Madras High Court
Criminal, The Director Of Postal ... vs A.J.M.G. Rathinasamy And The ... on 4 April, 2006
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra, R. Sudhakar
ORDER P.K. Misra, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Union of India and other Subordinate Officers of the Postal Department, challenging the order dated 14.11.2005 made in OA. No. 446/2005 of the Tribunal.
3. The above said OA.No.446/2005 had been filed by the present 1st respondent, praying to quash the impugned Order No. 144/IF Cell/ Dy.592-98/99-2004-05 dated 31.12.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent and to direct the respondents therein to step up of pay of the applicant on par with his junior with effect from the date from which the junior is getting more pay than the applicant and to give all consequential benefits. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, observed in its order dated 14.11.2005 in OA.No.446/2005, as follows:-
4.The question that arises for our consideration is, whether the impugned order dated 31.12.2004 canceling the concurrence issued for the proposal for stepping up of the pay of the applicant can be justified before the eye of law?
5. The undisputed facts in this case are that the applicant was financially upgraded under TBOP Scheme w.e.f. 17.1.1995 and his junior Shri. M. Rajagopalan was financially upgraded under TBOP Scheme only on 27.1.1996 and both the officials are working in the same Division, but in different units and no separate seniority roster in respect of officials placed in TBOP Cadre was maintained during 1996. Further, the gradation list of Head Postman/Cash Overseer/Mail Overseer as on 1.7.2001 is silent as to how the pay difference occurred w.e.f. 27.1.1996 and Shri. M. Rajagopalan happened to draw more pay than the applicant when both of them belong to the same cadre and the cadre to which they were promoted/appointed are identical. This bench of the Tribunal in OA.No.403/02 dated 7.11.2002 had considered a similar question and held that the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant seeking stepping up of pay on par with one Mr. Chelliah was irregular and therefore, could not be sustained. We are of the considered opinion that the above OA squarely covers this case also and the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant cannot be sustained.
6.In the result, the OA succeeds and the impugned order dated 31.12.2004 is hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to step up the pay of the applicant on par with his junior with effect from the date from which the junior is getting more pay than the applicant with all consequential benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the junior person got his promotion only after new scale of pay came into force and therefore, the present 1st respondent is not entitled to get step up pay on par with his junior with retrospective effect, who has held a different post.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and after going through the materials on record, including the order passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any error of law on the face of record, warranting interference by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, on the face of records, it appears to be a great anomaly, if the senior gets lesser pay only because he was upgraded to TBOP Scheme on 17.1.1995, whereas his junior was upgraded under TBOP Scheme on 27.1.1996, even though both of them are working in the same Division, but in different Units. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is neither logical nor it has got any force. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WPMP is closed.