Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rajan Kumar Pandhi vs Union Of India Through on 23 September, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.4151/2012 Reserved On:19.09.2013 Pronounced on:23:09.2013 Honble Shri G George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Member(A) 1. Shri Rajan Kumar Pandhi, PS Office of DG SSB FHQ, East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. 2. Smt. Reeta Negi, SO Office of DG SSB FHQ, East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. 3. Shri Trilochan Pandi, SO Office of DG SSB FHQ, East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. 4. Smt. Moushumi Chakraborty, PS Office of DG SSB FHQ, East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. (On deputation with SPG, Cab Sectt) 5. Shri Sanjay Sahni, PS Office of IG Frontier Hq, SSb, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP). 6. Shri Utpal Kumar Das, PS Office of IG Frontier Hq, SSb, Patna (Bihar). 7. Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, Asst Office of the DG, FHQ, SSB, East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. 8. Shri H.S. Chauhan, Asst Office of the DG, SSB FHQ, East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. 9. Smt. Vijaylakshmi P.S., Asst Office of the DG, SSB FHQ, East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. 10. Shri Manoj Kumar Bhandari, Asst Office of the IG, FHQ, SSB, Ranikhet (Utterkhand). 11. Shri B. Ravichandran, PA Office of the DG, SSB FHQ, East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. (on deputation with NSG) 12. Shri Ravender Chamoli, PA Office of the DG, SSB FHQ, East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. 13. Shri Annada Prasad Chhotaray, PA Office of the DG, SSB FHQ, East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. 14. Shri Satish Kumar, PA Office of the DIG, Composite Hospital SSB, Tezpur Assam. 15. Shri Balram Majhi, P.A. Office of the I, Frontier HQ, SSB, Patna (Bihar). 16. Shri Asui Shinganisui, PA Office of the DIG, Training Centre SSB, Tezpur (Assam). .Applicants By Advocate: Shri Padma Kumar. Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delh. 2. The Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal, East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 3. Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-1, 4. The Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi. Respondents By Advocate: Shri Rajeev Kumar O R D E R
Shri G. George Paracken, Member (J) The Applicants are civilian employees who are working as Section Officers and Private Secretaries under Respondent No.2, i.e., Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB for short). They are aggrieved by the discriminatory action being employed by the Respondents in not granting them the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- with a dispensation of Rs.5400/- after 4 years of service.
2. Before approaching this Tribunal with this Original Application, they have made representations to the Respondents to grant them the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2 and Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 after completion of 4 years of service on the ground that their cases are squarely covered by the earlier orders of this Tribunal in OA No.3319/2009 and OA No.2908/2011. However, the Respondents, vide the impugned Annexure A-I dated 01.11.2012, rejected their representations stating that the substantive Grade Pay of Section Officers and Private Secretaries of SSB after implementation of recommendation of 6th Pay Commission is only Rs.4600/-. They have also informed them that the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2 and Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 (after completion of 4 years of service) has been extended to the Applicants in OA No.3319/2009 (supra) and OA No.2908/2011 (supra) on personal basis, as approved by the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Home Affairs. Since they were not Applicants in any of the aforesaid OAs, their pay cannot be fixed accordingly.
3. The Applicants have challenged the aforesaid impugned Memorandum dated 01.11.2012 on the ground of illegality and arbitrariness. They have submitted that equality of law, equal protection of law and equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under the Constitution of India cannot be denied to them. They have also stated that the Applicants who are SOs/PSs are holding the same post of SOs/PSs as in the case of the Applicants in OA No.3319/2009 (supra) and OA No.2908/2011 (supra) and they are working in the same organization. Therefore, there cannot be any discrimination between the present Applicants and those Applicants in the said OAs.
4. The Respondents have filed their reply reiterating the very same stand they have taken in their aforesaid impugned letter dated 01.11.2011. They have also relied upon the DOP&T guidelines that it is the Government policy not to extend benefits of CAT/Court judgments to non petitioners who are similarly placed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicants Shri Padma Kumar. S and the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri Rajeev Kumar. In our considered view, the Respondents have taken a very arbitrary and unconstitutional stand in this matter. In fact, by denying the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- (Rs.5400/- after four years of service) to the Applicants, the respondents are discriminating between their Section Officers/Private Secretaries who had approached this Tribunal and who have not approached this Tribunal without any valid reasons. The Apex Court in the case of Inderpal Yadav Vs. U.O.I. 1985(2) SCC 648. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this court.
6. We, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, allow this OA and set aside the impugned Memorandum dated 01.11.2012 to the extent that the Applicants have been denied Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2 and Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 (after completion of 4 years of service). We also declare that the Applicants in this Application, on their promotion as Section Offices/Private Secretaries, are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2 and Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 (after completion of 4 years of service) with all consequential benefits as given to the Applicants in OA No.3319/2009 (supra) and OA No.2908/2011 (supra). The Respondents shall also pass appropriate orders complying with the aforesaid directions within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh