Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Surendra Singh Through Lr S Smt. Suman ... vs M/O Defence on 9 February, 2023
1 (OA No.290/00358/2014)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No. 290/00358/2014
OA No.290/00358/2014 Pronounced on : 13.02.2023
(Reserved on : 09.02.2023
CORAM
HON'BLE MRS. JASMINE AHMED, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE Dr. NANDITA CHATTERJEE, MEMBER (A)
Smt. Suman Rathore W/o Late Sh. Surender Singh, aged about 48
years, R/o Laxmi Nivas 4D-32 Pawanpuri, Bikaner Legal
Representative of late Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh.
.......Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Malik.
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Raksha Bhawan New Delhi.
2. The Commander Works Engineer, Air Force, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
3. The Garrison Engineer, Air Force, Nal, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
........Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. B.L. Tiwari.
2 (OA No.290/00358/2014)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Member (A)
1. Aggrieved at not having received his 2nd MACP benefits at grade pay of Rs.4200/-, the applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief:-
"8.(i) By an appropriate writ order or direction respondents may be directed to grant 2nd MACP in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008 along with arrears of pay and allowances and interest @ 12% per annum with all consequential benefits.
(ii) Any other relief which is found just and proper be passed in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice."
2. Heard both learned counsel. Examined pleadings and documents on record as well as judicial pronouncements and office memoranda placed before this Tribunal during hearing.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Motor Pump Attendant (MPA) w.e.f. 20.02.1988 in the pay scale of Rs.950- 1500/-.
That, consequent to the introduction of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), the applicant was granted 1st ACP benefit on 20.04.2002 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- vide 3 (OA No.290/00358/2014) orders dated 17.06.2002 (Annexure A/1 to the OA), and, that, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Highly Skilled (HS) in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- vide orders dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure A/2 to the OA) and that the financial effect of such promotion was granted to him w.e.f. 20.05.2003.
That, consequent to the recommendations of the 5th CPC for Defence Establishment of Artisans Staff, the posts of HS-1 & HS-II were merged w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with the pay scale of Rs.4000- 6000/-.
That, as per Annexure A/4 to the OA, the Policy of Restructuring Cadre was notified declaring that all employees in this Skilled Grade were to be granted 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- after completion of 24 years of service. Thereafter, with the issue of recommendations of the 6th CPC, the Govt. of India issued the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) as per Annexure A/5 to the OA, and, the applicant was granted 2nd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme after completion of 20 years service in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- as per Annexure A/3 to the OA.
According to the applicant, as the MACP Scheme mentions that the promotions earned/upgraded under ACP Scheme which 4 (OA No.290/00358/2014) presently carry the same present grade pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts, the same shall be granted for the purpose of granting upgrdadations under MACPS. The applicant would, therefore, argue that, as in his case, the post of HS-I & HS- II has already been merged upon the 5th CPC recommendations with the same Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-, he was entitled to the next pay scale in the promotional hierarchy of Rs.5000-8000/-, revised to Rs.9300-34800/- as per 6th CPC with the commensurate Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. The applicant, would, therefore, claim that after completion of 20 years of service, he is entitled for 2nd MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-.
That, the applicant made a number of representations seeking such benefit, particularly, in the light of the orders of this Tribunal in its Coordinate Bench at Chandigarh in OA No.842/2012 (Tilak Raj Sharma & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.) dated 17.12.2013 and other batch cases, as upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court annexed as Annexure A/6, A/7, A/8 and A/9 respectively.
In support, apart from the decisions of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal, learned counsel for the applicant would furnish the judgment and orders in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6061/2018 in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur 5 (OA No.290/00358/2014) (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Girdhari Lal Saini & Anr.) as well as DB Civil Writ Petition No.3840/2021 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bhartendu Gaur). In the latter, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur while relying the Hon'ble Apex Court judgments in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma & Ors. reported in (2021) 5 SCC 579 and Girdhari Lal Saini & Anr. (supra) had granted the petitioners therein benefits of the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- and Rs.4600/- upon completion of 24 and 30 years of service respectively.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would rebut the claim of the applicant in the following arguments:-
i) That, the applicant was initially appointed for the post of Motor Pump Attendant (MPA) on 20.02.1988 in the pay scale of Rs.800-1150/- subsequently revised to Rs.950-1500/- in compliance to orders of this Tribunal dated 11.12.2001.
