Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India on 24 August, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(Reserved on 22.08.2016)
OA No. 060/01121/2015 Date of decision- 24.08.2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
Bimla Devi wife of Late Sh. Sushil Kumar, aged 59 years, Upper Division Clerk, Government of India Press, Resident of G-11, Old Press Colony Nilokheri, District, Karnal Haryana.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Ms. Bhavna Joshi.
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary Government of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Khan Market,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Government of India press,
Nilokheri through its Personnel Manager,
Nilokheri, Karnal,
Haryana, Pin 131117.
3. Directorate of Printing through its Director,
B Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi-110008.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. V.K. Arya
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
The present O.A is directed against the office memorandum dated 03.11.2014 and order dated 21.01.2015 whereby the claim of the applicant for fixation of her pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006, instead of 01.09.2006, has been rejected on the premises that she had not submitted her option prior to 30.09.2013. She has further sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to re-fix her pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of Rules and instruction of the Rajasthan Government on the subject and also grant all consequential benefit arising thereof with interest @ 18% p.a.
2. The facts which led to filing of the present O.A are that the applicant initially joined the Beas Construction Board (in short BCB), which was a joint venture of Government of Rajasthan and Punjab, as LDC on 26.09.1977. Upon closure of the BCB, the applicant was kept in Central Surplus Cell and redeployed with respondent no. 2 i.e. Government of India, Press, Nilokheri, Karnal. Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, issued a Office Memorandum dated 27.02.1985 laying down terms and conditions for regulation of pay with regard to re-deployed surplus staff of BCB. According to the above O.M, employees of BCB, who were redeployed in central government, were required to exercise an option for of being allowed either to continue to draw pay in the existing BCB scale of pay as personal to them or to draw pay in the pay scale attached to the post in which they are redeployed. Another office memorandum dated 20.10.1987 was issued regarding fixation of pay of Redeployed Surplus staff of BCB under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986, in furtherance to recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission.
3. Another office memorandum dated 27.01.1999 was issued whereby Government clarified that Ex-surplus employees of BCB, who had opted for Rajasthan State Electricity Board Pay Scales ( in short RSEB), and whose pay fixation was done by the BCB in that pattern, would be entitled to carry the RSEB pattern pay scales, as personal to them in the post in which they had been redeployed. Vide communication dated 07.01.2005, it was intimated by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 that the Ex-BCB employees who have opted for pay scales of RSEB or Punjab Government are not eligible for grant of TA, DA, HRA, washing allowances etc. at Central Government rates. The pay scales of RSEB employees were revised by Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay ) Rules, 2008 which was made applicable w.e.f. 01.09.2006 but later on vide notification dated 06.04.2013 and then vide office memorandum dated 05.07.2013 a corrigendum was circulated making Rajasthan Civil Services (Revise) Pay Rules, 2008 applicable from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2006. The pay of the applicant was re-fixed in grade pay of Rs. 3200 w.e.f. 01.09.2006. The Rajasthan Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited issued Office Memorandum dated 23.09.2013 regarding amendment in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2008 and issued Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay ) ( 9th Amendment) Rules, 2013 including memorandum dated 5th July, 2013 which clearly provided that some government servants could not exercise option/re-option within the prescribed time limit under Rule 11 (4) and in terms of provisions contained in sub-rule (3) (i) of Rule 11, they shall be deemed to have exercised option for revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 which might result in a disadvantageous position, therefore another chance was given to exercise option/re-option under Rule 11(4) of the said rules upto 30.09.2013.
4. It is the case of the applicant that above OM issued by the Rajasthan Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited was not brought to the notice of her and she was not called to submit any option in terms of the above rule. The applicant submitted the aforesaid notification in the office of the respondents vide communication dated 27/30.09.2013 and requested them to give her an opportunity to exercise her option for implementation of refixation of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2006 which was followed by another representation dated 31.07.2014. Finding no response, she submitted a reminder on 29.10.2014. The claim of the applicant for fixation of her pay was rejected vide impugned order dated 03.11.2014 on the ground that as per instructions of Rajasthan Government, an option was to be given before September, 2013 and since it was not given before the cut of date, by the applicant, therefore, she is not entitled for same. Hence, the present O.A.
5. The respondents have resisted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed reply wherein they support the impugned order and stated therein that in terms of O.M dated 03.11.2014 and 21.01.2015, the applicant was supposed to exercise her option before September, 2013 which she did not , therefore, she is not entitled for re-fixation of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006
6. We have heard Ms. Bhavna Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.K. Arya, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Ms. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that action of the respondents in not re-fixing her pay in terms of revision of pay scale as provided in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay ) ( 9th Amendment) Rules, 2013 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, on the pretext that she did not submit her option, is totally illegal and arbitrary as she was never asked by the respondents to exercise such option. Once, she was getting RSEB pay scale pattern then it was incumbent upon the respondents that if any amendment or revision of pay was carried out in pay scale, then same would made applicable to the Ex-BCB employees as per the procedure laid down therein automatically by inviting option. Once she was not called to submit any option, therefore, for fault of department, she cannot be suffered on their account.
8. Per contra, Sh. V.K. Arya, learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated what has been stated in the written statement.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
10. A conjunctive perusal of the pleadings makes it clear that the applicant was BCB employee and was redeployed with respondent department. At that time, she opted to get the RSEB pay scale. Earlier, while refixing the pay scale of RSEB employees under Rajasthan Civil Services (Revise) Pay Rules, 2008 vide notification dated 06.04.2013, same was made applicable w.e.f. 01.09.2006 and subsequently, vide notification dated 05.07.2013, 2008 Rules were made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006 but the applicant was granted the pay scale in grade of Rs. 3200 w.e.f. 01.09.2006 and not from 01.01.2006 as granted to employees working with RSEB. Subsequent to that, Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay) (9th Amendment) Rules, 2013, was issued under which an option was to be called but the applicant was not given any chance to opt for same. When she came to know about exercising of option for benefits from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2006, she made a representation to the respondents. Her representation was turned down on whimsical ground that she did not submit her option in furtherance to aforementioned rules. We see no reason to deny the benefit to the applicant as admissible to the RSEB w.e.f. 01.01.2006 when the applicant had already opted relevant pattern of pay scale while being absorbed with respondent department and they (ex-BCB) employees were allowed to have the pay scale of RSEB, then it was for the respondents to apprise their employee (ex-BCB) working under them and getting the pay scale of RSEB pattern about the refixation of their pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 which the respondents have not done. Once, they admit the fact that they have re-fixed the pay in furtherance of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay ) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.09.2006, then if implementation of that rules was changed from 01.09.2006 to any other date, then it was for the respondents to extend the same benefit to the applicant from that date i.e. 01.01.2006 and there cannot be any discrimination on this count. Firstly, the respondents have not asked for any option from her and secondly, if the applicant did not submit any option, she could not be deprived for any benefit in furtherance to Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2008 which was amended by Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay ) ( 9th Amendment) Rules, 2013. Therefore, we are of the considered view that impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law being arbitrary and hence, same is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2008 which was amended by Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised pay) (9th Amendment) Rules, 2013 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and she be also granted all consequential benefit arising thereof. Let the above exercise be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. No costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 24.08.2016
`jk
1
OA No. 060/01121/2015
(Bimla Devi Vs. UOI & Ors.)