Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
S N Meshram vs M/O Defence on 2 May, 2024
1 OA No.744/2016 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.744/2016 Date this 7h ikadau the ther May of set 2024. CORAM: Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A) omt. S.N. Meshram or. Hindi Translatro 9, Base Repair Depot, Air Force Station, Nagar Road, Pune 411 014. R/at Flat No.304, A, 34 Floor, Paramount Ozaero, S.No.35/1, Ambegaon Kurd, Jambhulwdi Road, Pune 411 046. .. Applicant (By Advocate Shri P.J. Prasadrao) VERSUS 1. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi 110 011. 2. The Chief of Air Staff Air Head Quarters, Vayu Sena Bhavan, New Delhi 110 106. 3. The Air Officer Commanding In-Charge HQ MCIAF, Vayu Sena Nagar, Nagpur - 440 007, 4. The Air Officer Commanding 9, Base Repair Depot, Air Force Station, Nagar Road, Pune 400 014. vs Respondents (By Advocate Shri V.B. Joshi) 2 OA No.744/2016 ORDER
Per: Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Member (D The Applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
2.
- "8.1. To direct the respondents to grant the upgraded pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 wef. 15.01.1999 i.e. date of the appointment and actually from 11.02.2003.
8.2. Consequent to 1 above revise/refix the pay of the applicant w.e.f. 15.01.1999 and also as per 6 CPC pay scales as admissible.
8.3. To direct the respondents to pay all the financial benefits i.e, pay arrears etc as admissible under the Rules,
84. The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass any other orders in the interest of justice,"
The Applicant at the very outset submitted that the applicant had tepresented to the respondents seeking upgraded Pay Scale w.e.f, 15% January, 1999 notionally and actually from 11" February, 2003 with benefits. The representation of the applicant has been rejected only on the ground that the applicant was not a party in an Original Application filed by others, when this issue was decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal earlier. He submits that _ 3 OA No.744/2016 this reason adopted by respondents to deny benefits which are due to him, is illegal and has been frowned upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in many cases.
3. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit contesting the OA in the counter affidavit. They have stated as under:
3.1 Smt S.N Meshram, the present Applicant was appointed as Senior Translator (Hindi) on 15 Jan 1999 in IAF.
After 5th CPC, the pay of the applicant was fixed in the pay scale of Rs 5500-175-9000 w.e.f 15.01.1999. She was granted MACP w.e.f. 01.01.2009, in PB 9300-34800, GP-4800/-.
3.2 It is admitted by respondents that benefits of upgraded pay scale was extended to the applicants of those OA only Since, Smt S.N Meshram was not an applicant in those OA's, the upgraded pay scale was not extended to her. She was granted first ACP in the pay scale of PB Rs 9300- 34800 in PB-II with grade pay Rs. 4800/- w.e.f 01.01.2009. Aggrieved, by non grant of upgraded pay of Rs.6500-200- 10500/-, the applicant has filed the present OA.
4 OA No.744/20163.3 It is stated that Pay Commission had considered the pay anomalies/demands of various cadre of Civ. employees. 6th CPC after due consideration, recommended higher pay scales to OL Cadre of IAF similar to that granted to CSOL Cadre. Applicant belongs to the Civilian employees of OL Cadre of IAF. The recommendations of 6th CPC was accepted and Govt orders granting higher pay scales to OL Cadre was issued vide GOI MoF, Deptt of Expenditure Impiementation Cell letter dated 27 Nov 2008. However, OL Cadre employees of IAF have been granted higher pay scales on parity with CSOLS Cadre only wef 01.01.2006, vide GOI order No. Air HQ/23077/1/ VICPC/PC-
3/940/US(A)/D(Air-IIl) dated 25 May 2010.
3.4 Respondents submitted that as per various court orders, initially, the benefits of upgraded pay scales at par with the CSOLs was extended to the employees of IAF only as per the directions of MoF Department of Expenditure subject to outcome of SLP. Later SLP was dismissed vide Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 02 Jul 2013, thus benefits of upgraded pay scale was unconditionally extended 5 OA No.744/2016 to the applicants of OL Cadre of JAF only as per the direction of MoF Department of Expenditure.
3.5 Respondents submitted that the Applicant is seeking grant of upgraded pay scale w.ef. 15.01.1999 and actually from 11.02.2003. It is the case of the Applicant that as she is similarly situated she too deserves the same benefit as has been given to the Applicants before Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench. It is to submit that the Applicant is seeking similar relief as granted to Applicants of OA No.402/2006. It is to submit that the said relief was granted only to the Applicants of that OAand they had approached the Hon'ble Court in 2006 itself, whereas the Applicant has approached the Court only in 2016.
3.6 Respondents further submitted that the Applicant should have approached the Tribunal well within time. The Applicant is approaching the Hon'ble Tribunal only in 2016. Therefore, persons who sleep over their rights cannot wake up suddenly and demand for reliefs as granted to persons to persons stating that they are similarly situated.
6 OA No, 744/2016 3.7 It is further submitted that the relief sought by the Applicant to extend benefits of upgraded pay scales granted to the Applicants of various OA's as per various court orders of OL Cadre of IAF w.e.f 01.01.1996 and actually from 11.02.2003 is not agreed. It is further clarified that since the Applicant is not a member of CSOLS, AFHO, DAE & DOS, the higher pay scale sanctioned by the Government is not applicable to the Applicant. It is to submit that in fact, the Applicant has been granted benefit of higher pay w.e.f.01.01.2006. Hence, the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
4, Counsel for the applicant submits that when he came to know of the order passed by the Principal Bench in OA No.402/2006 in the case of Suman Lata Bhatia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Decided on 17 October, 2008 and the relief was granted to similarly and identically situated, he has approached the respondents with the representation.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have persued the pleadings available on record.
6. Vide order dated 215 October, 2015, representation 7 OA No.744/2016 of the applicant was rejected, the same records as under:
"wl. Reference is made to your application dated 22 Jul 2015, 2, HQ MC, IAF, vide their letter number MC/5908/50B/PC dated 08 Oct 2015. It has been intimated that your case of grant of upgraded pay was referred to Air HQ for their examination. It has been intimated that Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure while implementing the various CAT orders has agreed to grant the upgraded pay scales to the OL Staff of IAF in case of applicant only notionally wef 01 Jan 1996 and actual financial benefits wef. 11-02-2003. Therefore, the benefits of the upgraded pay scales have been extended to the applicants only.
3, This is for your information".
7. From the impugned order, it is clear that representation of the applicant was not examined on merits. Respondents ought to have examined as to whether the applicant is similarly situated with the other employees who have been extended the benefit of the higher pay scale. Respondents act of rejection of representation. on technical ground is not acceptable. Respondents being the model employer are required to be fair in their approach towards their employees. .
8 OA No.744/20168. The reason why respondents have rejected representation of the applicant is the order dated 04"
September, 2014 issued to the Chief of Air Staff. The same reads as under.
"To, The Chief of the Air Staff Air Headquarters, New Dethi.
Subject! GRANT OF UPGRADED PAY SCALES TO HINDI TRANSLATION STAFF OF AIR FORCE IN PLURSUANCE OF HON'BLE CAT (PB), NEW DELHI ORDERS DATED 17 OCT 2008 IN OA NO. 402/2006, DATED 18 SEP 2009 IN OA NO. 2600/2009, DATED 27 JAN 2010 IN OA NO. 2752010, DATED 21 NOV 2011 IN OA NO. 4125/2011 AND DATED 02 JUL 2013 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP) NO, 11052-11053/2011.
