Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Roop Kamal Sonkar vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 27 January, 2021
CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00075/2021 R.K. Sonkar and others Vs UOI
Reserved
On 20.01.2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Allahabad, this the 27 day of January, 2021
Present:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member-J
Hon'ble Mr. Devendra Chaudhry, Member-A
Original Application No. 330/00075/2021
(U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
1. Roop Kamal Sonkar, aged about 51 years, son of Shri B.R. Sonkar, R/o
601-A, Anant Vihar, Lohiya Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad. Presently
posted as Superintendent, in the Central GST Commissionerate,
Division-II, Allahabad.
2. Arshad Ahmad Siddiqui, aged about 52 years, son of Late Atiq Ahmad
Siddiqui, R/o D-659, Kareli Scheme, Allahabad-211016. Presently
posted as Inspector at Faizabad under the Central GST
Commissionerate, Allahabad.
3. Sachin Ghosh, aged about 51 years, son of Late S.N. Ghosh, R/o 388/12,
Shastri Nagar, Kanpur-208005. Presently posted as Inspector, in the
Chief Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Lucknow.
4. Pawan Kumar Rastogi, aged about 51 years, son of Late R.S. Rastogi, R/o
Flat No.C-21, V.S. Tower, Near Central Park, Avas Vikas, Agra.
Presently posted as Inspector, in the Central GST Audit Circle, Aligarh.
5. Sunil Kumar, aged about 59 years, son of Shri Suresh Chandra, R/o 123,
Chanakyapuri, Shastri Nagar, Meerut. Presently posted as
Superintendent, in the Central GST Commissionerate, Meerut.
6. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, aged about 55 years, son of Late Shri K.N.
Pandey, R/o Seema Sadan Near S.S.M. Inter College, Nautanwa.
Presently posted as Inspector, at Land Customs Choki, Sonauli,
Maharajganj in Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Lucknow.
7. Mahesh Chandra Shukla, aged about 55 years, son of Shri K.K. Shukla,
R/o 117/H1, 195, Flat No.205, Shyam Vila Apartment Pandu Nagar,
Page 1 of 7
CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00075/2021 R.K. Sonkar and others Vs UOI
Kanpur-208005. Presently posted as Superintendent, in the Central GST
Audit, Commissionerate, Kanpur.
..........Applicants.
By Advocate: Shri Jaswant Singh
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, New
Delhi.
3. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North
Block, New Delhi.
4. The Principal Chief Commissioner (Cadre Controlling Authority),
Central GST and Central Excise, Lucknow Zone, 7-A, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow (U.P.)
5. The Chief Commissioner, Central GST & Customs, Meerut Zone,
Opposite Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Mangal Pandey Nagar,
Meerut (U.P.)
6. The Principal Chief Controller of Accounts, Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs, 1st Floor, DGACR Building, I P Estate, New Delhi.
......Respondents.
By Advocate: Shri A.P. Mishra
ORDER
Delivered By Hon'ble Mr. Devendra Chaudhry, A.M. :
Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri A.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, both are present in Court.
3. This O.A. pertains to grant of non-functional-grade (NFG) to the applicants. The applicants herein are/were working on the post Page 2 of 7 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00075/2021 R.K. Sonkar and others Vs UOI of Superintendent/Assistant Commissioner in the different offices / formations of Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (earlier Central Board of Excise & Customs) (CBIC for short), under Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
The full particulars of the applicants are given in the array of applicants to this O.A. That under the recommendations of the 6th CPC, the erstwhile Annual Career Progression Scheme (ACP) of granting two financial upgradations in the 12th and 24th years of service were replaced by the Modified Career Progression Scheme (MACP) wherein the employees were entitled to receive three financial upgradations in the 10th, 20th and 30th years of their service. That the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide a letter dated 21.11.2008 had issued a clarification to the effect that "Department of Expenditure have now clarified that the 4 years period is to be counted w.e.f. the date on which an officer is placed in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 (pre-revised). Thus, if an officer had completed 4 years on 01.01.2006 or earlier, he will be given the non-functional up gradation w.e.f. 01.01.2006. If the officer completes 4 years on a date after 01.01.2006, he will be given non- functional up gradation from such date on which he completes 4 years in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 (pre-revised). 3.1 That, with regards to implementation of this scheme, the CBIC issued a letter circular dated 11.02.2009 which was challenged in the Hon'ble Madras High Court wherein vide order Page 3 of 7 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00075/2021 R.K. Sonkar and others Vs UOI dated 06.09.2010 in the Writ Petition No 13225/2010, M Subramaniam vs Union of India, the Hon High Court Madras directed the respondents to extend the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs 5400/- to the petitioner w.e.f. the date he had completed four years of regular service in the pre-revised scale of 7500-12,000 (corresponding to Grade Pay of Rs 4800), as per Resolution dated 29.08.2008 of the Finance Department. The SLP filed by Union of India was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 10.10.2017 and a Review Petition thereupon was also dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2018.
