satti Babu, T.No. 7100, MCM, Naval Dockyard
Visakhapatnam-530 014
5 Shri NVM Varma, Slo Viswanadha Raju T. No. 7102, MCM, Naval
MANISH KUMAR Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530.014.
SRIVASTAVA
6 Shri G. Dharma Rao. Sio. Atchan Nardu, T. No. 7104, MCM, Naval
Dockyard. Visakhapatnam-530 014
7 Shri M. Nageswara Rao. Sio Adinarayana. T No. 7258, MCM Naval
Dockyard Visakhapatnam-530014
8.Shri S. Khareswara Rao, Sio. Apoą Rao T. No. 7281, MCM, Naval
Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530014
9. Shri Abhimanyu Swain. Sio Kelu Charan Swain T. No. 7266, MCM,
Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530014
21
10 Shri KK Sagar, Sic. Durga Prasada Rao, T. No 7080. MCM Naval
Dockyard. Visakhapatnam-530014.
11 Shri BMP. Kumar, Sto. B. Bangar Rao. T. No. 7981, MCM, Naval
Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530 014
12 Shri Analakuduru Ranga Rao, Sio. A Sambasiva Rao T. No. 7982. MCM,
Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530 014. R/o D.No. 63-3-52/1, Jawahar
Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 011
13 Shri Biswajit Mondal Slo. SK Mondal T.No. 7983, MCM, Naval
Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530 014
14 Shri Pilla Veerraju, S/o. P. Polalle. T. No. 7984, MCM, Naval Dockyard
Visakhapatnam-530014.
15 Shri Haridas Mohandas, Sio. Haridas. T.No. 7985, MCM, Naval
Dockyard. Visakhapatnam-530 014
16 Shri Gopal Chandra Mishra, S/o Chakradhar Mishra, T.No. 7987,
MCM., Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530 014
17 Shri Rama Chandra Muduli, Sio. Baidhara Mudull, T. No. 7988, MCM,
Naval Dockyard. Visakhapatnam-530.014
18 Shri M. Kutumba Rap, Sio. M. Sanyasi Rao. T.No. 7991, MCM, Naval
Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530 014
19 Shri Sasapu Raja Ratnam Sio S Satyanarayana T. No. 7992, MCM Naval
Dockyard. Visakhapatnam-530014.
20 Shri P. Jogeswara Rao. Sio P. Rama Krishna, T.No. 7993, MCM, Naval
Dockyard. Visakhapatnam-530014
21 Shri Dibya Lochan Swaln, S/o Lokanath Swain, T.No. 7996, MCM,
Naval Dockyard. Visakhapatnam-530 014
22 Shri Shree Bhagwan Das. S/o. Shree Thakur Prasad, T.No. 7934, MCM,
Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam-530 014
23 Shri K. Bappa Rao. Sio Raghavalu, T.No. 7114, MCM., Naval Dockyard,
Visakhapatnam-530014
24 The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be
pleased to issue preferably a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records pertaining to the
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA order made in O A. No. 447/2008 dated 27 July, 2010 on the file of Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad and quash the
same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional to law and unconstitutional,
declare the same as vold ab-inito, null and void.
Counsel for the Petitioners Sri. Ponnam Ashok Goud, (ASST SOLICITOR
GENERAL)
Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared
The Court made the following Order
22
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RL.NAGESWARA RAO AND
W.P.No.3719 of 2011
ORDER:PER GM.J) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27.07.2010 in O.A.No.447 of 2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.
