Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Phool Chand And Others on 24 August, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
C.W.P. No.14293 of 2012 (O&M) & anr. -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.14293 of 2012 (O&M)
Union of India and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Phool Chand and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.14267 of 2012 (O&M)
Union of India and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Anand Lal and others
....Respondents
Date of Decision: August 24, 2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This order shall dispose of CWP No.14293 and 14267 of 2012 filed by Union of India and others against the common order dated 15.02.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby O.A. No.1018/PB/2010 filed by Phool Chand, Jai Ram Mistri and Jaswinder Pal (respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP No.14293 of 2012) and O.A. No.1022/PB/2010 filed by Anand Lal and Bahadur Singh (respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP No.14267 of 2012) have been allowed and the petitioners C.W.P. No.14293 of 2012 (O&M) & anr. -2- were directed to grant the respondents the benefit of two financial upgradations, i.e., first ACP in the pay scale of ` 3050-4590 and the second ACP in the pay scale of ` 4000-6000 from due dates by following the due process of law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
For facility of reference, the facts have been taken from CWP No.14293 of 2012.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
In the present case, respondents No.1 and 3 were initially appointed as Mazdoors in the year 1979, in the pay scale of ` 196-232, whereas respondent No.2 was initially appointed as Boot Maker in the year 1973 in the pay scale of ` 210-290. Under an Award of Board of Arbitration, the posts of Mazdoors working in the Packing Section in the AOC were placed in the pay scale of ` 210-290 (revised to ` 800-1500 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and ` 2650-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996) whereas the Packers (Ordinary) were placed in the pay scale of ` 260-400 (revised to ` 3050- 4590 w.e.f. 1.1.1996) and Packer (Special) in the pay scale of ` 330-480 (revised to ` 4000-6000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996) vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 4.1.1989.
Subsequently, respondent No.1 was promoted as Mate Painter in the pay scale of ` 210-290 on 15.1.1981; respondent No.2 was promoted as Mate Packer on 24.9.1990 in the pay scale of ` 800-1150 and respondent No.3 was promoted as Mate Carpenter on 15.1.1981 in the pay scale of ` 210-290.
C.W.P. No.14293 of 2012 (O&M) & anr. -3-
It is the case of the private respondents that as the posts of Mazdoor and that of Mate Packer/Carpenter were put in the same pay scale of ` 210-290 w.e.f. 16.10.1981, no benefit of increment on promotion was granted to them as before promotion they were already working in the pay scale of ` 2650-4400.
On the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, the Government of India issued an OM dated 9.8.1999 (Annexure P1) vide which Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme was introduced for the benefit of the Central Government employees who were facing the problem of genuine stagnation and hardships due to inadequate promotional avenues. Under the said Scheme, two different financial upgradations were to be granted on completion of 12 years and 24 years regular service to those employees who did not get regular promotion. If an employee has got one regular promotion then he would be qualified to get second financial upgradation only after completion of 24 years of regular service.
It is the case of the private respondents that under the said Scheme they were due for grant of first ACP in their own hierarchy in the pay scale of ` 3050-4590 and then second ACP in the pay scale of ` 4000- 6000 on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service, respectively. It is further the case of the respondents that all the Ammunition Duty Mazdoors, who were placed in the pay scale of ` 3050-4590 on grant of first ACP, after completion of 24 years of service were placed in the pay scale of ` 4000-6000 as per the amendment dated 25.5.2004 in the said Scheme. But the petitioners vide order dated 16.7.2008 fixed the pay of the private respondents in the lower pay scale than their entitlement. It was claimed that C.W.P. No.14293 of 2012 (O&M) & anr. -4- their junior tradesman Mazdoors have been placed in higher grade pay of ` 4200 in the pay band of ` 9300-34800, whereas the private respondents were placed in the lower pay scale. When the legal notice served by them was not considered by the petitioners, they filed the Original Application.
