Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Nanak Chand Sharma vs Union Of India Through The Defence ... on 28 April, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2538/2010 Thursday, this the 28th day of April 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) 1. Shri Nanak Chand Sharma s/o (late) Shri N D Sharma r/o 1/204, Second Floor, Sadar Bazar Delhi Cantt, Delhi-10 Presently retired w.e.f. 30.6.2009 As Assistant Engineer (E/M) 2. Shri G S Minhas s/o Shri Hoshiar Singh Minhas r/o B 157A, Sia Kunj, New Palam Vihar Gurgaon (Haryana) Presently retired as AE (Civil) w.e.f. 30.6.2004 3. Shri Saran Singh Chandla s/o Shri (Late) Jeet Singh r/o B-41, Sahib Kunj Ph.III New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon (Haryana) Presently retired as JE (E/M) w.e.f. 28.2.2003 ..Applicants (By Advocate: Shri S N Sharma) Versus 1. Union of India through the Defence Secretary Ministry of Defence Govt. of India, South Block, New Delhi-11 2. Engineer-in-Chief (Engineer-in-Chiefs Branch) MES, Army Head Quarters Kashmir House, New Delhi-10 3. Chief Engineer Delhi Zone MES Delhi Cantt, Delhi-10 4. Garrison Engineer (Utility) Water Supply MES, Delhi Cantt, Delhi-10 ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Subhash Gosain) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicants have filed this OA thereby praying for the following reliefs:
(i) Quash the order dated 3.12.2009 (Annexure A-1) to the extent it withdraws the 2nd ACP benefit already granted to the Applicant w.e.f. 6.11.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- (pre revised) and restore the above benefit to the above applicant.
(ii) Quash the order dated 20.2.2010 (Annexure A-2) to the extent it withdraws the 2nd ACP benefit already granted to the Applicant No.2 w.e.f. 9.8.1999 in the pay scale of 15,200/- and restore the above benefit to the above applicant.
(iii) Quash the order dated 23.1.2010 (Annexure A-3) to the extent it withdraws 2nd ACP benefit already granted to the Applicant No.3 w.e.f. 9.8.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- and restore the said benefit to the above applicant.
(iv) Direct the Respondents to pay arrears of pay and allowances for the period between the dates of allowing 2nd ACP benefits to the dates of retirement of the applicants and also based on the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in case of Applicant No.1.
(v) Direct the Respondents to recalculate the retiral benefits on the basis of the last pay drawn calculated on the basis of 2nd ACP benefit and pay the balance of retiral benefits to the Applicants.
(vi) Direct the Respondents to also pay simple interest @ 20% per annum on the amounts so to be paid to the applicants from the relevant dates these became due to the applicants in compliance to order(s) passed by this Honble Tribunal allowing the instant O.A.
(vii) Allow costs in favour of the applicants and against the official respondents.
(viii) Pass any other and further order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. As can be seen from the prayer clause, the grievance of the applicants is regarding impugned orders at Annexures A-1 to A-3 whereby the 2nd ACP granted to them in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200/- after their retirement, though retrospectively, w.e.f. 6.11.1999 in respect of applicant No.1 and 9.8.1999 in respect of applicant Nos. 2 and 3, was withdrawn and it was held that they are not entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation under ACP scheme w.e.f. 6.11.1999 / 9.8.1999 in the aforesaid pay scale. The applicants have prayed that the said orders may be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to pay the arrears of pay and allowances by allowing the benefits of 2nd ACP along with interest.
3. At this stage, relevant facts may be noticed. Applicant No.1 was initially appointed as Chageman (Elect/Industrial) on 26.3.1970 in the pay scale of Rs.150-240/-. He was granted promotion as Superintendent (E/M) Grade II (Non-Industrial) w.e.f. 6.11.1975 in the pay scale of Rs.425-700/- and subsequently after completion of 15 years of service, applicant No.1 was also granted higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1991 (revised to Rs.6500 -10500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996). Similarly, applicant No.2 was appointed as sub overseer on casual establishment w.e.f. 6.6.1963 and subsequently absorbed from the said date in the pay scale of Rs.110-155/-. He was promoted as Superintendent Grade II w.e.f. 12.6.1972 in the pay scale of Rs.180-380. He was further granted pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1991 on completion of 15 years of service (revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996). He was granted the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200/- w.e.f. 9.8.1999, though after his retirement, which pay scale has been withdrawn by the respondents vide aforesaid impugned order. Applicant No.3 was initially appointed as Charge Mechanic on 21.10.1967 in the pay scale of Rs.150-240/-. He was promoted as Superintendent (E/M) (Non Industrial) w.e.f. 1.10.1971 in the pay scale of Rs.180-380/-. He was also granted the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- with effect from 1991 on completion of 15 years of service, which was revised to Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996. He was granted the benefit under the ACP scheme in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200/- w.e.f. 9.8.1999, which has been withdrawn by the aforesaid impugned order. It may be stated that applicant No.1 has retired on 30.9.2006, applicant No.2 on 30.6.2004 and applicant No.3 on 28.2.2003.