Respondents 1 to 23 herein are the applicants before the Tribunal, They filed the above O.A. to direct the petitioners herein to grant second Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefit to them as they have completed more than 24 years of service. It is the case of the applicants before the Tribunal that they were appointed as Turner-I in the Naval Establishment during the years 1978 and 1979 and that applicants 1 and 3 to 23 are presently working as Master Craftsmen and the second applicants is working as HSK-I in the scale of Rs.5000-8000/- While so, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, vide letter dated 08.04.1986 had issued instructions regarding the fitment of industrial workers in pay scales recommended by the third pay commission, according to which a three grade structure in 23 common category jobs which have been allowed bench mark percentage in H.S. II and I categories was Introduced. Pursuant to the introduction of ACP for Central Government Civilian employees, the applicants were granted first ACP on 29.09.2000 with effect from 09.08.1999. Though they have passed the qualifying examination and have completed 24 years of service by 2002 and 2003, they have not been granted the second ACP benefit. It is stated that the Ministry of Defence had taken a stand that the placement of the applicants in the scale of HSK-11e.. Rs.330-400 was not a promotion but only a fitment. But the same has been wrongly interpreted by the Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam as a promotion and the second ACP is being denied to them.
Petitioners herein have filed their reply affidavit before the Tribunal denying the allegations of the applicants and contending that the applicants have been promoted to Highly Skilled Grade II during the year 1964-85 in the pay scale of Rs.330-480 (pre-revised) and upgraded to the pay scale of Master Craftsmen on selection basis in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 but not in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 as mentioned in the O.A. Since they were promoted to Highly Skilled Grade II, they are not entitled for first ACP. However, they are entitled for second ACP on completion of 24 years and accordingly they were granted ACP in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. According to the petitioners the post of Master Craftsmen is not a promotional post. It is a post carrying upgraded pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. It is stated that the contention of the applicants that since they are drawing the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, they are entitled to second ACP in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 is not tenable, since they were recruited in the erstwhile pay scale of Rs.260-400 and promoted to Highly Skilled Grade II in the pay scale MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA of Rs.330-480.
It was observed by the Tribunal that on 16.10.1981, the pay scales of Turner category were revised as follows:
Turner A Rs.380-560 Rs.380-560
Turner B Rs.260-400 Rs.260-400
Turner C Rs-225-308 Rs. 260-400
The above revision was done in pursuance of the 3 Pay Commission recommendations. 51% of the posts were upgraded from Skilled/HSKII to HSKII/HSKI respectively in certain specified trades. On 15.10.1984 based on 23 the recommendations of Anomalies Committee, the Ministry of Defence issued directions for fitment of industrial workers of Indian Navy into pay scales recommended by the 3 Central Pay Commission for provisional introduction of HS Grade II (Rs.330-480) and HS Grade 1 (Rs.380-560) from common category jobs classified as Skilled. The job of Turner was also one of the 21 Trades in the list of common category skilled jobs. The following was the benchmark percentage:
Category Scale Benchmark
Percentage
Highly Skilled Rs 330-480 15%
Grade 1
Highly Skilled Rs.330-480 20%
Grade II
Skilled Rs.260-400 65%
However, while implementing the scheme instead of using the term "fitment', the term "promotion" has been used. The applicants contention is that the original scheme of fitment introduced by Ministry of Defence on 16.10.1981 and the Scheme of 15.10.1984 both speak in terms of fitment of industrial worker and the nomenclature given by the petitioners while implementing the orders is illegal and beyond the scope of the scheme. They have also pointed out that the Government while issuing clarifications on the implementation of ACP Scheme have clarified that when two pay scales are merged as a result of rationalization, the mobility under the ACP shall be in the hierarchy after the merger of pay scales by ignoring the promotion, An employee who got the promotion from lower pay scale to higher pay scale before the merger of pay scales shall be entitled for upgradation under the ACP ignoring the said promotion, otherwise he would be placed in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis the persons entering into the next merged grade. In the instant case, the placement of the applicants in the scale of Rs.330-480 had taken place in 1985, much before the introduction of ACP Scheme. It was done based on the recommendations of the Anomalies Committee. It is seen from letter dated 15.10.2004 of the Ministry of Defence that 20% of the jobs in the enumerated trades (Including Turner) were earmarked for Highly Skilled Grade II in the scale of Rs.330-480. The applicants were given this scale by letter dated 20.02.1985. Though this letter uses the word promotion, in effect it was only fitment Before the Tribunal, the applicants have relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in KASHMIRI LAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE BANK OF PATIALA decided on 09.02.1988 in which it was held. that fitment does not amount to promotion, and the same was reiterated in TARSEM LAL GAUTAM VS STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND OTHERS decided on 09.02.1988. In DIRECTOR GENERAL, RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTION, CUTTACK VS K.M.DAS, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that promotion is different from fitment by way of rationalization and Initial adjustment. In P'S RAJPIJT AND TWO OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS, a Full Bench judgment of Allahabad Tribunal, it was held that the upgradation of a cadre as a result restructuring or adjustment of existing staff will not be termed as promotion.
