Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sanjib Kumar Halder vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 15 May, 2018
WD U I CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CALCUTTA BENCH OA/350/506/2018 Date of Order: 15.05.2018 Coram : Hon'ble Mrs. Manjula Das, Judicial Member Sanjib Kumar Halder, son of Gobinda Pada Halder, 7/1/5, Circular Road 41h Bye Lane, Post Office and Police Station - Shibpur, District - Howrah, Pin code 711102 Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, service through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi, Marg, New Delhi- 110001.
2, The Employee's Provident Fund Organization, (Ministry - of Labour & Employment, Government of India), service through the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -.110065.
The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, (Ministry of Labour öô Employment, Government of India), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - I Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Barrackpore, 4(2), SN Banerjee Road, Barrackpore, Kolkata 700120.
---Respondents
For the Applicant Ms. M. Mitra, Counsel
Md. S. Jahan, Counsel
For the Respondents Mr, O.K Roy, Counsel
0 R D E R(Orafl
Per : Mrs. Manjula Das, Judicial Member:
By this O.A, the applicant has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to refix his salary @ Rs. 17,140/- at the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- by providing minimum fitment of' Rs. 12,540/- w.e.f 30.05.2009 notionally and financially w.e.f 18.11.2009 and to allow all consequential benefits including arrears without any delay.
2. Heard Id. counsel Ms. M. Mitra and Md. S. Jahan for the applicant. Mr. O.K Roy, Id. counsel for the respondents is also present and heard. 2 Ld. counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed
3. to the post of Data Entry Operator (DEO) 'Grade A' on 05.04.2000.
Notification dated 20.05.2009 published on SubsequentlY vide a Gazette 30.05.2009, Recruitment Rules for Data Processing Assistant under Employees' Provident Fund Organization was introduced by creating a New Cadre with 274 posts of Data Processing Assistant (hereinafter referred to as DPA) under the Employees' Provident Fund Organization. In the said notification the post of DPA was declared as Group C post and Scale of Pay for that post was mentioned at Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/- [Rs. 6500-10500 (Pre revised)l with Grade Pay Rs. 4200/-. It was clearly mentioned in the said notification that the post of DPAs is to be filled up through 100% direct imultaneously it was made clear that the existing DEOs recruitment only, s having minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of DPA with 6 years regular service shall be deemed to have been appointed to the post of DPA from the date of notification.
It is further submitted by Id. counsel for the applicant.that subsequently, vide a gazette notification dated 20.03.2010 the Recruitment Rules of DPA, DPA as a Group 'B' Non 2009 was amended inter-alia by classifying the post of . Gazetted, Non-Ministerial posts. Ld. counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant having the minimum requisite qualification for the post of DPA as well as6 years regular service was allowed to function as DPA on and from 18,11.2009 on completion of necessary formalities. subsequently, vide Order No. HRD/ 1(2)2008/ implementation of 5th CPC dated 19.05.2010 issued on behalf of Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Grade Pay for the post of DPA was amended by granting Rs. 4600/- in place of Rs. 4200/- w.e.f. 30.05.2009.
Ld. counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant made a prayer on 21.07.2014 to the respondent authorities for re-fixation of his salary ® Rs. 17,140/- in terms of relevant Government orders and requested for removal of anomalies in pay, followed by a detailed representation dated 3 23.03.2018 (Annexure A-7 to the O.A), but received no response from them till date.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such inaction of the tespondent authorities, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate reliefs.
4. Md. S. Jahan, Id. counsel for the applicant submitted that some similarly situated employees approached this Tribunal and got order from the Tribunal in their favour. Ld. counsel for the applicant has produced a copy of the order dated 27.07.2916 passed in O.A 165/2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. I.A. counsel also submitted that the order dated 27.67.2016 passed in O.A 165/2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court at Madras Bench and the order of the Tribunal dated 27.07.2016 was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras Bench. Ld. counsel for the applicant therefore submitted that that the applicant in this O.A may also be granted the sathe benefits as granted to the applicant in O.A 165/2013 as he is similarly circumstanced with the applicant in the said O.A. S. On the other hand, Mr. O.K Roy, Id. counsel for the respondents submitted that he is not aware whether the representation filed by the applicant in the year 2014 as well as in the year 2018 have been disposed of in the meantime by the respondents or not. He further submitted that he is also not aware whether the issue has attained finality or not. Therefore, he is not in a position to make any comment.
6. Ld. counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant would be satisfied for the present if he is permitted to file a comprehensive representation to the respondent authorities referring on the decision favouring the applicant within a period of 15 days and the competent authority is directed to consider his representation as per rules and regulations governing the field and pass a 4 reasoned and speaking order after giving the applicant an opportunitY of being heard.
1.4. counsel for the respondents has no objection to such prayer made by Id. counsel for the applicant.
to make a In view of the above, the applicant is given liberty
7. comprehensive representation to the competent authority ventilating his grievances and annexing necessary document and the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court he wants to rely upon within a period of 15 days from the If such representation is preferred date of receipt of a copy of this order.
opportunity within 15 days, the competent respondent authority shall give an of personal hearing to the applicant, and consider and dispose of his epresentation keeping in mind the relevant rules.and regulations and also the r judgement of the Hon'ble High Court within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of such representation.. The deci2jofl so arrived at to he communicated to the applicant forthwith.
Needless to mention that if the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the authorities, he may approach this Tribunal again.
I With 'the above obseaUOns and directions, the O.A is disposed of. No
8. costs.
(Manjula Das) Member (J) ss