4. The case put forth by the applicants in this OA is that in fact they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200/-, which was rightly granted by the respondents earlier but wrongly withdrawn vide the impugned orders. It is on the basis of these facts the applicants have filed this OA for the aforesaid reliefs.
5. Notice of this application was given to the respondents and respondents have filed their reply. Facts, as stated above, have not been disputed. The respondents have stated that the benefit of 2nd ACP scheme in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200/- was granted to the applicants treating them as directly recruited Superintendent Grade II and thus the benefit of ACP was granted after completion of 24 years of service. Since the applicant were directly recruited in the Department on the post of Chargeman (Electrical)/sub overseer/ Charge Mechanic respectively, as such benefits of 2nd ACP could not have been granted to the applicants, as in terms of the ACP scheme circulated vide OM dated 9.8.1999, two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme in the entire government service career of an employee shall be counted against regular promotions availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit.
6. The case set up by the respondents is that before promulgation of the ACP scheme as on 9.8.1999 since the applicants have already earned two promotions/financial upgradations, as such they were not entitled to further financial upgradations in terms of the aforesaid scheme.
7. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. From the facts, as stated above, it is not in dispute that the applicants were initially appointed as Chargeman (Electrical)/sub overseer/ Charge Mechanic respectively in the pay scale of Rs.150-240 / Rs.110-115. It is also not in dispute that they were further promoted on the post of Superintendent Grade II in higher scale. It is further not disputed that the applicants were also given financial upgradations in the higher pay scale after rendering 15 years of service w.e.f. 1.1.1991. As already stated above, the ACP scheme came into force on 9.8.1999 and before that date the applicants admittedly have been granted two financial benefits/upgradations. Thus, the applicants were not entitled to further benefits in terms of the ACP scheme promulgated on 9.8.1999. At this stage, it will b e useful to quote paragraph 1 of the Annexure A-1 attached with the aforesaid ACP scheme where conditions for grant of ACP scheme have been mentioned and thus read:
5.1 Two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme in the entire Government service career of an employee shall be counted against regular promotions (including in-situ promotion and fast-track promotion availed through limited departmental competitive examination) availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit. This shall mean that two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme shall be available only if no regular promotions during the prescribed periods (12 and 24 years) have been availed by an employee. If an employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. In case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under the ACP Scheme shall accrue to him.
8. Thus, as can be seen from the portion as quoted above the government employee is entitled to two financial upgradations under ACP scheme in his entire service career from the date in which the employee was appointed as a direct recruit. The portion, as quoted above, stipulates that in case two promotions/financial upgradations have already been earned by the government employee, no benefit under the ACP scheme shall be accrued to him. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid provision, the applicants could not have been granted the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation by treating them as direct appointed to the post of Superintendent Grade II, whereas admittedly they were appointed on the lower post as direct recruit. Thus, we see no infirmity if the respondents have withdrawn the benefit of 2nd ACP scheme in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200/- by treating the applicants as direct appointed on the post of Superintendent Grade II, whereas in fact they were direct recruit to the lower post. Thus, the applicants have not made out any case for grant of relief.
9. Learned counsel for applicants while drawing our attention to paragraph 5.6 of the OA has argued that by withdrawing the 2nd ACP benefits granted to the applicants, the respondents have rendered them in a disadvantageous position as their juniors, who were also granted the above benefit with effect from the later dates, happened to withdraw more pay than the applicants, who are admittedly seniors to those juniors. As such, according to their learned counsel, the applicants are also entitled to stepping up of pay at par with their juniors, who were recruited as Superintendent Grade II directly after the promotion of the applicants. For that purpose, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal (Circuit at Jammu) in Madan Gopal Sharma & others v. Union of India & another (OA-842/JK/2007) decided on 17.11.2009.
10. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. As can be seen from the prayer clause, the applicants have not made specific prayer qua this respect. What the applicants have prayed that the impugned orders may be quashed and they should be restored the benefits of 2nd ACP scheme in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200/- w.e.f. 6.11.1999 / 9.8.1999 along with arrears.
11. Further from the material placed on record it is also evident that the applicants have not made any grievance qua this respect before the appropriate authorities. Thus, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be duly met if the applicants are permitted to raise the aforesaid grievance before the appropriate authorities at the first instance.
12. Accordingly, the applicants are permitted to file representation before the appropriate authorities regarding aforesaid aspect within a period of 10 days from today. In case such a representation is preferred by the applicants, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation from the applicants.
13. With these observations, the OA stands disposed of. No costs.
( Shailendra Pandey ) ( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/