ii) That, the post of MPA was re-designated as Pump House Operator (SK) and thereafter as Fitter General Mechanic [(FGM) (SK)] w.e.f. 07.11.1988 and 06.07.1994 respectively.
iii) That, after completion of 12 years of service, the applicant was granted the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- w.e.f. 11.05.2002 6 (OA No.290/00358/2014) and was promoted to the post of FGM (HS-II) on 20.05.2003 in the pay scale of Rs.5000-6000/-. As the applicant has already received financial benefits during the time of grant of 1st ACP, there was no change in the pay structure during his promotion to the post of HS-II.
In the meanwhile, the applicant who had qualified in the Trade Test FGM (HS-I), was granted 2nd MACP Scheme on 01.09.2008 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-.
iv) That, the posts of HS-I and HS-II, were thereafter merged on 01.01.2006 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- and the applicant's Grade Pay was settled at Rs.2400/- in the Revised Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200/- during his promotion of FGM (HS-II)/1st ACP and that his Grade Pay was further enhanced to Rs.2800/- in the Revised Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200/- at the stage of 2nd MACP/promotion as HS-I.
v) That, as MACP Scheme provides enhancements of Grade Pay in the Grade Pay in existing Pay Band and because the applicant was placed in the Pay Band-I in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- (Revised Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200+GP of Rs.2400/-) during 1st ACP and grade pay of Rs.2800/- on 2nd MACP, the applicant's Pay was included fixed correctly with Grade Pay as applicable to him 7 (OA No.290/00358/2014) and the applicant's claim for the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, which is associated with the promotional pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- subsequently revised to Rs.9300-34800+GP of Rs.4200/- would not be a legally accepted proposition.
vi) That, although, the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal had relied in the case of Rajpal Vs. UOI further upheld in CWP No.19387 of 2011, there is no information as to the actual implementation of the orders of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would also refer to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 05.03.2020 in SLP (C) No.21803/2014 (Union of India Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair) to argue that in the above noted judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court had upheld the policy that, benefits to the MACPS are to be granted in the standard hierarchy of Grade Pay/ Pay levels, and, not, in the promotional hierarchy, and, that, in terms of such settled ratio, the applicant's claim to grade pay in promotional hierarchy is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival contentions, and, having examined the documents on record and those brought before this Tribunal during hearing, this Tribunal would infer that the applicant's claim 8 (OA No.290/00358/2014) has been highlighted in para 4.4 of the pleadings wherein it has been stated as follows:-
"4.4. That after 6th CPC G.O.I. has issued MACP scheme vide OM dated 19.05.2009 by replacing the earlier ACP scheme of 1999 wherein it has been mentioned that promotions earned/up-grdation granted under ACP scheme in the post to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/up-gradation of posts recommended by 6th CPC shall be granted for the purpose of granting up-gradation under MACP scheme. In the present case HS-I & HS-II which carry the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 already merged in the 5 th CPC as stated supra and carry the same grade pay of Rs.2800/- under 6th CPC. The next pay scale in the hierarchy of promotion is Rs.5000-8000/-, under 6th CPC it comes in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/-. After completion of 20 years of service applicant is entitled for 2 nd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008. Since he has already completed 20 years of service on 20.02.2008."
In Mohanan Nair (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had discussed in depth on the implications of the judgment in Rajpal (supra). The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajpal (supra), is reproduced as under:-
"36. Raj Pal's Case - Whether could have been taken as a precedent:- In almost all the cases, the High Courts have relied upon Raj Pal's case only on the basis that Raj Pal's case was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that Raj Pal's case, SLP (C) No. ......CC 7467 of 2013 was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 15.04.2013 on the ground that there was no sufficient explanation to condone the delay in refiling the Special Leave Petition which is a default in the manner in which the case was prosecuted and 9 (OA No.290/00358/2014) not a dismissal on merits. Be that as it may, since various High Courts have relied upon Raj Pal's case, it is necessary to refer to the facts, findings thereon and whether it could have been followed as precedent.
