Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Durga Dutt Saini vs M/O Defence on 25 May, 2023
1
Item No. 56/C-5 O.A. No. 575/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 575/2019
This the 25th day of May, 2023
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Durga Dutt Saini, Aged III, 52
Senior Accounts Officer, Group "B" [Gazetted],
R/o House No. 6, Panchwati, Palam,
Delhi Cantt-110010
O/o DPDO, Red fort
Delhi 110092:-
Mobile No. 9990880909
...Applicant
(In person)
Versus
1. Union of India Through the Secretary
Ministry of Defence
South Block
Govt of India
New Delhi-110011
2. The CGDA [Controller General of Defence Accounts]
Gulan Batter Road
Palam, Delhi Cantt-110010
3. The PCDA [PD][Principal Controller of Defence
Accounts]
Meerut Cantt ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr Bhuvnesh
Shukla for Ms Gauraan)
2
Item No. 56/C-5 O.A. No. 575/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J) The applicant has preferred this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Allow the Application of the Applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 with interest.
(b) Direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment and order dated 13/11/2002 in OA No 260 of 2002 in favour of the applicant by stepping up his pay with interest.
(c) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05/10/2018.
(d) Grant the cost.
And
(e) Any other relief, if any, this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the cases."
2. Briefly stated, the applicant is aggrieved by the fact that his junior, namely, Mr. Surjit Kumar Singh, SO has been drawing higher salary than him in spite of the fact that he was appointed as Section Officer (SO) on 09.01.2002, while the applicant was promoted to the said post on 06.08.2001. The applicant takes us to the history and background of the case which is not in dispute and produced in the tabular form in the counter reply as well. The same is incorporated herein below:-
Comparative statement of pay:-3
Item No. 56/C-5 O.A. No. 575/2019
S. Name DD Saini, Sujit Singh,
No SAO/8329204 AAO/8306322
1. Date of 29.04.1986 in Auditor grade 11.04.72 (pay scale 130-
Appointm (1200-30-1500) Rs. 1200 5-160-8-200) 01.04.1986
ent and fixed Rs. 1500/-
grade
under
which
appointed
2. Date of 1.11.1992 (1400-40-1600) 01.04.87-1600/- (Senior
promotion 16.11.1992 Rs. 1400/- fixed Auditor Promotion)
in Sr. 01.04.1993 Rs. 1480/- fixed
Auditor
Grade
3. Pay as on Rs. 5675/- Rs. 6200/- in Sr. Auditor
01.01.199 (01.04.1996- Rs. 5850/-) grade (01.04.1996-Rs.
6 6375/-)
4. Pay on Rs. 6375/- Rs. 7100/- in Sr. Auditor
09.08.199 (pay on 1-4-1999-Rs. 6375/-) grade. (Financial
9 ACP not applicable. Upgradation ACP
Scheme) (01.04.2000 Rs.
7300/-)
5. Date of 06.08.2001 (6500-200- 09.01.2002 SO(A)
promotion 10500) Promotion
in SO(A) Rs. 6900/- fixed SO (A) 01.04.2001 Rs. 7500/-
grade Promotion w.e.f 01.04.2002 Rs. 7700/-
06.08.2001 01.04.2003 Rs. 7900/-
01.04.2002 Rs. 7300/-
01.04.2003 Rs. 7500/-
6. Date of 01.04.2004 01.04.2005 Rs. 8300/-
Promotion Rs. 8125/- fixed on AAO 01.01.2006 Rs. 8500/-
in AAO Promotion (pay scale 7450- 03.04.2006 Pay fixed Rs.
grade 225-11500) 01.01.2006 Rs. 8800/- AAO Promotion
8350/-
7. Pay fixed 01.01.2006 15540+4800/- 01.01.2006
in 6th CPC 01.07.2006 16150+4800/- 15810+4800/-
01.07.2007 16780+4800/- 01.07.2006
17070+4800/-
(AAO Promotion wef
03.04.2006; option
exercised 01.07.2006)
01.07.2007
17730+4800/-
8. Date of 06.08.2011(Rs. 20230+5400) Retired from service w.e.f
MACP in 30.09.2007
5400/-
grade
9. Date of 01.04.2013(Rs. 22550+5400)
promotion
in AO
grade
4
Item No. 56/C-5 O.A. No. 575/2019
10. Date of 01.04.15 (Rs 24330-5400)
promotion
in SAO
grade and
pay fixed
in 6th CPC
11. Basic pay Rs. 24330+5400
as on
01.01.201
6 in 6th
CPC
12. Pay fixed 01.01.16-Rs 77900 (L10)
in 7th CPC 01.07.16-Rs. 84900 (L10)
w.e.f.