Applying the above principles, the Tribunal has observed that the upgradation of the applicants to the scale of Rs.330-480 in view of the benchmark percentage fixed for different categories can only be termed as a 'fitment' and not as 'promotion Consequent to the implementation of 4 and 5 Central Pay Commission Scales, the earlier scales had been revised as follows:
243 CPC 4 CPC 5 CPC Rs.260-400 Rs.950-1400 Rs. 3050-4590 Rs. 330-480 Rs. 1200-1800 Rs.4000-6000 Rs.380-560 Rs.1320-2040 Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and, therefore, it has to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the applicants respondents herein on the other hand contended that the order of the Tribunal is correct and needs no interference by this Court.
As can be seen from the 5th Central Pay Commission, the two scales of Rs.1200-1800 and Rs.1320-2040 were merged and a common scale of Rs.4000-6000 was evolved. Since the scale corresponding to the scale of Rs.330-480 in which the applicants were earlier placed worked out to Rs.4000-6000 after the 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations, they were given first ACP to Rs.5000-8000. It is the case of the respondents herein that pursuant to the introduction of ACP for Central Government Civilian employees, they were granted first ACP on 29.09.2000 with effect from 09.08.1999. The earlier order placing them in Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 09.08.1999. Therefore, the Tribunal held that they are entitled for second upgradation if they had not obtained any promotion after 1999 to the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000.
Thus, on the scrutiny of the material available on record and on perusal of the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that on 15.10.1984, based on the recommendations of Anomalies Committee, the Ministry of Defence issued directions for fitment of pay of industrial workers of Indian Navy into pay scales as recommended by the 3rd Central Pay Commission in respect of provisional introduction of H.S. Grade II (Rs.330-480) and H.S. Grade 1 (Rs.380-560) from common category jobs, classified as Skilled. The job of Turner was also one of the 21 Trades in the list of common category skilled jobs. However, while implementing the scheme instead of using the term 'fitment", the term 'promotion' has been used. The applicants' contention is that the original scheme of fitment Introduced by Ministry of Defence on 16.10.1981 and the Scheme dated 15.10.1984 speak in terms of fitment of industrial worker and, therefore the nomenclature given by the petitioners in implementing the orders, is illegal and beyond the scope of the scheme.
Therefore, the Tribunal after taking into consideration, the order placing the applicants in the scale of Rs.4500-7000 which has been modified to Rs.5000- 8000 in Civil Establishment order/A/12/2004 dated 09.2.2004 which also shows that the applicants have been given the first upgradation to the scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 09.08.1999 and by following the principles lald down in the judgments referred to above, has rightly allowed the O.A. to the effect that the applicants are entitled for second upgradation, if they had not obtained any promotion after 1999, to the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs".
(iii) Order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi passed in OA No. 4101/2012 "Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA. No.4101/2012 25 M.A. No. 3464/2012 Order reserved on: 30.08.2013 Order pronounced on: 13.11.2013.