37. Raj Pal was working in the post of Photocopier w.e.f. 12.10.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. The post of Photocopier is an isolated post. Upon introduction of the ACP Scheme in the year 1999, on completion of twelve years of regular service, Raj Pal was granted the next higher scale in the hierarchy of pay scales i.e. Rs.3200-4590/- vide order dated 12.10.1999. At that point of time, Raj Pal claimed parity with other posts like Hindi Typist/LDC which was also in the equivalent pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- and had been placed in the scale of Rs.4000- 6000/- on the grant of 1st financial step up on completion of twelve years of regular service. He also claimed that on completion of twenty-four years of regular service in second financial step up, he should be placed in the scale of Rs.5500- 9000/-. In the earlier round of litigation, Raj Pal filed O.A. No.278/CH/2004 claiming the aforesaid parity with posts like Hindi Typist/LDC and the same was allowed by Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 30.08.2004 whereby Raj Pal was held entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale under the ACP Scheme of 1999 as applicable for the similar posts i.e. Hindi Typist/LDC. The order dated 30.08.2004 was challenged by Union of India before the High Court in CWP No.7356/CAT of 2005 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2007.
38. For proper appreciation of Raj Pal's case, we may refer to the relevant scales of pay with revised Pay Bands, which are as under:-
Present Scale Revised Pay Structure
Sl.No. Post/ Present Scale Name of Corresponding Pay
Corresponding
Grade Pay Bands/Scales Grade
Pay
Band/Scale
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
6. S-5 3050-75-3950-80-4590 PB-1 5200-20200 1900
7. S-6 3200-85-4900 PB-1 5200-20200 2000
8. S-7 4000-100-6000 PB-1 5200-20200 2400
9. S-8 4500-125-7000 PB-1 5200-20200 2800
10. S-9 5000-150-8000 PB-2 9300-34800 4200
11. S-10 5500-175-9000 PB-2 9300-34800 4200
Upon implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the scale of Rs.3050-4590/- was kept in PB-1-Rs.5200-20200/- with grade pay of Rs.1900/-. The scale of Rs.4000-6000/- was also kept in PB-1 with grade pay of Rs.2400/-. The scale of Rs.5500- 9000/- was kept in PB-2- Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/-. In terms of MACP Scheme, by the order dated 09.08.2010, Raj Pal was granted second 10 (OA No.290/00358/2014) financial upgradation in the PB-1 of Rs.5200-20200/- with grade pay of Rs.2400/-.
39. Raj Pal filed OA No. 1038/CH/2010 before CAT contending that his pay has been wrongly fixed in PB-1 in the scale of Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-. He claimed that he was entitled to be fixed in PB-2 in the scale of Rs.9300- 34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. Raj Pal relied on para (6) of the MACP Scheme as per which in case of employees granted financial upgradations under ACP Scheme till 01.01.2006, their revised pay will be fixed with reference to the pay scale granted to them under ACP. The Tribunal vide its order dated 31.05.2011 noted that it is not disputed that the post held by Raj Pal has been declared equivalent to the post of LDC/Hindi Typist etc. by the Tribunal as well as the High Court in matters of grant of ACP and these pronouncements have attained finality and also stood implemented. The OA was allowed and the appellants were directed to grant second financial upgradation in the promotional hierarchy in PB-2 in the scale of Rs.9300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- to Raj Pal under the MACP from due date and fix his pay in the hierarchy of posts decided in his case earlier. The appellants filed CWP No.19387 of 2011 before the High Court assailing the aforesaid order. It was inter alia contended by the appellants that the earlier ACP Scheme stood superseded by the MACP scheme and both the schemes cannot run concurrently. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.
40. The above judgment of the High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No. ....CC 7467 of 2013. The SLP was filed on 24.12.2011; but some defects were observed by the Court Registry and returned for rectification whereafter the SLP was refiled only on 21.03.2013. The SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Chamber Judge vide order dated 15.04.2013 on the ground that sufficient explanation has not been given to condone the delay in refiling the SLP.
