Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jamuna Saha And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 30 August, 2019
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
30.8.2019
KC(12)
W.P.C.T. 385 of 2012
Jamuna Saha and Ors.
-versus-
Union of India and Ors.
Mr. Rabilal Moitra,
Mr. Priyotosh Sanyal.................For the petitioners.
Mr. Arijit Majumdar...................For the respondent
nos. 1 to 4.
This writ petition is directed against an order dated 24th July, 2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereafter the tribunal) dismissing the petitioners' original application (O.A. 1600 of 2009).
The facts reveal that the petitioners had approached the tribunal seeking upgradation of their pay scale, under 2nd financial upgradation, to Rs.5,000 - 8,000/- from Rs.4,500-7000/- with all consequential benefits. By the time the tribunal was approached, the petitioner no. 1 had retired whereas the other three petitioners were on the verge of retirement.
The claim of the petitioners was based on a judgment and order dated 13th August, 2008, passed by the tribunal while disposing of O.A. 52 of 2006 (Priyatosh Sanyal -vs- Union of India and Ors.). According to them, they were enjoying the same scale of pay as Sri Sanyal who had been granted upgradation 2 of pay scale from Rs.4,500-7000/- to Rs.5,000-8000/- pursuant to such order of the tribunal; hence, since they stood on the same footing, the respondents had subjected them to hostile discrimination.
The tribunal, however, while dismissing O.A. 1600 of 2009 considered its previous judgment and order dated 20th July, 2012 dismissing O.A. 610 of 2009 (Rathindra Ranjan Sikdar and Anr. -vs- Union of India and Ors.).
On perusal of the judgment and order in Rathindra Ranjan Sikdar (supra), we find that the same point had been raised therein, i.e., the benefit which had been extended in favour of Sri Sanyal should also be extended to the applicants of that original application. The tribunal in its judgment dated 20th July, 2012 assigned reasons in detail as to why the original applicants in Rathindra Ranjan Sikdar (supra) could not claim parity with Sri Sanyal. The reason is clearly reflected in paragraph 7 of the judgment dated 20th July, 2012 which is quoted below:
"Short question involved in present case is whether applicants are entitled to upgraded pay scale in terms of 5th CPC recommendations on account of ACP Scheme? The orders in respect of para 81.17 of recommendations are contained in Part C of First Schedule of CCS (RP) Rules 1997 issued vide notification dated 30.9.97. The text shows that these scales will have prospective effect and till then normal replacement scales will apply. Bare perusal of 5th CPC commendations made vide para 81.17, relevant extract noticed hereinabove, would show that said upgraded pay scale was available subject to certain steps taken by the concerned Ministry/Department including amendment of the R.R.s. It is not in dispute that applicants were not holding the pay scale of Rs.4500- 7000/- on functional basis. Initially they were appointed in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-, which was revised to Rs.3050-4590/-, and as such they were granted two financial upgradations in the pay scale of Rs.4000- 3 6000/- and Rs.4500-7000/-. Upgraded pay scale in terms of 5th CPC is not available ipso facto. Rather it is dependent on fulfilling certain conditions recommended by 5th CPC, which have not been satisfied by applicants. Applicants' claim to compare themselves with Priyotosh Sanyal is totally misconceived. Said official was already working as Statistical Assistant on functional basis, which is not the facts in present case. Furthermore, Recruitment Rules have not been amended. Said judgment is thus totally distinguishable."
In fact, while dismissing O.A. 1600 of 2009, the tribunal had referred to the aforesaid excerpt too.
What surfaces from appreciation of the facts and circumstances is this: Sri Sanyal was functioning as a Statistical Assistant and his pay had been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4,500-7000/-. However, after replacement of such scale by way of upgradation to Rs.5,000-8000/-, he was not given the benefit of upgradation. The tribunal in its order dated 13th August, 2008 found that Sri Sanyal did deserve the upgradation notwithstanding the fact that the recruitment rules had not been amended, which was a point raised on behalf of the respondents. Sri Sanyal's claim rested on a memorandum dated 30th June, 1998 which also did not require amendment of recruitment rules to be a condition precedent for replacement of pay scale of Rs.4,500-7000/- by Rs.5,000-8000/-.
However, insofar as the present case is concerned, memorandum dated 30th June, 1998 is not applicable; what is applicable is a letter issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Coal dated 21st September, 2005, which required amendment of the recruitment rules as a pre- 4 condition for upgradation of pay scale for a Statistical Assistant. Importantly, at no point of time did the petitioners function as Statistical Assistants. It is their admitted case that the petitioner no. 1 prior to her retirement was working as Punching and Verifying Operator and the other petitioners were also working as Punching and Verifying Operators. The feeder post for promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant was Computer, on which post also the petitioners had never been appointed/promoted. However, by reason of extension of benefits of assured career promotion scheme, they had been given the scale of pay of Rs.4,500- 7,000/-. The petitioners not having had the occasion to function as Statistical Assistants, they could not have claimed parity by referring to the case of Sri Sanyal who discharged the duties of a Statistical Assistant on functional basis.
We are of the considered opinion that the tribunal while dismissing the original application of the petitioners rightly took into consideration the decision in Rathindra Ranjan Sikdar (supra) which proceeded to distinguish the judgment rendered on the original application of Sri Sanyal.
In such view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere. The writ petition is without merit and the same stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.) (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA,J.) 5