Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anand Prakash Dube vs N/A on 19 November, 2024
1
Item No. 05/ Court-5 O.A. No. 1322/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 1322/2023
This is the 19th day of November, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Anand Prakash Dube, Group-C
S/o Sh. Raj Mani Dube
Aged about 62 years,
R/o E-5, Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi-110092
Retired as Offset Machine Man,
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.Ramesh Rawat)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Printing
B-Wing, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi
3. The Manager,
Government of India Press,
Minto Road, New Delhi
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sona Kumar)
2
Item No. 05/ Court-5 O.A. No. 1322/2023
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) By way of the present OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
a. Direct the respondents to grant the applicant the Grade pay of Rs. 4200/- w.e.f. his redeployment in the post Offset Machine Man in terms of O.M. Dated 20th November 2009 and in compliance of the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 08.10.2015 in O.A. no. 2006/2013.
b. Direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the Applicant upon grant of prayer (a) above including arrears of pay and allowances, Higher MACP which falls due from 01.09.2008 (1st and 2nd financial upgradations of Rs. 4600/- and 4800/-) and 3rd MACP from 02.03.2017 in the grade pay of Rs 5400/- as has already been granted similarly situated persons I.D. Sharma & others (O.A. No. 4008/2012.), Vijay Kumar Sharma & other (O.A. No. 1868/2016).
c. Consequent to the grant of prayers (a) & (b) above, direct the respondents to recalculate the terminal benefits and pension payable to the applicant after consideration of his last drawn pay in the grade pay of Rs. 5400/-.
d. Direct the Respondents to pay costs to the Applicant.
2. This is the fourth round of litigation. Highlighting the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the applicant states that in the first round of litigation, in OA No. 2006/2013, the respondents were directed to re-deploy the applicant as Offset Machine Man or DTP Operator in any of the Presses of Government of India where the vacancy in such grade is available or as and when it arises. Pursuant to this order, the respondents passed office order dated 3 Item No. 05/ Court-5 O.A. No. 1322/2023 22.09.2016 by which the applicant was redeployed to the post of Offset Machine Man with immediate effect. However, the said order was passed without granting appropriate pay scale to the applicant. Thereafter, CP No. 585/2016 was filed. The said CP was disposed of on 28.11.2016 wherein it was observed as under:
5. It is seen that in OA No. 2006/2013, this Tribunal had not given any direction to the respondents with regard to the seniority or otherwise of the applicant vis- à-vis any other employee. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any of his alleged juniors were parties to the O.A.
6. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the CP and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from agitating his grievances, if any, in accordance with law.
3. It is also noticeable that a circular was issued on 29.06.2007 by the respondents wherein eligible surplus employees were asked for their option of absorption as per the provision of the recruitment rules in different categories and the applicant gave willingness to be redeployed as DTP Operator. However, the respondents redeployed the applicant to the post of Offset Machine Man in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 2800/-.
4. Attention has been drawn to the fact that as per office order dated 20th November 2009, Offset Machine Man/DTP operators were brought under the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- and revised 4 Item No. 05/ Court-5 O.A. No. 1322/2023 to PB-2 with grade pay of 4200/-. Hence, the aforementioned OA No. 2006/2013 was filed.
5. Pursuant to the circumstances, the applicant was again compelled to file OA No. 1902/2017 wherein after hearing the arguments the OA was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh OA. Thereafter, OA No. 1117/2023 was filed by the applicant which was also dismissed as withdrawn.
Now, the present OA has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the various judgments of this Tribunal wherein relief was granted to similarly situated persons in OA No. 4008/2012 in the matter of I.D. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India decided on 10.10.2023 (Annexure A-11) and OA No. 1868/2016 in the matter of Vijay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India decided on 04.10.2021 (Annexure A-13) as well as judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 10367/2016 (Annexure A-12).
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention that in identical situation, vide its order dated 15.07.2022, the respondents had persons on the post of Lino/Mono Operators had been given the post of DTP Operator and the said order was implemented in toto by the respondents.
5
Item No. 05/ Court-5 O.A. No. 1322/2023
8. Opposing the grant of relief in the OA as well as the MA, learned counsel for the respondents have filed their reply. The respondents in their reply state that the applicant is misleading the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is admitted that the Office Circular No. D- 31/E/.I Modernisation/52 dated 10.07.2007 (Annexure R-1) was circulated amongst all surplus categories of Mono/Lino Operators of Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi wherein they were informed that some posts of DTP Operators are lying vacant in seven sister presses which are required to be filled up on absorption basis. They were also informed that interested surplus employees who wish to be absorbed against above said posts may apply in the prescribed proforma by 13.07.2007. In response to this office circular dated 10.07.2007, applicant submitted his application cum option form dated 11.07.2007 vide this office diary No.1056 dated 13.07.2007 (ANNEXURE R-2) for his redeployment mentioning the names of 07 sister presses besides this press. However, on 13.07.2007, applicant and other 10 surplus Lino Operators of Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi requested the Manager of this Press vide their application dated 13.07.2007 (ANNEXURE R-3) to absorb them within their press itself wherein, he opted for the post of D.T.P Operator. But at that time, no post of D.T.P Operator was vacant on which he could be adjusted for redeployment. On 20.09.2007, vide Directorate of Printing's O.M. No. 16/5/2007 0 A-I dated 6 Item No. 05/ Court-5 O.A. No. 1322/2023 20th Sept., 2007 (ANNEXURE R-4), the Min. of Urban Development allowed omnibus relaxation of various provisions of the Recruitment Rules as a onetime measure, repeating therein as a onetime measure only. Therefore, in relaxation of Recruitment Rules as a onetime measure, Shri A.P. Dube the Applicant herein was selected for training for the post Offset Machine Assistant for redeployment in this Press as per his request vide this Press Circular dated 09.10.2007 (ANNEXURE R-5) and later on the Applicant was adjusted/ redeployed against the post of Offset Machine Asstt. on 16.05.2012. It is denied that the applicant has been adjusted in the lower grade. In fact, he was Lino Operator in the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- and was absorbed to the post of Offset M/c. Asstt, also carrying the same Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- However, since the applicant was drawing higher pay in the GP- 4600/- by Virtue of ACP/MACP but was redeployed to the post of Offset M/c Asstt. in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- granting him protection of pay that he got as ACP/MACP. The applicant was satisfied with this adjustment at that time.
