Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Jagdish Chander Arora (Ex Assistant ... vs Union Of India on 20 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(ORDER RESERVED ON 16.05.2016)
O.A No.060/00967/2015 Date of decision: 20.05.2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1. Sh. Jagdish Chander Arora (Ex Assistant Accounts Officer), r/o House No.A-294, Sadar Bazar Gandhi Chowk Karnal.
2. Sh. Jitender Kumar, Sr. Accounts Officer, O/o The Director of Accounts Department of Posts, Haryana Postal Circle, Ambala.
3. Sh. S.P. Rathi, Sr. Accounts Officer, O/o The Director of Accounts Department of Posts, Haryana Postal Circle, Ambala.
4. Sh. Lal Chand Sharma, Senior Accounts Officer, O/o The Controller of Communication Accounts, Haryana Telecom Circle, Department of Telecommunication, Ambala.
5. Sh. Iqbal Singh, (Ex-Assistant Accounts Officer), resident of Village Kurak Jagir, District Karnal.
6. Sh. Sumer Chand, (Ex-Assistant Accounts Officer), House No.58, Vikas Colony, Karnal.
7. Sh. Sushil Kumar Kaura, working as Sr. Accounts Officer, O/o The Controller of Communication Accounts, Punjab Telecom Circle, Department of Telecommunication Accounts, Plot no.2, Sector 27-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
8. Sh. Naresh Kumar Dhamija, Sr. Accounts Officer, O/o The Controller of Communication Accounts, Haryana Telecom Circle, Department of Telecommunication, Haryana.
9. Sh. Zile Singh (Ex-Accounts Officer), House no.1062, Gurudwara Colony, Rohtak Road, Jind.
10. Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Accounts Officer, O/o The Controller of Communication Accounts, H.P. Telecom Circle, Department of Telecommunication, Shimla.
11. Sh. M.K. Garg, Accounts Officer, O/o The Communication Accounts, Department of Telecom, Haryana Postal Circle, Ambala.
12. Sh. Nand Parkash, Accounts Officer, O/o Director of Accounts, Department of Posts, Haryana Postal Circle, Ambala.
13. Gurmukh Singh, Accounts Officer, O/o Director of Accounts, Department of Posts, Haryana Postal Circle, Ambala.
14. Sukhdev Singh, Assistant Accounts Officer, Director of Accounts, Department of Posts, Haryana Postal Circle, Ambala.
APPLICANTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. D.R. Sharma.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Deputy Director General, (Postal Accounts & Finance) (Postal Accounts Wing), Office of Director General, Department of Posts, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Chief Post Master General, Haryana Postal Circle, Department of Posts, Ambala.
4. The Controller of Communication Accounts, Punjab Telecom Circle, Department of Telecommunication, Ambala (Haryana).
5. The Director of Accounts (Postal), Haryana Postal Circle, Department of Posts, Ambala (Haryana).
6. Controller of Communication Accounts Department of Telecom, H.P. Telecom Circle, Kasumpti Shimla.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. V.K. Arya, counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 & 5.
Sh. Arvind Moudgil, counsel for respondents no.4 & 6.
ORDER
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A):-
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
8. (i) That the impugned letters dated 20.04.2015 (Annexure A-11) & 04.03.2015 (Annexure A-12) be quashed and set aside being wholly illegal and arbitrary and against the law.
(ii) That it be declared that the applicants are entitled to grade pay of Rs.5,400/- in place of Rs.4,800/- at par with their subordinates, from the date their subordinates in Sr. Accountant Cadre are getting Rs.5,400/- with all consequential arrears of monetary benefits and revised pensionary benefits etc.
(iii) That the applicants be held entitled to benefit of decisions of the Honble Courts including Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court of India, annexed as Annexure A-8 and A-9 respectively.
(iv) That the applicants be held entitled to all consequential benefits like arrears of pay etc. from the due dates alongwith interest @10 per annum in the interest of justice.
2. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents.
3. When the matter came up for hearing on 16.05.2016, learned counsel for the applicants narrated the background of the matter and stated that he was placing reliance on judgment dated 29.12.2010 in OAs No.966 and 967 of 2009 pronounced by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. This judgment had been affirmed by the Honble High Court of Madras on 03.04.2014 and had subsequently been followed by this Bench in order dated 17.12.2015 in OA No.463/2015 titled Jagdish Singh Marwah & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, order dated 18.12.2015 in OA No.063/00121/2015 titled Joginder Singh Rana & Others Vs. Union of India & Others and also in order dated 14.09.2015 in OA No.060/00376/2015 titled Bhajan Lal & Others Vs. Union of India & Others. Learned counsel also referred to the latest order dated 14.01.2016 in OA no.060/00607/2015 titled Rakesh Kumar Goyal & Others Versus Union of India and Others.
4. Sh. V.K. Arya, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 & 5 stated that an identical claim as in the present OA had been rejected by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal as per order dated 26.11.2015 in OA No.436/2015. It had been observed therein as follows:-
16. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the applicants is completely misplaced relying on application of wrong principles which would, in fact, result in double benefit because they would get the benefit of promotion as well as upgradation, which was never the spirit of the MACP Scheme. We, therefore, find no merit in this OA and dismiss the same. Learned counsel also referred to judgment dated 09.07.2015 in OP (CAT) No.446 of 2012 (Z) pronounced by the Honble High Court of Kerala.
5. We have given our careful consideration to the claim made in the present OA and perused the judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties. In the order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, the order of the Madras Bench dated 29.12.2010 in OA No.966 of 2009 and OA No.967 of 2009 has been discussed in detail. Judgment dated 19.03.2014 of the Honble High Court of Madras in W.P. Nos.18611 and 18612 of 2011 vide which the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal passed in OA Nos.966 and 967 of 2009 was also considered. Judgment dated 26.03.2014 of the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4952/2014, Union of India and another Vs. All India Postal Account Employees and another, which was filed by the respondents against the order of the Honble Delhi High Court in CWP No.7421/2013 was noted whereby the SLP was dismissed. In Judgment dated 19.08.2014 in SLP (C) CC No.11103/2014 filed by the respondents against the judgment dated 19.03.2014 of the High Court of Madras, the Honble Supreme Court passed the following order:
Delay condoned.
We find no merit in this petition. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, the question of law is left open. Keeping in view the fact that the Apex Court left the question of law open, the issue has been re-considered in the order dated 26.11.2015 and it has been concluded that there was no merit in the claim of the applicants for grade pay of Rs.5400.
6. Where an issue has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, another Bench dealing with an identical matter is bound to follow the decision of the Coordinate Bench. Hence, in the present case in view of order dated 26.11.2015 in OA No.436/2015 as referred above we conclude that the claims of the applicants for grade pay of Rs.5400/- cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.
7. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (A) (JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh.
Dated: 20.05.2016 rishi 1 O.A NO. 060/00967/2015 (Jagdish Chander Arora & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.)