Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Anjani vs Union Of India Through on 13 November, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1844/2012
Reserved on : 30.10.2013.
Pronounced on :13.11.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Smt. Anjani,
437, Pocket-I,
DDA Flats,
Sector-9,
Dwarka,
New Delhi-77. . Applicant
(through Sh. Aditya Kumar, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi-1.
2. Registrar,
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, West Block No.2,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66. . Respondents
(through Sh. Rattan Lal, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant in this case is seeking her pay fixation in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
2. Facts of this case are that the applicant was appointed as a Junior Hindi Translator with the respondent Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) initially in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- on deputation basis w.e.f. 24.10.2003. Thereafter, she was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. Subsequently, on a clarification received from the Ministry her post was designated as Hindi Translator. She was absorbed as Hindi Translator w.e.f. 23.05.2008 and on implementation of VIth CPC report her pay was fixed in the Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. She has been repeatedly representing for grant of pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500/- and revised scale of Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. She has been making this claim on the grounds that as per O.M. dated 24.11.2008 of the Department of Expenditure the pay structure applicable in the case of official language posts existing in subordinate offices of the Central Government have been enhanced. According to her, this O.M. clarified that since pursuant to the recommendations of the VIth CPC the pay scales of posts in Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) were revised, similarly designated posts outside CSOLS were also to be granted the pay scales as those granted to CSOLS. Consequent upon the judgment dated 13.04.2010 of this Tribunal in OA Nos. 2120, 2138 and 2139 of 2005 the respondents vide their office order dated 10.08.2011 had granted Pay Band-2 plus Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to the applicant. However, when this pay fixation order was referred to the Pay and Accounts Officer of the Ministry of Finance for auditing, that office vide their letter dated 02.12.2011 observed that pay fixation of the applicant was in contravention of the clarification of D/o Expenditure and, therefore, snot in order. Consequently, the respondent CESTAT withdrew the pay fixation order dated 10.08.2011 by their letter dated 15.12.2011. The applicant has since then been making representation to the respondents for re-fixation of her pay.
3. She has stated that the office order withdrawing the pay fixation assigns no reason for doing so and appears to have been done mechanically. According to her, this order has been passed arbitrarily since Translators working in various departments and Ministries have been granted benefit of this pay fixation while the same has been denied to her. She has alleged dilatory tactics on the part of CESTAT as they have been replying to her representations and communications after inordinate delay. She has also claimed violation of principles of natural justice before issuing the impugned order as she was never given chance to represent against the same.
4. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.
5. From the file we find that after passing of the impugned order dated 15.12.2011 by which the pay fixation order dated 10.08.2011 was withdrawn, the applicant made a detailed representation to the Registrar, CESTAT which has been forwarded by him to the Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Finance vide communication dated 30.12.2011. The said representation has still not been decided by the respondents.
6. Accordingly, we dispose of this O.A. by directing the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant within a period of eights weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by means of a reasoned and speaking order. While doing so, they would take into account the assertion of the applicant that similarly placed persons of other Ministries have been granted this benefit while she has been denied the same. In case the applicant is still aggrieved, she will have the liberty to challenge the aforesaid order by means of appropriate judicial proceeding. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vinita/