3.2 It is further submitted that the claim of the applicants in this OA is also identical and so, it is an already settled matter having been already been decided by orders of the Hon Madras High Court dated 06.09.2010 in the matter above and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Subramaniam (supra). Further that in light of these orders, different benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal such as the Principal Bench, the Chandigarh Bench, the Mumbai Bench and the Hyderabad Bench have all followed the above verdict of the Hon Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and have allowed the claim of the concerned applicants seeking the same benefit. Even this bench in its earlier orders has directed similarly and granted benefit to the concerned employees who prayed for identical relief in their concerned OAs. Copies of the concerned judgements have been filed. However, in spite of this, the respondents have not considered the Page 4 of 7 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00075/2021 R.K. Sonkar and others Vs UOI representations of the applicants and summarily turned down, on the specious plea that the said judgments were applicable in personam and not in rem. As a result, the employees such as the present applicants have been compelled to rush to this Bench to seek relief.
3.3 It is therefore prayed that the pay of the applicants in the present OA also needs to be fixed in the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- in Pay Band II with grade pay of Rs.5400/- with all consequential benefits w.e.f. the dates he had completed four years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800/-. It is further prayed that entire arrears of salary and other emoluments payable to the applicants as a consequence of grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- be paid to them from the due date along with interest. Accordingly, it is prayed that the OA be accepted and the prayed relief be granted.
4. Per contra the respondents have held that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court is judgment in personamand so no in rem orders can be issued even if the matter is covered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the subsequent upholding of the judgement by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties at length and perused the records made available in PD format. Page 5 of 7 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00075/2021 R.K. Sonkar and others Vs UOI
6. It is quite outrageous that the respondents are ignoring the fact that apart from this Bench, other Benches of this Tribunal have repeatedly directed compliance of the said judgement of M. Subramaniam (supra)by holding that the judgements are to be complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam. Hence, it would be in fitness of things if the respondents in the present OA also consider the case of the applicant and meet out the same treatment as has been given to their other counter parts all over India through judgements of the various Tribunal benches in light of M. Subramaniam (supra). It would be pertinent to note that pay fixation matters, like the one under consideration are governed by uniform policies of the Government and so any judgments on these matters by their very nature are always judgments in rem and cannot be interpreted as judgments in personam by implementing/ complying authority.
6.1 The respondents are accordingly directed to ensure that the benefit of the judgment referred in the judgment passed by this Tribunal on 09.01.2020 in OA No. 1005/2019 Pradeep Kumar and others V. Union of India others be also given to the applicants in this OA as may be entitled to the same. This exercise is to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of individual case.
Page 6 of 7 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00075/2021 R.K. Sonkar and others Vs UOI
8. A copy of this order be also served on the Union Finance Secretary by the Registry to consider issuing directions on identical matters such as above for in rem consideration and not in personam. This would avoid needless litigation in the future.
9. With the above directions, the O.A. is disposed of.
10. No order as to costs.
(Devendra Chaudhry) (Justice Vijay Lakshmi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/M.M/
Page 7 of 7