Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs S.K. Pal Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 10 September, 2013
Union of India & Ors Vs. S.K.Pal
W.P.No.14093/2009
10/09/2013
Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Barun Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the
respondent/ employee.
Challenging a part of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No.122/2009 vide Annexure-P5 on 19th of August, 2009 allowing certain claim made by the respondent/ employee in the matter of grant of revision of pay on promotion, this writ petition has been filed by the Railway Administration.
Respondent/ employee Shri S.K.Pal was working in the railway establishment and he filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the Central Administration Tribunal, which was registered as O.A.No.122/2003. While admitting the petition on 18.2.2009, a Division Bench of the tribunal took note of the fact that in the application, plural remedies are claimed for. It was found by the tribunal that apart from the gratuity, the employee Shri S.K.Pal was also claiming benefit of revision of pay on the ground of promotion and after taking note of the provisions of Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987, the tribunal found that the plural remedies cannot be taken. The relief of gratuity and pay scale are independent to each other and, therefore, a detail order is passed. Para-3 of the order reads as under :
"3. Under Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987 a person is entitiled to plural remedies unless they Union of India & Ors Vs. S.K.Pal are consequential to each other. The relief of promotion has nothing to do with the claim regarding gratuity. Hence, in view of Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, we are of the considered view that the second relief is not maintainable. Moreover, we note that the appalicant is placing reliance on Annexure-A3 order dated 6.1.1998 whereby while making promotion of certain officials, competent authority observed that result of the applicant is kept in abeyance due to contemplated proceedings against him. The applicant contended that in departmental proceedings initiated against him, a penalty of reversion has been imposed vide order dated 27.10.1998 to the lower time scale by two scales and the basic to be fixed at the highest grade of the scale of reversion for two years with non-cumulative effect. It is not the case of the applicant that the said penalty has either been challenged before this Court of law or withdrawn by the respondents themselves. In other words the said penalty attained its finality. The learned counsel further contends that despite various representations made on the subject no action has been taken by the respondents to grant such benefits of promotion. Hence, we are of the clear view and we have no hesitation to conclude that this relief is totally misconceived and the claim on this aspect is not maintainable."
Thereafter, notice was issued and it was clearly indicated in the notice that the notice is to the extent of relief of gratuity along with the interest. However, while deciding the claim finally on 19th of August, 2009 by the impugned order, certain directions have also been issued with regard to revision of pay and grant of promotion, it is this part of the order, which is challenged by the railway administration before this Court.
Even though, learned counsel for the respondent/ employee tried to emphasize that once the claim for revision of pay scale and promotion was entertained by the tribunal after taking note of the rival contentions and when this Court exercising it's Union of India & Ors Vs. S.K.Pal jurisdiction in a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the entire relief claimed for should be granted, we are not convinced with the aforesaid submission of learned counsel. When the case was heard and when the order reproduced hereinabove clearly shows that with regard to revision of pay scale on promotion, relief claimed was not maintainable, the tribunal has committed a jurisdictional error in entertaining the relief for revision of pay scale on promotion.
Finding the Central Administrative Tribunal to have exceeded it's jurisdiction, once this claim was not found to be maintainable, we allow this writ petition in part. Even though the order passed on 19.8.2009 is maintained to the extent of grant of gratuity and consequential relief of interest on the gratuity, the direction with regard to revision of pay scale and promotion is set aside.
The petition is allowed and disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt.Vimla Jain)
Judge Judge
nd