9. The respondents further specifically aver that the case of I.D. Sharma & Ors Vs Union of India and the case of the applicant are not similar. Shri I.D. Sharma and the applicant both joined as Lino/Mono Operator but Shri I.D. Sharma was redeployed to the post of DTP operator on 22.12.1989 whereas the applicant was redeployed on 22.09.2016 to the post of Offset Machine Man. 7
Item No. 05/ Court-5 O.A. No. 1322/2023 Subsequently Shri I.D. Sharma who was redeployed as DTP Operator, was granted MACP by implementing the order vide Directorate of Printing OM No.2/20(9) 2010-AI dated 24.09.2010 (ANNEXURE R-6), whereas hierarchy ACP/MACP was granted to the applicant on the basis of the pay of the post of the Lino Operator. As per Para 9 of the guidelines of MACP Scheme, "Regular Service" for the purposes of the MACP commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a re basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption/re-employme basis. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 3353/2021 in the mat of UOI & Ors. Vs. Shri Om Prakash & Ors has set aside the orders of the Hon'ble CAT (PB) Bench in a similar case (ANNEXURE-R-7) "The service put in by them prior to 1998 was not considered for grant of benefit the ACP Scheme rightly, so, in view of clause 9 which we have reproduced above. Of may be stated that the vires of Clause 9 of the OM dated May 19, 2009, had not be challenged. So, the issue has to be decided from the perspective of Clause 9. The inten behind Clause 9 is the respondents having become surplus in LPU, were absorbed PLU, which is akin to afresh appointment and any future benefits have to be granted by counting service from the date of absorption. We note, Tribunal has not considered the effect of clause 9 while giving the directions in the manner it did in the impugned order. It follows the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is a perverse finding. We are of the view that the direction of the Tribunal for grant of second ACP to the respondents could not have been granted. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated January 30, 2020 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. 8
Item No. 05/ Court-5 O.A. No. 1322/2023 Thus, in the instant case, Shri Dube, the applicant was redeployed/absorbed the post of Offset Machine Man (GP 4200) w.e.f. 22.09.2016 (as per the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal) thus his regular service is to be taken into account from 22.09.2016 and would only be due for his next MACP 22.09.2026 in the GP of Rs. 4600/-. However, the applicant at the time of his absorption was already drawing Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and till the time of his retirement i.e. on 31.05.2021 he was drawing the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 which is also on the higher side. Thus, the say of the applicant does not hold ground.
10. In rejoinder filed by the applicant it has been highlighted that it is not in dispute that the applicant was not working on isolated post and worked as a surplus and thereafter was accorded the post of DTP operator pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal vide office order dated 22.09.2016.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
12. Primary consideration before this Tribunal is whether the applicant has to be accorded the grade pay of Rs.4200/- at this stage and what relief can be granted to the applicant since he has already superannuated in May 2021. Going by the relief sought in the present OA, though prayer (a) has been made for seeking grant of grade pay w.e.f the date of the applicant's redeployment 9 Item No. 05/ Court-5 O.A. No. 1322/2023 in terms of the O.M. dated 20.11.2009 in compliance of the direction of this Tribunal.
13. Strangely, the office order dated 22.09.2016, which was passed pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal in OA No. 2006/2013, was passed without giving any financial benefit to the applicant. The said order has no meaning in the eyes of law unless and until the applicant is accorded appropriate financial benefits therein.
14. We also observe that since the applicant has already superannuated and this is the fourth round of litigation. Two of the OAs were withdrawn for the reasons best known to the applicant and the applicant was himself also a contributory factor to the delay.
15. Since benefit has already been accorded in earlier round of litigation, it is not appropriate for the respondents to take different stand now. Also, nothing on record has been produced by the respondents to show that the post at which the applicant was working and superannuated was not an isolated post.
16. In view of the above and on the basis of judgments relied by the applicant, we allow the present OA in terms that relief be extended to the applicant w.e.f. three years from date of his superannuation. All consequential orders shall follow thereafter. The logical conclusion would also mean to accord MACP benefits to the applicant pursuant to the refixation of grade pay for grant 10 Item No. 05/ Court-5 O.A. No. 1322/2023 of 4200 and accordingly MACP to which applicant is entitled. The arrears of 3rd MACP shall also be given effect for three years preceding. The above exercise shall be carried within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
17. Finally, to conclude, the pension of the applicant shall also be fixed within two months failing which the applicant will be entitled to interest at the GPF rate on the delayed pension.
18. The OA is allowed in above terms. Associated MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ks/