01.01.201
6
3. The applicant, who appears in person states that no doubt he was junior to Mr. Surjit Kumar Singh, as his date of appointment as Auditor was 29.04.1986 whereas Mr. Surjit Kumar Singh was appointed as Auditor on 10.04.1972. However, by virtue of Limited Departmental Examination for the post of SO, he was promoted to the said post on 06.08.2001 and his counterpart cleared the examination only on 09.01.2002 by virtue of which he became senior, at the post of Section Officer and his pay was fixed as Rs. 6900/- as against his junior who was drawing Rs. 7500/- as on 01.04.2001 itself. Therefore, the anomaly occurred against which he preferred a representation agitating his grievance and the same has been rejected by the respondents by virtue of impugned order dated 05.10.2018. He states that the respondents have incorrectly stated in the impugned order that Mr. Surjit 5 Item No. 56/C-5 O.A. No. 575/2019 Kumar Singh was appointed in the same grade nearly 14 years ago and therefore he had longer length of service as compared to the applicant as Auditor, as well as Senior Auditor. He draws attention to Office Memorandum No. 4/3/2017-Estt (Pay-I) dated 26.10.2018, issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"2. Consequent upon implementing of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016, the President is pleased to decide the following:
(i) In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1-1-2016 drawing lower pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, the pay of the senior Government servant in the higher post should be stepped in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior Government servant and will be subject to the following conditions, namely:
(a) both the junior and the senior Government servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted are identical in the same cadre;
(b) the Level in the Pay Matrix of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical;
(c) the anomaly is directly as a result of the application of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1) read with Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016.
For example, if the junior officer was drawing more pay in the existing pay structure than the senior by virtue of any advance increments granted to him, the provisions of this sub-rule should not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.
6
Item No. 56/C-5 O.A. No. 575/2019
(ii) The order relating to re-fixation of the pay of the senior officer in accordance with clause (i) shall be issued under Fundamental Rule 27 and the senior officer shall be entitled to the next increment of completion of his required qualifying service with effect from the date of re-fixation of pay."
4. He further draws strength from a Coordinate Bench judgment in OA No 260/2002 decided on 13.11.2002 annexed with the Original Application as Annexure-A/3 and judgment of Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No.3435/2013 annexed along with the rejoinder affidavit. Relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court reads as under:-
"7. Applying the principle of stepping up of pay i.e. where a situation arises in which a senior gets less salary than the junior, salary of the senior needs to be stepped up and brought at par with that of the junior, relief was granted to the applicants before the Tribunal in Original Application No. 260/2002. The department challenged the decision of the Tribunal by filing W.P. (C) No. 20774/2003 which was dismissed by the Roster Bench of the Madras High Court on November 27, 2008. Further challenged by the department before the Supreme Court failed when the petition seeking leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 01, 2009. The decision in favour of the applicants of Original Application No. 260/2002 was thereafter implemented by the department."
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the Original Application. He states that no doubt Mr. Surjit Kumar is drawing higher salary as compared to the applicant. Para 4.8 of the counter reply 7 Item No. 56/C-5 O.A. No. 575/2019 clearly shows that Mr. Surjit Kumar was already drawing the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500/- under the 2nd financial upgradation in the year 09.08.1999 itself on completion of 12/24 years of service in the desired grade and accordingly, he was drawing higher pay as on 01.04.2001 than the applicant.
6. Further by virtue of the longer length of service, as he was appointed 14 years before the applicant as an Auditor, he was drawing higher salary than the applicant.
7. Heard the applicant in person and learned counsel for respondents.
8. In order to decide the present Original Application, we may reiterate few facts. Till 09.08.1999 there is no dispute that Mr. Surjit Kumar was drawing higher salary by virtue of extension of benefit of the ACP Scheme and the applicant was since appointed fourteen years later to the post of Auditor was drawing lesser salary. However, to the grade of Section Officer, since applicant stood promoted by virtue of Limited Departmental Examination on 06.08.2001, he was undisputedly senior to Mr. Surjit Kumar who was promoted to the said post on 09.01.2002. At that stage, as the salary of the applicant was lesser to his counterpart who was at a lower post, an anomaly occurred at that stage. However, since the applicant acquired seniority in pursuance of the Limited 8 Item No. 56/C-5 O.A. No. 575/2019 Departmental Examination, the respondents ought to have extended and stepped up the pay of the applicant at par with his counterpart on the said date itself i.e. 06.08.2001 by fixing his salary. With respect to the same, we are guided by the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition 3435/2013 and batch. The operative portion of the same reads as under :-
"15. Law pertaining to limitation guides us that a monetary claim if found to be legally admissible can be restricted with respect to payment required to be made on the law of limitation. Vide Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 the limitation within which the Tribunal must be approached is one year from the date when cause of action accrued and by doing reverse engineering one can safely say that a monetary claim can be restricted to the period of one year preceding the date when the claim was filed before the Tribunal.
16. Accordingly, we dispose of the instant petitions modifying the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal as per the impugned order dated December 14, 2012. We hold that the respondents would be entitled to stepping up of pay on notional basis from the date persons junior to them started receiving higher salary but actual amount to be paid to the respondents would be limited to the period commencing from the date one year preceding to when the Original Applications were filed by the respondents."
9. In view of what has been observed and narrated hereinabove, the present OA is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to fix the salary of the applicant when he was promoted to 9 Item No. 56/C-5 O.A. No. 575/2019 the post of SO, the same as fixed for his counterpart Mr. Surjit Kumar. The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefit that may arise on actual basis. The order may be complied within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. It is made clear that in case the order is complied within the said period as given to the respondents, the applicant will not be entitled to any interest, however, if the respondents fail to comply within the aforesaid period, the applicant will be entitled to interest as per GPF rates for each month of delay.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Anand S Khati) (Pratima K Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/rk