41. Insofar as Raj Pal's case is concerned, in view of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP No.7356/CAT of 2005, Principal Bench of the Tribunal issued letter dated 02.08.2007 directing all the Benches of the Tribunal that the Photocopiers working in the respective Benches may be granted 1st financial upgradation under ACP Scheme in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000/- and 2nd financial upgradation in the scale of Rs.5500- 9000/-. In Raj Pal's case, taking note of the earlier round of litigation i.e. O.A.No.278/CH/2004 and CWP No.7356/CAT of 2005 and the letter sent by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal dated 02.08.2007 in its order dated 31.05.2011 in O.A. No. 1038/CH/2010, the Tribunal held that Raj Pal having been placed under ACP scheme - second financial upgradation in the scale of Rs.5500-9000/- is entitled to PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/-). The relevant findings of the Tribunal in O.A. No.1038/CH/2010 read as under:-
"4. The respondents took the matter to Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of filing a CWP No.7356 CAT of 2005. The CWP was dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2007, holding the applicant entitled to the benefit of ACP at par with the LDC/Hindi Typist, etc. It was thereafter that the 11 (OA No.290/00358/2014) Principal Bench of the Tribunal issued letter dated 02.08.2007, directing all the Benches of the Tribunal that the Photocopiers working in respective Benches may be granted 1st financial upgradation under ACP Scheme in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000 and 2 nd financial upgradation in the scale of Rs.5500-9000.
...........
12. There is no dispute that the applicant is holding the post of photocopier, which is an isolated post, having no avenues for promotion. It is also not disputed that, the post held by the applicant had been declared equivalent to the post of LDC/Hindi Typist, etc. by the Tribunal as well as the High Court by judicial pronouncement in matters of grant of ACP, which have attained finality and stands implemented also. Accordingly, applicant was granted 1 st ACP (under the old ACP) w.e.f. 09.08.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000." [Underlining added]
42. It was on the above, the Tribunal held that the post of Photocopier being an isolated post and in view of the letter dated 02.08.2007 sent by the Principal Bench and taking note of the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal directed that Raj Pal be granted PB-2-Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/-. In the case of Raj Pal, the post of Photocopier, being an isolated post, the order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Rajpal's case did not go into any details in respect of the overall features of the new MACP Scheme and did not consider the recommendations of the expert body which culminated in the new Scheme. The order passed in Raj Pal's case could not have been taken as a precedent in other cases. This is all the more so when SLP (C) No.....CC 7467 of 2013 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay in refiling the Special Leave Petition and no decision was rendered on merits.
Dismissal of case by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay in filing/non-filing, is not a binding precedent:-
43. As noted above, SLP preferred by Union of India against the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the High Court was dismissed on the ground that the delay in refiling has not been satisfactorily explained. The question which arises for consideration is when the SLP has been dismissed on the ground of delay in filing or of refiling (like in the case of Raj Pal), whether it can be taken as a binding precedent on the merits of the case as the "law declared by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India". Raj Pal's case having been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in refiling, in our considered view, Raj Pal's case ought not to have been quoted as a precedent of this Court by the High Courts.
44. Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, i.e. the pronouncement of the law on the point shall operate as a binding precedent on all courts within India. Law declared by the Supreme Court has to be essentially understood as a principle laid down by the court and it is this principle which has the effect of a precedent. A 12 (OA No.290/00358/2014) principle as understood from the word itself is a proposition which can only be delivered after examination of the matter on merits. It can never be in a summary manner, much less be rendered in a decision delivered on technical grounds, without entering into the merits at all. A decision, unaccompanied by reasons can never be said to be a law declared by the Supreme Court though it will bind the parties inter-se in drawing the curtain on the litigation. In Union of India v. All India Service Pensioners' Association and another (1988) 2 SCC 580, the Supreme Court held that "when reasons were made by the Supreme Court for dismissing the SLP, the decision becomes one which attracts Article 141 of the Constitution which provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India......".
45. Observing that when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed by a non- speaking order, by such dismissal, the Supreme Court does not lay down any law as envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and Others (1989) 4 SCC 187, this Court held as under:-
"22. ....It is now a well-settled principle of law that when a special leave petition is summarily dismissed under Article 136 of the Constitution, by such dismissal this Court does not lay down any law, as envisaged by Article 141 of the Constitution, as contended by the learned Attorney General. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 146 it has been held by this Court that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court. It has been further held that the effect of a non-speaking order of dismissal of a special leave petition without anything more indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary implication, be taken to be that the Supreme Court had decided only that it was not a fit case where special leave petition should be granted. In Union of India v. All India Services Pensioners' Association (1988) 2 SCC 580 this Court has given reasons for dismissing the special leave petition. When such reasons are given, the decision becomes one which attracts Article 141 of the Constitution which provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India. It, therefore, follows that when no reason is given, but a special leave petition is dismissed simpliciter, it cannot be said that there has been a declaration of law by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution."
