Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
All India Kendriay Vidyalaya Teachers ... vs Uoi & Ors. Through on 26 May, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.3470 of 2012 MA No.2891 of 2012 New Delhi, this the 26th day of May, 2014 HONBLE SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SHRI SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) 1. All India Kendriay Vidyalaya Teachers Association, through Sh. S.S. Malik, General Secretary, KVS, Ministry of HRD, JNU Campus, New Delhi. 2. Surendra Singh, S/o Sri Veer Sain, R/o 201, GK-I, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, UP. 3. Lokpal Singh, S/o Sh. P.L. Singh, R/o C-59, Sainik Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. 4. Dr. S.B. Singh, S/o Late R.N. Singh, R/o F-143, Jagat Puri, Delhi-110051. 5. S.K. Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, R/o H.No.208/44, Laxmi Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. 6. C.P. Singh, S/o Sh. Pitam Singh, R/o 322, C-6 Tower, Shivalik Apartment, SIDCO, Sector-1, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon. 7. B.D. Sharma, S/o Sh. H.L. Sharma, R/o A-35/4, Meet Nagar, Delhi-110094. 8. Shashi Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ram Sahay Tripathi, R/o H.No.458/12, Gali No.1 Islampur Colony, Gurgaon-122001. 9. Manoj Kumar Poonia, S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh Poonia, R/o H.No.688/10, Sector-10, Near Euro International School, Gurgaon-122001. 10. Ashok Kumar Pathak, s/o Late Sh. B.N. Pathak, r/o Sector-14, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. 11. R.S. Tiwari, s/o Sh. Shri Ram Tiwari, r/oB-19, IInd Floor, EWS, Part-I, Ramprastha Colony, Ghzziabad. 12. R.N. Pandey, s/o Sh. S.N. Pandey, R/o Plot No.9/209, Flat No.UG No.2, Vardhman Estate, Sector-3, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad-201005. 13. MPS Gautam, S/o Sh. Nain Singh, R/o H.No.285, Sector-3, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. 14. Aftab Aalam Siddiqui, s/o Sh. Abdul Walid, R/o M-105/B, Sector-23, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002. .Applicants (By Advocate : Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) versus UOI & Ors. through : 1. Through its Secretary, Ministry of HRD, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner, KVS, 18- Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016. 3. The Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi. .Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Amit Sinha for Shri K.M. Singh) ORDER (ORAL) SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) :
MA No.2891/2012 This MA has been filed by the applicants seeking joining together in a single Original Application. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed.
OA No.3470/2012The applicants have filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) To declare the action of respondents in reducing the TA of the applicants and directing the pay TA at the rates as applicable other than Delhi (UA) as illegal and arbitrary.
(b) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12/14.09.2012 and direct the respondents to continue to pay TA to the applicants at Delhi rates.
(c) To declare the action of respondent No.3 in passing order dated 1/8/2012 contrary to the order of this Honble Tribunal in OA No.2441/2005 as illegal and unjustified.
(d) To direct the respondents to extend the benefits of judgment of this Honble Tribunal dated 02.08.2006 in OA No.2441/2005 to the applicants.
(e) To allow the OA with costs.
(f) to pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is seen that this case is squarely covered by the common Order dated 4.10.2013 of this Tribunal in OA No.2080 of 2012 with connected OAs - Sh. Murari Lal Rustagi vs. Union of India and others. The operative part of the said Order reads as under:-
6. We have heard counsel for both sides and have perused the material on record. We wanted to enquire whether the issue regarding payment of TA in satellite downs has been considered by the Ministry of Finance in a holistic manner at appropriate level. In response to our query a compilation containing recommendations of Sixth CPC, Cabinet Note and Government of India approval of the same and a copy of Resolution on TA besides certain other documents has been furnished to us. On the strength of these documents, learned counsel for respondents tried to establish that the recommendations of Sixth CPC were taken to Cabinet for approval. After approval of the Cabinet the Resolution and Notification containing the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 were approved by the Honble Finance Minister. Thus, according to her this matter has received consideration at the highest level.
