Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Jeet Kumar Jain vs Union Of India on 23 July, 2015
RESERVED
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JA BALPUR
Original Application No. 313 of 2012
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 23rd day of July, 2015
Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
Mr. U Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
1. Jeet Kumar Jain, S/o Shri Subhash Chand Jain Working on the post of
Multi Tasking Staff in the office, controller of Defense Accounts, Pachpedi
Road, Jabalpur
2. Indra Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Shri Shiv Kumar Pandey
3. Jeetendra Kumar Trivedi, S/o Late Hari Prasad Trivedi,
4. Vijendra Singh Bais, S/o Karan Singh Bais
5. Rupendra Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late Shri Amritlal Tiwari
6. Tor Singh Bhusariya S/o Late Shri Ranglal Bhusariya
Applicant No.2 to 6 are working as Multi Tasking Staff in the office of
PAO (PRS), Controller of Defense Accounts, Pachpedi Road,
Jabalpur 482002 -Applicants
(By Advocate Shri Pranay Choubey)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Govt. of India, North Block New Delhi-3
2. Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public & Pension
Department of Department of Personnel, Training, Redeployment &
Retaining Cell, III Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi-3
3. The General Manager, Bank Note Press, Dewas, (M.P.), A Unit of Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited
Dewas-455003 M.P.
4. The Controller of Defense Accounts, Pachpedi Road,
Jabalpur (M.P.) 482002 Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.K.Salunke for respondent No.3 and Shri A.P.Khare for respondent No.4)
(Date of reserving the order:- 20.07.2015)
ORDER
By G.P. Singhal, AM.-
By filing this Original Application the applicants, who were working as Examiner in the Bank Note Press Dewas (for brevity BNP) have prayed for direction to the respondents to redeploy them, after being declared surplus from BNP on an equivalent post having the Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- granted to them under ACP, instead of Multi Tasking Staff in the Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- which was the Grade Pay of their substantive post.
2. A similar matter had come before this Tribunal in Original Applications Nos. 1075 & 1091 of 2011 which were decided by this Tribunal by a separate order of even date, wherein the Tribunal has held as under:
In both these Original Applications the applicants have mainly sought for direction to the respondents to redeploy them, after being declared surplus from Bank Note Press, Dewas, against an equivalent post having Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-granted to them under ACP/MACP. Thus, the short issue involved in these Original Applications is whether the surplus employees can be redeployed on an equivalent post according to their substantive Grade Pay or on an equivalent post according to the Grade Pay granted to them under ACP/MACP.
2. Since the issue involved in both these Original Applications is common and the facts are identical, these Original Applications are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of this order, reference is being made to the facts pleaded and documents annexed in OA No.1091/2011 unless not specifically mentioned in this order.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were drawing pay in pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600/- in their parent department as due to their service period they had been given financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP scheme. The department has given appointments to some of their similarly placed colleagues and juniors on the post of Inspector, Central Excise, which post is in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-. Therefore, on the basis of parity they should also be appointed on their redeployment on the post carrying Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- However, the respondents are denying it on the basis of Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, {Department of Personnel & Training (for brevity DOPT)} Office Memorandum No.10/10/2010 CS-III dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure-I to reply of respondents Nos.1,3 &4), contents of which read thus:-
Sub: Redeployment of Surplus Staff in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- reg.
The undersigned is directed to say that some of the surplus employees have represented that some surplus employees have been absorbed in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the Central Excise Commission under CBEC, Department of Revenue. In this regard it is informed that the matter was examined in this Department in consultation with the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance and that surplus employees having Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- cannot be absorbed or redeployed in the posts having Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in accordance with Rule 5(2)(i) of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990. Further, the surplus employees are redeployed on the basis of their substantive Grade Pay. The Grade Pay granted under ACP/MACP is only personal upgradation of pay and do not count for their redeployment
4. The learned counsel for the applicants further contended that the applicants are to be governed by Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Surplus Staff Rules) and not Rule 5(2) of the Surplus Staff Rules. Rule 5(1) clearly provides that a surplus employee has to be redeployed in a post carrying a pay scale matching his current pay scale. Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 5(1) further provides that the basic pay shall include the stagnation pay which may be considered to be similar to financial upgradation under ACP/MACP. Thus, for the purpose of redeployment the pay scale granted to them under the ACP/MACP should be considered, to work out equivalent post.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the respondents in their reply have also mentioned about Rule 4(6) of the Surplus Staff Rules. However, this sub-rule also provides for redeployment in post carrying equivalent pay scale which is a pay scale equivalent to what they are getting on their present post after financial upgradation under ACP/MACP.
6. The respondents 1, 3 & 4 in their reply have submitted that the Department of Revenue had adjusted some surplus employees, who were drawing Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- as substantive, and Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- under MACP to the post of Inspector (Preventing Officer) carrying Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-. These appointments have been done by the Department of Revenue, on their own, without consulting the respondent No.3 i.e. the DOPT. When they took up the matter with Establishment Division of respondent No.3 and Department of Expenditure under respondent No.1 seeking clarification as to whether certain employees drawing Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- on their substantive post could be deployed in Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-, Department of Expenditure has opined that surplus employees having Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- cannot be absorbed or redeployed in the posts having Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
8. The redeployment of surplus staff has to be done on equivalent post. The fact remains that the substantive post of the applicants carried the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. If the logic of the applicants is accepted that surplus staff should be deployed on the pay scale granted to them under ACP/MACP scheme then situation may arise at some place where a Junior Engineer who has got second ACP and thus getting pay in the pay scale of Executive Engineer will be redeployed on the post of Executive Engineer for which he had no experience. An employee gets experience after working on a post for some time. However, grant of financial upgradation does not provide them any opportunity to work on a post carrying that pay scale as it is simply an arrangement for financial upgradation. When the employee will be substantially promoted on that post then this financial upgradation shall be adjusted to his promotional benefits. Thus, such an employee, though getting pay in the pay scale of higher post, does not get any experience of that post. Thus, redeploying such persons on higher posts, without having any work experience of that level in their previous organisation will not be justifiable. In fact, the applicants are asking for a promotion on their redeployment which they did not get in their previous organization.
9. Thus, we hold that the applicants-surplus employees can be redeployed against an equivalent post according to their substantive Grade Pay and they are not entitled for an equivalent post according to the Grade Pay granted to them under ACP/MACP. Thus, there is no infirmity in impugned DOPTs OM dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure A-12).
10. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the relief sought for by the applicants in these Original Applications cannot be granted.
11. Accordingly, both these Original Applications are dismissed, however, without any orders as to costs.
3. We find that in the instant case the applicants were placed in PB-1 with a corresponding pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- after coming into force of the Sixth CPCs recommendations and were given MACP benefit only upto Grade Pay Rs.2000/- and in this OA they seek direction to the respondents to redeploy them, after being declared surplus from BNP on an equivalent post having the Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- instead of Multi Tasking Staff in the Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-. Since in the aforementioned order we have already held that the applicants-surplus employees can be redeployed at best against an equivalent post having their substantive Grade Pay and they are not entitled for an equivalent post having the Grade Pay granted to them under ACP/MACP, we are of the considered opinion that the relief sought for by the applicants in this Original Application cannot be granted.
4. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed, however, without any orders as to costs.
(U.Sarathchandran) (G.P. Singhal) Judicial Member Administrative Member [ rkv 1 Sub: Redeployment in higher GP OA 313/2012 Page 1 of 5