[underlining added] Raj Pal's case having been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in refiling, Raj Pal's case ought not to have been quoted as precedent of this Court by the High Courts."
Hence, while the applicant would rely on the orders of this Tribunal in its Coordinate Bench at Chandigarh which had relied on 13 (OA No.290/00358/2014) Rajpal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohanan Nair (supra) had categorically held that the Rajpal's case ought not to have been quoted as precedent of this Court by the High Courts.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, concluded as under:-
"51. The ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of government policy. Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP, would have serious impact on the public exchequer. The recommendations of the Pay Commission for MACP Scheme has been accepted by the Government and implemented. There is nothing to show that the Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting interference. Without considering the advantages in the MACP Scheme, the High Courts erred in interfering with the government's policy in accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pal's case. The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside."
7. The DoPT, while issuing follow up office memoranda consequent to the orders in Mohanan Nair (supra) dated 23.03.2020 as well as 05.04.2021, had left the issue of whether the date of effect of MACPS is to be made as on 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008 open as the issue was subjudice before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.10811-10813/2018 (UOI Vs. Ranjit Samuel).
This issue was subsequently decided along with SLP (C) No.15572/2019 in the matter of UOI Vs. R.K. Sharma & ors. which was tagged along with Ranjit Samuel (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding on R.K. Sharma (supra) held as under:- 14 (OA No.290/00358/2014)
"The judgment in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) clinches the issue. Benefits flowing from ACP & MACP Schemes are incentives and are not part of pay. The resolution dated 29.08.2008 is made effective from 01.09.2008 for implementation of allowances other than Pay and DA which includes financial upgradation under ACP & MACP Schemes. Therefore, the Respondents and other similarly situated officers are not entitled to seek implementation of the benefits of MACPS w.e.e.f 01.01.2006 according to the resolution dated 29.08.2008. Moreover, the implementation of MACPS by granting financial upgradation only to the next grade pay in the pay band and not granting pay of the next promotional post w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would be detrimental to a large number of employees, particularly those who have retired. We find force in the submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that uniform implementation of MACPS for civilian employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006 would result in large scale recoveries of amounts paid in excess."
Hence, the date of effect of MACPS was accordingly settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.K. Sharma (supra).
8. In the instant OA, the applicant has claimed three benefits namely, (a) the grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- at the stage of 2nd MACP in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- (b) and that such benefits should be accorded to him w.e.f. 01.09.2008 along with
(c) interest @ 12% per annum with consequential benefits.
The applicant has admittedly sought for a Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in the promotional hierarchy of Rs.5000-8000/- subsequently revised to Rs.9300-34800/-, a proposition struck down as impermissible by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohanan Nair (supra). The ratio of Rajpal (supra) that was relied upon by the Chandigarh Bench has been discussed at length by the Hon'ble Apex Court who declared that the Rajpal decision cannot be 15 (OA No.290/00358/2014) interpreted as a precedent and proceeded to strike down all the judicial decisions arrived at by Courts who had simply placed reliance on Rajpal's case. The applicant's reliance on the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal which has simply placed reliance on Rajpal's case is squarely covered by the decision in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) and hence, merits no consideration.
Regarding the date of effect with reference to 01.09.2008, the date of effect has been decided finally in R.K. Sharma (supra) as well as Ranjit Samuel (supra) and is no longer res integra.
Finally, the applicant's claim of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- along with consequential benefits and @ 12% interest per annum on arrears arising out of such enhanced grade pay, fails to succeed as the fundamental claim of grade pay of Rs.4200/- stands as rejected.
9. The O.A., is, therefore, fails to succeed and is dismissed on merit. There will be no orders as to costs.
(Dr. NANDITA CHATTERJEE) (JASMINE AHMED)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
sv