The petitioners opposed the prayer of the private respondents before the Tribunal by raising the plea that vide clarification issued by the petitioners vide letter dated 16.10.2007 that a Mazdoor who has already got one promotion as Mate and working as Ammunition Duty Mazdoor in the same pay scale of ` 2650-4000, is not eligible for first ACP and he is eligible only for second ACP in the pay scale of ` 3050-4590 on completion of 24 years of regular service. It has been stated that as per condition No.5 of the ACP Scheme two financial upgradations under the Scheme shall be available to an employee, if no regular promotion during the prescribed period of 12 years and 24 years of service has been availed by an employee. However, it has been further admitted that Ammunition Duty Mazdoors have been granted first and second ACP vide order dated 25.3.2004, but the said letter did not apply to the private respondents since they were promoted as Mate/Packer, Painter and Carpenter.
The Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for both the parties, has held that with respect to first ACP, the Ammunition Duty Mazdoors were earlier placed in the pay scale of ` 2750-4400, and on amendment vide letter dated 25.5.2004, they were placed in the pay scale of ` 3050-4590. It was found that the contention of the petitioners that the said letter is not applicable to the private respondents as they were working as Mates and not Ammunition Duty Mazdoors, was not acceptable because respondents No.1 C.W.P. No.14293 of 2012 (O&M) & anr. -5- and 3 were initially recruited as Mazdoors in the year 1979 and respondent No.2 was recruited as Boot Maker in 1973 and was adjusted against the post of Mazdoor in the year 1974. Respondent No.1 was promoted as Mate Painter in the pay scale of ` 210-290 on 15.1.1981; respondent No.2 was promoted as Mate Packer on 24.9.1990 in the pay scale of ` 800-1150 while respondent No.3 was promoted as Mate Carpenter on 15.1.1981 in the pay scale of ` 210-290.
In the second O.A. No.1022/PB/2010, respondent No.1 was appointed as Mazdoor in the year 1978 in the pay scale of ` 196-232 and was further promoted as Mate/Packer on 27.11.1997 in the pay scale of ` 2650-4000. Respondent No.2 was appointed as Mazdoor on 8.11.1979 in the pay scale of ` 196-232 and further promoted as Mate/Packer on 27.11.1997 in the pay scale of ` 2650-4000. It has been found that though the private respondents were promoted from the post of Mazdoors to the post of Mates/Packers, but later on the pay scales of these posts were merged in 1981. Subsequently, their pay scales have been fixed on the basis of earlier pay scales by giving them corresponding revised pay scales. It has been held that since 1981 the pay scales of both the posts was the same and after that the private respondents were also working in the Ammunition Depot. While taking into consideration the fact that all the Mazdoors working in the Ammunition Depot are in the same category and the fact that the posts of Mazdoors and Ammunition Duty Mazdoors were merged in the year 1981, the private respondents are entitled for the same relief. In these facts, it was held that the clarification dated 16.10.2007 issued by the petitioners will not apply in case of the respondents. According to the C.W.P. No.14293 of 2012 (O&M) & anr. -6- Tribunal, there is no difference between the Mazdoors and Ammunition Duty Mazdoors working in the same Ammunition Depot, and the Mazdoors and the Mates are in the same category as their pay scales have been merged, therefore, the petitioners cannot make any discrimination and all the private respondents, thus, are entitled to the upgradations, i.e., first ACP in the pay scale of ` 3050-4590 and the second ACP in the pay scale of ` 4000-6000.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the private respondents were promoted from the rank of Mazdoor to Mate Packer, they are not entitled for first ACP as per the Scheme. According to him, only the Mates, who are working as Ammunition Duty Mazdoors, are eligible for second ACP in the pay scale of ` 3050-4590 on completion of 24 years of service. However, it has not been disputed that vide letter dated 16.10.1981 the Mazdoors, Mates and Ammunition Duty Mazdoors were placed in the same pay scale of ` 210-290. It has also not been disputed that the Ammunition Duty Mazdoors have been granted first and second ACP in the pay scale of ` 3050-4590 and ` 4000-6000 vide letter dated 25.5.2004. In view of these facts, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the aforesaid conclusion while ignoring the contention of the petitioners that the private respondents having been promoted on the posts of Mate/Packer, are not entitled to the first ACP. Once the petitioners are paying the first and second ACP to the Ammunition Duty Mazdoors, who are similarly situated as Mates, the same cannot be denied to the private respondents on the ground that they are differently situated. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the Original Application and granted the benefit of first and C.W.P. No.14293 of 2012 (O&M) & anr. -7- second ACP to the private respondents from due dates.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
August 24, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH )
vkg JUDGE