Hon'ble Dr. K.B. Suresh, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A)
1. Satyvir Singh, S/o Sh. Om Prakash R/o H-7, Om Vihar, Phase-5, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
2. Anand Prakash S/o Sh. K.D.Sharma, R/o 676, Gopal Nagar, Najagarh, New Delhi-110043.
3. Ram Chander S/o Sh. Ram Niwas, R/o 1258/31, Kamla Nagar, Rohtak (Haryana).
4. Anjani Kumar S/o Sh. M.L.Sharma, R/o C-8/64, D-53, Yamuna Vihar.
5. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. Prakash Sharma, R/o WZ-638, Syndincate Market, Near Ravi Painter, Raj Nagar-1, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045.
6. Rambir Singh S/o Sh. Munshi Ram, R/o H.No.188, Krishana Vihar, Najafgarh, Delhi-110043.
7. Dharam Pal, S/o Sh. Harpal Singh, R/o X/3339 Street No.1, Raghubar Pura No.2
8. Paramjeet Singh, S/o Sh. Jaswinder Singh, R/o K/z-7, Plot No.30, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi-110018.
9. Satyavir Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Lal, R/o B-4/307, Bhalswa JJ Colony, Delhi- 110042.
10. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Chandai Ram, R/o F-12, Laxmi Park, Nangloi, Delhi-110041.
11. Kuldeep Singh, S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, R/o VPO Deorar Tehsil Julana, Distt. Jind, Haryana.
12. Ashok Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. Ganga Parshad, R/o Village Paprawat PO Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
13. Sudhir Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Prem Singh, R/o 917, Tigi Pur Road, Bakhtawar Pur, Delhi-110036.
14. Dharam Pal, S/o Sh. Chana Ram, R/o E-7A, Om Vihar Extn., Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
15. Rakesh Pandey, S/o Sh. S.K.Pandey, R/o D-221/A, Gali No.53/A, Mahavir Enclave IIIrd, New Delhi-110059 ........Applicants (By Advocate: Sh M.K Bhardwaj) Versus Union of India & Ors.
1. Through The Secretary. Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, MANISH KUMAR New Delhi-110001.
SRIVASTAVA 2. Chief of the Army Staff, Army Headquarter, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi.
3. Director General, EME, MGOs Branch, Army Headquarters, DHQ, PO, New Delhi.
4. Commander, Base Workshop Group, Meerut Cantt.
5. Commandant, 505, Army Base Workshop, Delhi Cantt.-10.
Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. R.N.Singh ORDER 26 Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A) M.A. No.3464/2012 for joining together in single application under Rule 4 (5) (a) of Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is allowed in the interest of justice and multiplicity of litigation.
2 The present OA has been filed by some employees of 505 Army Base Workshop, Del who are working as Vehicle Mechanic [VM/AFV)] under the control of Ministry of Defence applicants initially joined as Vehicle Mechanic [VM/AFV)] in the scale of Rs.950-1500 in the ye and later they appeared in the departmental examination and got appointment as VM (AF pay scale of Rs.1320-2040 w.e.f. 17.09.1997, which was more than the promotional grade VM (MV), i.e., Rs.1200-1800. After the recommendations of V Central Pay Commission (VC pay scale of Rs.1200-1800 and Rs.1320- 2040 were replaced by a common pay scale of Rs.400 It is the claim of the applicants that as they were in a scale higher than the promotional scale (MV) (Rs. 1200-1800) they should have been placed in the higher scale of Rs.4500-7000 and not have been clubbed with the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1200-1800 while being granted scale of Rs.4000-6000. After the VI CPC the respondents issued a notification dated 28. placing highly skilled workers in the scale of Rs.4000-6000 and Rs.4500-7000 in the ratio c These scales correspond to the grade pay of Rs.2400 and 2800 respectively. The placement applicants in the grade pay of Rs.2800 has been treated as promotion and hence denied MACP upgrdation to the grade pay of Rs.4200/-. It is the claim of the applicants that under M 1st financial upgradation of highly skilled category should be to the grade of Rs.4200/-. In this the learned counsel for the applicants refers to the order passed by this Tribunal in the cas Jain [OA no.818/2000), which was upheld by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ No.4664/2001 and the SLP (Civil) No.289 of 2003 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
1. In F.C. Jain (supra) after granting financial upgradation under ACP scheme of 09.08.199 of CPWD where 50% AEs were placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 and 50% in scale of Rs.6500-10500, the placement in Rs.7500-12000 with effect from 01.01.2006 was d the applicants therein for the reason that they had already been given financial upgradation the ACP. While allowing the OA this Tribunal had ordered fixation of pay of the applicants in in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 with effect from 01.01.1996 on the ground that the place that scale could not be treated as a promotion. Drawing the same ratio and also referring 1842/2002 and OA No.3863/2010 the applicants claim financial upgradation to the grade Rs.4200/- and Rs.4600/- under MACP.