Sir, I am directed to refer to Ministry of Defence letter Nos Air HQ/ 23077/ Sr T(H)/PC-3/ 200/CC/D(Air-IID) dt 19 Aug 09, Air HQ/23077/Sr T(A)/PC-3/ 42/CC/D(Air-ID) dt 09 Feb 10, Air HQ/23077/Sr T(H)/PC-3/14AI/CC/D (Air-IID dated 04 Aug 10, Air HQ/23077/Sr T(H)/PC-3/121/CC/D (Air-I[l) dated 02 Mar 12 & Hon'ble Supreme Court of India order dated 02 Jul 2013 in Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 11052-11053/2011 filed by the Govt and to convey the sanction of President for grant of following upgraded pay scales to Junior Translators (Hindi), Senior Translators (Hindi) and Assistant Director (OL) of IAF as per list of applicants attached as 'Appx', notionally wef 01-01- 1996 and actually from 11-02-2003:-9 OA No.744/2016
Sr. Name of the Post Pay Scale as per | Upgraded Pay No 5" CPC Scale.
1 |Junior Translator (Hindi) | Rs.5000-150-8000 | Rs.5500-175-9000 2 |Senior Translator (Hindi) |Rs.5500-175-9000 | Rs.6500-200-10500 3 |Assistant Director (OL) | Rs. 6500-20-10500 | Rs.7500-250-12000
2. The expenditure on this account will be charged to the relevant Budget Heads.
3. This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (Deptt of Expenditure) vide their U.O. Nos 10(5)/E.1I.B/2014 dated 25.06.2014 8 10(4)/E.1(B)/2014 dated 21.08 2014.
4, This Ministry letter Nos. Air HQ/23077/Sr T(A)/PC-3/200/CC/D (Air-Ill, dt 19 Aug 09, Air HQ/23077/Sr T(H)/PC-3/442/CC/D(Air-H]) dt 09 Feb 10 Air HQ/23077/Sr T(H)/PC-3/141/CC/D(Air- Ill) dated 04 Aug 10 & Ait HQ/23077/Sr T(H)/PC- 3/121/CC/D (Air-II]) dated 02 Mar 12 stand superceded.
Yours faithfully.
Sd/-
(Y S Awana) Under Secretary to the Govt of India Copy to.-
CGDA, New Delhi CDA (Air Force}, Dehradun JCDA. (Air Force) AFCAO, New Delhi Air HQ/PC-31(with 10 spare copies)."
9. On coming to know of the order passed by respondents, applicant has immediately approached the respondents by way of filing of her representation. We find that decision of the respondents referred to above is not based
--
10 OA No.744/2016on any reasoning rather the same is arbitrary. It is not anybody's case that the duty rendered by applicant is different from other similar employees of the Air Force of OL Cadre. Then why she should be singled out is baffling. She cannot be treated to be a fence sitter since she approached the Respondents with her representation on 22.07.2015 soon after decision was taken by them to restrict the benefits to the employees by carving a distinction. Thus, there is no delay on her part in approaching the court.
10. Another reason as to why we find the impugned order arbitrary is that by this decision respondents themselves are encouraging litigation. Forcing every individual to approach the court for redressal of their grievance. Thus, flooding the courts with litigations which could have been avoided.
11. We have perused the order passed by the Principal Bench in OA No.402/2006 in the case of Suman Lata Bhatia (supra). Relief in that case was also granted keeping in view of the judgment of Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in OA 615/2006 in the case of Dinesh Kumar Rai & Ors Vs. Union of wall 11 OA No.744/2016 India. & Ors decided on 08 August, 2008 who were also identically placed. | Therefore, there is no reason as to why applicant be denied the relief.
12. No other point, worth consideration, was urged or pressed by the learned counsels for both the parties.
13. In view of the above and the settled case law referred to above, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the upgraded Pay Scale of Rs.6500/- to the applicant notionally w.e.f. 15" January, 1999 and actually from 11" February 2003 along with arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Pending MAs, if any, also stand closed.
14. | In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Shri Krishna) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member (P) dm.
Das ee? A