6.1 We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel of both sides. In our opinion, Ministry of Finance is to be blamed for the confusion that has been created regarding this issue. First of all TA was introduced vide their O.M. dated 03.10.1997 in which it was clearly stated that the classification of cities adopted for the purpose of TA would be the same as the one done for the purpose of payment of CCA. As far as CCA and HRA were concerned their classification was done on the basis of O.M. dated 14.04.1993, in Para-3 of which special dispensation was available to satellite towns. Thus, it was reasonable to presume that the same special dispensation was extendable for the purpose of TA also since the O.M. dated 03.10.1997 clearly mentioned that for TA classification done for CCA would be adopted. As a result, offices of many Ministries located in satellite towns started paying TA to the Ministries at Delhi rates. This confusion must have come to the notice of the Ministry of Finance since in their O.M. dated 20.02.2002 they clarified that the special dispensation to satellite towns available for HRA/CCA was not extendable to TA. This O.M. was challenged in several OAs filed before this Tribunal and all of them were decided in favour of the applicants. In OA-2363/2005 decided on 03.01.2006 in which it was held that the contention of the Ministry of Finance that their clarification issued vide O.M. dated 20.02.2002 would be valid for the purpose of TA was not accepted and it was directed that the special dispensation given through O.M. dated 14.05.1993 for CCA/HRA would also be applicable for TA. However, despite such orders in several OAs no action was taken by the Ministry of Finance either to challenge these orders in appropriate judicial proceedings or to implement the directions given in the orders. While it is true that in some of these OAs Ministry of Finance were not directly parties, yet it is difficult to believe that the Administrative Ministries would not have consulted them before filing their counter or before implementing the directions of the Tribunal. Even then no action was taken by the Ministry of Finance and the employees continued to enjoy the facility of TA at Delhi rates under the Court orders.
6.2 Thereafter, the Sixth COC recommendations became available to the Ministry of Finance. We have gone through the recommendations and we find that the issue of special dispensation to satellite towns as regards payment of TA is concerned was never considered by them at all. As such, they did not make any recommendations in this case. While they recommended abolition of CCA and enhancement of the rates of TA they did not say anything about the satellite towns.
6.3 We have perused the material placed before the Cabinet while considering the recommendations of Sixth CPC and also the material placed before the Honble Finance Minister for approving the draft Resolution and CCS (RP) Rules after the Cabinet had approved the recommendations of Sixth CPC. In none of these, there is any mention of rates at which TA should be paid in satellite towns.
6.4 When some employees had approached this Tribunal by filing OA-805/2011 directions had been given vide order dated 03.11.2011 to re-examine the issue of TA and communicate the decision by means of a speaking order. It is in response thereto that Ministry of Finance have issued their O.M. dated 01.08.2012 by which they have stated that employees posted at Faridabad, Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurgaon were entitled to TA at rates applicable to other places and not at rates applicable to 13 cities classified as A/A-1. On perusing the material placed before us, we feel that issuance of this O.M. cannot be termed as a compliance of this Tribunals order dated 03.11.2011. This is because the issue has never been re-examined by the Ministry of Finance in totality. From the extract of the notings in the files made available to us it appears that since the O.M. dated 29.08.2008 classified the cities into two categories, namely, A/A-1 and other places and since only 13 cities were classified as A/A-1, the implication drawn was that satellite towns would fall under the category of other places. This inference was drawn without placing the matter either before the Cabinet or Honble Finance Minister or even at the level of Secretary. In our opinion, even this inference could not have been drawn since before issue of this O.M. no consideration was given regarding special dispensation for payment of TA in satellite towns. Only once had Ministry of Finance issued any instructions on this subject and that was through O.M. dated 22.02.2002 vide clarification No. 9. Even this had been considered in various OAs filed before this Tribunal earlier and it was found that the employees would continue to be governed by special dispensation given through O.M. dated 14.05.1993.
6.5 In this case interest of thousands of employees was involved and the controversy has been going on for some time resulting in lot of confusion and various Court cases. The Ministry of Finance should have examined this issue holistically and issued comprehensive instructions on the subject. However, even after Court orders in the year 2005-2006 they chose to keep silent. Moreover, while issuing orders regarding TA in pursuance of Sixth CPC recommendations they did not examine this issue at all. Even when directions were given in OA-805/2011 to re-examine the issue particularly the fact that different Ministries were giving TA at different rates to their employees the Ministry of Finance only chose to issue O.M. dated 01.08.2012 without considering the matter holistically and at appropriate level. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for Ministry of Finance Ms. Geeta Luthra had fairly submitted that the Ministry of Finance were prepared to reconsider the issue holistically and place the matter before the Honble Finance Minister for decision.
6.6 Under these circumstances, we quash the O.M. dated 01.08.2012 and direct the respondent-Ministry of Finance to re-examine the whole issue holistically taking into consideration its history starting from the issue of O.M. dated 03.10.1997, the various directions given by this Tribunal from time to time and the arguments advanced by the applicants in all these OAs mentioned in earlier part of this judgment for grant of special dispensation to satellite towns. This consideration will be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the decision taken will be communicated to the Ministries by means of a reasoned order. We also direct that till such consideration is made and orders issued by the Ministry of Finance, the employees will continue to draw the TA at the rates at which they have been drawing the same so far and no recovery will be made from them till then. Needless to say that if the applicants are aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents, they will be at liberty, if they so desire, to challenge the same by means of appropriate judicial proceedings. Accordingly, all these OAs are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
3. We, therefore, dispose of this OA in terms of aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ravi/