Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Postal Accounts And Audit Pensioners ... vs Post Kerala Circle on 20 December, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00645/2022
Friday, this the 20th day of December, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Postal Accounts and Audit Pensioners Association,
Thirvuananathapuram, Reg No. TVM/TC/294/2013 Rep. by its General
Secretary K. Jayachandaran
2. K. Jayachandran, Aged 71 years, S/o Kunjukrishnan, Retired Assistant
Accounts Officer, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala
Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Residing at EF-7/162, Chaithram, P.T.Chacko
Nagar, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 011.
3. Mary D'Cruz, Aged 70 years W/o. Leon D 'Cruz, Retired Assistant
Accounts Officer, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala
Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Residing at Leslie House, B-5, Tennis Club
Enclave, Kaudiar P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 003.
4. V Kuttappan Nair, Aged 78 years, S/o Vesudevan Pillai.S. Retired Senior
Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at Gitanjali, T.C.No.48/91,
Ambalathara, Poonthura P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 026,
5. P.J.Aleykutty, Aged 76 years, W/o C.K.Varghese, Retired Senior
Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at Mavilathu House No.26,
Bethany Nagar, Nalanchira P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 015.
6. S.Parameswaran, Aged 74 years, S/o S.M.Soodamony, Retired Junior
Accounts Officer, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala
Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at Indira Bhavan, Irakkom
Road, Thycaud P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 014.
2024.12.20
DEEPA S 14:07:36
+05'30'
O.A.No.645/2022 2
7. Elizabeth Kunjumon, Aged 72 years, W/o Kunjumon, Retired Senior
Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at AN 125, Madathil House, Adarsh
Nagar, Pattom Palace P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
8. N.Padmanabhan, Aged 70 years, S/o N.Nambi lyer, Retired Assistant
Accounts Officer, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala
Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at T.C.No.42/137, CLRA-54,
Padmasaras, Sreevaraham, Manacaud.P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram 695009.
9. K.Vilasini, Aged 74 years, D/o. Krishnankutty Nair, Retired Senior
Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. Residing at Aswathy, TC.No. 10/546, Varuthiyil
House, Mukattukara, Nettissery P.O., Thrissur-687 033.
10. P. Saraswathy, Aged 73 years, W/o Padmanabhan, Retired Senior
Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at 'Lakshmi', TC.24/127/2 Devi
Nagar, DNRA-30, Poonkunnam P.O. Thrissur 687 002.
11. S.Jayasree, Aged 67 years, W/o. V.R.S.Unnithan, Retired Assistant
Accounts Officer, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala
Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at V.P-6/115, SRA 144,
Sreenagar, Manikanteswaram P.O.. Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.
12. K. Thulaseedaran, Aged 74 years, S/o Kochusankaran, Retired Senior
Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at T.C.5/1547, Padmam
Peroorkada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 005.
13. T.K.Mary Philomena, Aged 71 years, W/o Joseph Sebastian, Retired
Senior Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala
Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at Karikkampally, SNRA-107,
Soorya Nagara, Nettayam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.
2024.12.20
DEEPA S 14:07:36
+05'30'
O.A.No.645/2022 3
14. Valsamma Samuel, Aged 71 years, W/o Samuel, Retired Senior
Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at TC.No.5/1844, Mary Cottage,
Nadakavu Lane, Peroorkada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 005.
15. D.Rajendran, Aged 72 years, S/o Damodaran.T.N. Retired Assistant
Accounts Officer, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala
Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at T.C.76/436, Anayara Nagar,
Anayara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 029.
16. K.Ramakrishnan, Aged 69 years, S/o Krishna lyyer, Retired Assistant
Accounts Officer, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal) Kerala
Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at TC 3070, Krishnan Koil
Street, Karamana P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 002.
17. C.Rajamma, Aged 72 years, W/o K.Velappan, Retired Assistant Accounts
Officer, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at C-8 982(b), Krishnakripa,
Thirumala P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 006.
18. K.Syamala Kumari, Aged 71 years, W/o Manoharan Nair, Retired Senior
Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at K.M.S.Nilayam, Keezhevilakam,
Keraladityapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695 587.
19. K.K.Rajamma, Aged 71 years, W/o K.G.Sasidharan Nair, Retired Senior
Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at T.C.38/1284, Aswathi, VARA-638,
Arappura Nagara, Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.
20. N Divakaran Nair, Aged 73 years, H/o. Late Santhakumari Amma, Retired
Assistant Accounts Officer, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal),
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Now residing at Sreedevi Nivas, TC
22/533(1) TJRA-192, Sasthamangalam P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.
2024.12.20
DEEPA S 14:07:36
+05'30'
O.A.No.645/2022 4
21. Kalyani K, Aged 75 years, W/o. Late Kunhiraman P, Retired Senior
Accountant, Office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram TC 10/1661(2), Aswathy, Pulimoodu Lane,
Vattiyurkavu, Thiruvananthapuram - 695013.
-Applicants
[By Advocate: Sri. K.B.Gangesh]
Versus
1. The Director of Accounts (Postal), Office of the Director of Accounts
(Postal) Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695033.
3. The Director (Budget & Administration) Postal Accounts Wing,
Department of Posts India, Dak Bhavan. New Delhi-110 001.
4. Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
Communications & IT, Department of Posts, (Postal & Accounts Wing),
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001.
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Smt.P.K.Latha, ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 14.11.2024, the Tribunal on
20.12.2024 delivered the following:
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal 1st applicant is a registered association by name Postal Accounts and Audit Pensioners Association represented by its General Secretary, 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 5 K.Jayachandran, who is the 2nd applicant. Applicants 3 to 19 are members of the said association. Applicants 20 and 21 are spouses of deceased members of the association, who were also similarly placed.
2. Applicants are either retired Assistant Accounts Officers or Senior Accountants or Junior Accountants or Junior Accounts Officers, who retired from the Office of the Director of Accounts of the Kerala Circle, under the 2nd respondent. Applicants 2 to 19 along with the spouses of applicants 20 and 21 had entered service as L.D.Clerks in the Postal Department. Later, they were promoted as Junior Accountants and then as Senior Accountants. 80% of the Junior Accountants in the gradation list were designated as Senior Accountants on restructuring the cadre on 01.04.1987. All the applicants are promotees; there were direct recruits also, who came to the post of Senior Accountant after completion of 12 years on the strength of the ACP scheme or MACP scheme. The grievance of the applicants is that even though all of them were included in the same gradation list, the direct recruits, who are juniors to them started drawing higher pay and thus in order to rectify 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 6 the junior senior anomaly, they made representations. When such representations failed, some of the aggrieved approached the Principal Bench of this Tribunal with O.A.2124/2011, which was allowed under Annexure-A1 order. Similar order was passed by the Patna Bench of this Tribunal also. Annexure-A1 order and Annexure-A2 Office Memorandum have already been implemented and the parties in that cases have been granted reliefs. Referring to Annexures-A4 and A5 it is submitted that, even without moving the Tribunal, some of the similarly placed employees under the 2nd respondent have been granted benefits on the lines of Annexures-A1 and A2. Aggrieved by denial of benefits the applicant association made numerous representations but that did not evoke any response and then they moved O.A.145/2016, which was allowed by this Tribunal by Annexure-A6 order dated 03.12.2020.
3. According to the applicants, even after expiry of the time stipulated by the Tribunal since they were not granted reliefs, they moved a Contempt Petition. Then Annexure-A7 order was issued on 07.05.2021 granting certain amounts to the applicants. Thus a total 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 7 amount of Rs.3,83,679/- was disbursed as the purported arrear pay and allowances, on the basis of Annexure-A6 order. The applicants submit that payment of this amount or Annexure-A7 communication does not satisfy the directions issued by the Tribunal in Annexure-A6. The amount was sanctioned stepping up only the pay, and does not include grade pay, which is illegal. So they made representations, but the representations were not considered. The respondents did not implement Annexure-A6 order in its letter and spirit. On the other hand, the applicants in Annexure-A1 order and beneficiaries of Annexures-A2 have been granted reliefs. Even in Annexures-A4 and A5 orders the similarly placed employees have been granted reliefs reckoning grade pay. The applicants only want a similar treatment, which has been denied to them. The compliance report does not satisfy the above requirement and thus they have moved again before this Tribunal for setting aside Annexure-A7 and to direct the respondents to recalculate arrears due to the applicants on account of stepping up of pay at par with the juniors as directed in Annexure-A6 order by taking into account 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 8 the actual pay received by their corresponding juniors, to direct the respondents to revise the monthly pension and recalculate the pensionary benefits of the applicants and to disburse arrears on the basis of stepping up of pay as ordered in Annexures-A6 order.
4. Respondents filed reply denying the contentions in the O.A. According to them, Annexures-A4 and A5 were passed by mistake. Similarly, when the directions in O.A.2124/2011, that is Annexure-A1, and A2 were implemented it happened that the instructions issued by the competent authority were misunderstood and it was implemented erroneously. Such an error cannot be repeated here. They have also relied on the compliance report, Annexure-A10, filed before this Tribunal, when the Contempt Petition was taken into consideration. Communications dated 19.03.2014, Annexure-R1(b) in Annexure-A10 and Annexure-R1(c) dated 09.04.2014 in Annexure-A10 have been highlighted by the respondents and according to them, stepping up can be done only without reckoning the grade pay. According to them, only the pay shall be stepped up and not the pay scale. As per the 6th CPC, 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 9 the term 'pay' means the pay in the running pay band and 'basic pay' means pay band plus grade pay. Thus only the pay to be stepped up and not the basic pay. So, they maintained that the Annexure-A7 has been correctly issued reckoning the pay of the applicant.
5. The applicants filed rejoinder contending that the pay includes grade pay and what has been granted in Annexures-A4 and A5 and what was granted to the applicants in Annexure-A1 were correctly worked out and therefore, that does not require a re-look.
6. The respondents filed additional reply to the rejoinder reiterating the contentions in the first reply and sought for dismissing the Original Application.
7. We heard Sri.K.B.Gangesh, learned counsel for the applicants and Smt.P.K.Latha, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, in detail.
8. Referring to Annexure-R1(c) in Annexure-A10, it is submitted that the difference in grade pay has to be included in his pay and has to be granted to the senior and the final emolument should be made equal.
2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 10 He pointed out that Annexure-R1(b) was issued on 19.03.2014 and Annexure-R1(c) on 19.04.2014.
9. On the other hand, according to Smt.Latha, pay does not include grade pay which is evident from Annexure-R1(b)in Annexure- A10, that grade pay cannot be changed for stepping up of pay. The learned Standing Counsel also invited our pointed attention to paragraphs 14, 16 and 18 of the reply statement and submitted that pay alone can be brought to parity and nowhere it is stated that it should be covered by personal pay.
10. First of all, the object and purport of stepping up of the pay of a senior when there is anomaly between the pay of a junior and senior, should be correctly understood. It is the well settled proposition that stepping up of pay is subject to three conditions, that (1) both the junior and senior officers should belong to same cadre and the post in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same cadre; (2) the scales of pay of the lower and higher post should be identical, and (3) anomaly should be directly as a result of the 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 11 application of Rule 22(1)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. (see Union of India and another v. R.Swaminathan [JT 1997(8) SC 61]. Here there is no dispute on the basic contentions of the applicants. All the applicants and the direct recruits in the post of Senior Accountant are included in the same seniority list. However, the applicants who are seniors are being paid less after the grant of ACP to the direct recruit Junior Accounts Officers who came to the cadre of the Senior Accounts Officer. Even though clause-8 of the ACP scheme says that personal grant of ACP need not be reckoned, as pointed out, there are authorities of higher courts holding that such an aspect should be ignored. Whatever it may be, in the present proceedings, we are not expected to go into such aspects. In Annexure-A6 order of this Tribunal it has become clear that the applicants are entitled to get enhancement of pay. Paragraph 8 of Annexure-A6 order reads thus:
8. In the result, we find that the applicants are also entitled to get the benefit of stepping up of pay as ordered in OA No.2124/2011 and OA No.440/14 which were implemented by the respondent department. Hence, we allow the present OA and the respondents are directed to grant the relief to the 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 12 applicants with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No order as to costs."
11. The applicants made representations and ultimately when they failed to implement the order, moved a Contempt Petition before this Tribunal and at that time they came with a compliance report, Anneure-A10. However, the applicants had serious disputes on the veracity of the contentions that they had made the purported compliance on the basis of Annexure-A7 documents. The payments allegedly made to the applicants 2 to 21 were not in accordance with the implementation done in respect of Annexures-A1 and A2. In other words, it did not include grade pay but only the pay drawn by the applicants alone was stepped up. When that was agitated, ordinarily such a question cannot be taken up by the Contempt Court and the applicants have moved again with the instant O.A. seeking the aforestated reliefs. After hearing counsel on both sides, we are not inclined to buy the arguments of the respondents for numerous reasons.
12. Firstly, the purport and intention of granting stepping up in 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 13 the event of a junior getting higher pay than the seniors have been completely ignored. If such an anomaly is not rectified, that will lead to dissatisfaction among the staff members who are evidently seniors to the directly recruited Senior Accountants or Accounts Officers. Therefore, if the conditions stated above are satisfied, the higher pay granted to junior officer than the seniors is liable to be addressed and the anomaly should be rectified by granting appropriate enhancement or stepping up of the pay of the seniors who draw apparently less pay than the juniors in the cadre.
13. Secondly, it has become clear that the orders in Annexure-A1 of the Principal Bench and Annexure-A2 Office Memorandum have already been complied with granting higher pay to the seniors reckoning even the grade pay. That has been admitted by the respondents. But according to them, that was a mistake happened on the part of the respondents, such a mistake cannot be perpetuated and therefore, based on Annexures-R1(b) and R1(c) in Annexure-A10 they said that the applicants are not entitled to get grade pay reckoned. But it requires 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 14 only common sense to discount such a contention.
14. Moreover, basing on Annexure-A2 some of the similarly placed persons, who did not choose to approach the Tribunal have been granted benefits in terms of Annexures-A2. It is the common case that such persons also have been granted benefits taking into account the basic pay including grade pay. After having given the benefits to the applicants in Annexures-A1 and the officers in Annexures-A4 and A5 etc. there is no meaning in saying that these applicants are not entitled to get the benefits.
15. Thirdly, it is true that in Annexures-R1(b) and R1(c) in Annexure-A10 it is stated that grade pay should be excluded. But that is something violative of the definition of basic pay stated in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In sub clause (8) of Rule 3 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 basic pay is defined thus:
" (8) "basic pay" in the revised pay structure means the pay drawn in the prescribed pay band plus the applicable grade pay but does not include any other type of pay like special pay, etc."
That means, pay includes grade pay. In the said circumstance, now the contention based on Annexures-R1(b) and R1(c) in Annexure-A10 that 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 15 grade pay does not include pay, runs contrary to the Rules. Such a stand taken in an executive order contrary to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 cannot stand judicial scrutiny.
16. We have reasons to think that the stand taken by the respondents that pay does not include grade pay is intended to defeat the purported intention of rectifying the anomaly of stepping up of pay in the case of junior getting higher pay. The applicants have been denied a fair deal. They have been driven to this Tribunal for another round of litigation. Such a narrow interpretation does not stand to reason and has led to hostile discrimination against the applicants which cannot be approved. We have also reasons to think that the respondents were trying to comply with the directions issued by this Tribunal in a half hearted manner. They are trying to merely step up the pay only without reckoning grade pay which is illegal and against Rules. They are trying to implement Annexure-A6 order in a rituous manner.
17. Whatever it be, what is important is to bring parity between the pay of the senior and the junior. If the junior happens to draw higher 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 16 pay than the senior, it is an anomaly which should be rectified by stepping up the pay of the senior. Merely by upscaling the pay, if parity cannot be achieved, Annexure-R1(c) in Annexure-A10, in our view, does not stand in the way of stepping up the pay, without changing the grade pay.
On consideration of the entire circumstances, we find that Annexure-A7 does not stand to reason. It requires to be set aside. Annexure-A7 is set aside and the respondents are directed to rework the pay by revising and upscaling the pay and disburse the arrears within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make no order as to costs.
(Dated, this the 20th December, 2024)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
2024.12.20
DEEPA S 14:07:36
+05'30'
O.A.No.645/2022 17
List of Annexures
Annexure-A1: True copy of order dated 01.02.2003 in OA No.
2124/2011 passed by the Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi Annexure-A2: True copy of office memorandum dated 24.07.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent Annexure-A3: True copy of representation dated 15.08.2015 preferred by 1st applicant to the 3rd respondent Annexure-A4: True copy of order dated 07.07.2014 issued by he 1 st respondent Annexure-A5: True copy of order dated 28.10.2015 issued by the 1 st respondent Annexure-A6: True copy of Order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 180/00145/2016 dated 03.12.2020 Annexure A7: True copy of Order No. 85/ Admn II /stepping up /2021 dated 07.05.2021 issued by the 1st respondent Annexure-A8: True copy of objection dated 20.05.2021 preferred by the applicants to the 1st respondent Annexure-A9: True copy of the representation preferred by the applicants to the 1st respondent dated 26.07.2021 Annexure-A10: True copy of compliance affidavit filed by respondents with Annexures in CP(C) No. 12/2022 Annexure R1 DAP letter dtd 9.8.2021 along with Directorate letter dated 03.08.2021 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30' O.A.No.645/2022 18 Annexure R2 DAP letter dtd 11.10.2021 along with Directorate letter dated 21.09.2021 Annexure R3 Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 17.08.2022 in C.P.(C) 12/2022 Annexure R4 DAP letter dated 06.12.2022 ************ 2024.12.20 DEEPA S 14:07:36 +05'30'