2. Learned counsel for respondents in his submission stated that Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 20.05.2003 has introduced the following ratio of tradesman w.e.f. 1.1.1996:
(i) Skilled (Rs. 3050-4590): 45%
(ii) Highly Skilled (Rs.4000-6000): 55%
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA (iii) Master Craftsman (Rs.4500-7000): 25% of the Highly Skilled
Grade posts will be placed in the grade of the Master Craftsman. They will however, not be a part of the hierarchy.
The applicants were appointed in the scale of Rs. 1320-2040 against direct recruitment quota which got replaced with the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 meant for highly skilled grade post. The scale of Rs 4500-7000 was meant for Master Craftsman where 25% of the highly skilled grade posts were to be placed. The post of Master Craftsman was however not a part of the hierarchy and was a selection post.
275. Subsequently, the Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 14.09.2010 has restructured the cadre of artisan staff in the Defence establishment in modification of recommendations of VI CPC According to the new grade structure the following scales are available to the defence staff w.e.f. 01.01.2006:
(i) Skilled -Pay Band PB-1, Grade Pay Rs. 1900
(ii) Highly Skilled-Pay Band PB-1, Grade Pay Rs.2400 Grade-II
(iii) Highly Skilled - Pay Band PB-1, Grade Pay Rs.2800 Grade-1
(iv) Master Craftsman. - Pay Band PB-2, Grade Pay Rs 4200
6. The same letter further states that the placement of the individuals in the posts resulting from the restructuring shall be made w.e.f. 1.1.2006, in relaxation of the conditions, if any, l.e., trade test etc. as one time measure.
The post of Master Craftsman shall be part of the hierarchy and the placement of Highly Skilled Grade-l in the grade of Master Craftsman will be treated as promotion. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that placement of Highly Skilled Grade-II workers in the Highly Skilled Grade-I was promotion and in support of his contention he drew reference to the law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court defining promotion on the criteria of upgradation of grade, rank or honour. It was contended that the placement of a worker from the grade pay of #x2400 to grade pay of Rs.2800 satisfies this criteria and hence will have to be counted for the purpose of ACP/MACP. The learned counsel also contested the claim of the applicants that their services are to be counted from 1987 when they were appointed as VM/MV in the scale of Rs.950-1500. According to the learned counsel the selection of the applicants to the scale of Rs.1320-2040 was as departmental fresh candidates against direct recruitment and not for departmental examination.
7 Having heard the learned counsels of both the sides and perused the material on record, it can be seen that two issues emerge for consideration, viz. (i) the date from which the services of the applicants will be counted for the purpose of ACP/MACP and (ii) whether the placement of the applicants in the scale of High Skilled worker Grade-I will amount to promotion for the purpose of next financial upgradation under MACP Scheme.
8. With regard to the first issue, during arguments we did not find much resistance from applicants side to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that recruitment to the scale of Rs.1320-2040, which was higher than the next promotion scale of the applicants, i.e, Rs 1200-2040 would amount to a fresh recruitment. The applicants cannot get the benefit MANISH KUMAR of past service (prior to 17.09.1997) for the purpose of ACP/MACP. SRIVASTAVA
9. With regard to the placement of the applicants in the grade of Highly Skilled worker Grade-l the issue is no more res integra, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants. A similar Issue was dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court in F.C. Jain's case (supra), wherein it was observed thus:
10. It is one thing to say that a person is entitled to a higher scale of pay having regard to the policy decision adopted by the state, but the same has nothing to do with the ACP Scheme, which stand on absolutely different footing.
2811 By reason of fitment in the scale of pay, the respondent herein had not been promoted to a higher post or to a higher grade of pay.
12. Para 13 of the ACP Scheme, as referred to hereinabove, merely excludes its operation only when there exists any time-bound promotion scheme including in-situ promotion scheme.
13. The scope and purport of both the Schemes are absolutely different whereas in terms of the former, the pay scale is revised, which is confined to 50% of the cadre strength, by reason of the ACP Scheme those who are stagnated in a particular post or a particular scale of pay is given higher scale of pay.
The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP no.289/2003 vide order dated 19.09.2003 10 In the present case the placement of workers in Highly Skilled Grade-Il and Grade-l does not even stipulate any residency period in the lower scale. Thus the placement in the higher so dependent only on the vacancies within the given percentage and on no condition/qualification/ residency period etc. The learned counsel for respondents has refer the clause 3 (b) in the letter dated 14.09.2010 stipulating that these placements will be in relaxation of the conditions, if any, ie, trade test etc. as one time measure to prove that there are condition to be fulfilled, for placement in the next higher scale. He, however, did not specify what conditions were. This placement, therefore, cannot be treated as a promotion, notwithstanding fact that it has been termed so in the Ministry of Defence letter dated 14.09.2010. The Scheme, on the other hand, prescribes grant of scale to which the Government servant would been promoted in the normal course as the 1st financial upgradation. Since the post of M Craftsman is a part of hierarchy, it is logical that the 1st financial upgradation of the Highly worker will be to the grade of Master Craftsman, ie, the grade pay of Rs.4200/-.
11. Considering the above facts and going by the ratio of F.C. Jaini's case (supra), we quash a aside the impugned orders dated 12.05.2012, 01.12.2010 and 20.06.2011 to the extent these declare the grade pay of Rs.2800/- as promotion for the purpose of MACP for the workers Highly Skilled grade pay of Rs. 2400. It is further ordered that the Highly Skilled workers in the pay of Rs.2400/2800 will be eligible to the grade pay of Rs.4200/- on the 1st financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. The OA is accordingly allowed. No costs".
11. If the facts of the present case are compared with the facts of OA No. 447/2008 and OA No. 4101/2012, it is clear that the applicants are similarly situated. The same orders dated 20.06.2011 and 01.12.2010, which are under challenge in the present OA, were MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA also challenged in OA No. 4101/2012 and were set aside by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal. There is no distinguishing facts in the present case to take a different view from the decision rendered in OA No. 4101/2012.
12. The contention of the respondents that the said judgments are judgments in personam also cannot be accepted. Acceptance of such 29 a plea would result in discrimination between similarly situated employees. It is a settled principle of law that when a benefit has been granted by a court to one set of employees, the same benefit should be extended to all similarly placed employees. Every employee is not required to approach the court separately for the same relief. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Others vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:-
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently."
12. The applicants have also made out a case that discrimination amongst the equals has been done. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagan Nath Parasad Vs State of U.P. Air 1961 SC Page 45 had clearly enunciated that the concept of equal protection of laws postulates in the application of the same laws alike and without discrimination to all persons similarly situated. It denotes equality of treatment in equal circumstances. It implies that among equals, the law should be equal and equally administered and the like should be treated alike without any discrimination.
13. In view of the above facts and settled legal position, when similarly situated employees have already been granted the benefit, MANISH KUMAR the applicants are also entitled to the same benefit as granted in OA SRIVASTAVA No. 4101/2012. Accordingly, the present Original Application deserves to be allowed.
14. Consequently, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.12.2010 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to extend the same benefits to the applicants as were granted to the applicants in OA No. 4101/2012, 30 as similarly situated employees cannot be treated in dissimilar manner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. All connected Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA