Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
P Shunmugam vs Eastern Naval Command on 5 July, 2024
1
OA.No.819/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00819/2022
HYDERABAD, this the 05th day of July, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
P.Shanmugam, S/o. P.Narsimha Chary
Age 74 yrs, Occ: Retired AFM(81420 Y)
R/o 1-77-5 plot No.225, Sector-3
M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Smt. Anita Swain)
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Rep by its Secretary
Ministry of Defence, South Block
New Delhi 110011.
2. The Chief of Naval Staff
Integrated Headquarters
Ministry of Defence (Navy)
Directorate of Civilian Personnel
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi 110011.
3. Flag-Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, (CSO P&A)
Head Quarter, Eastern Naval Command
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam 530014.
4. The Admiral Superintendent
Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam - 530014. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. B.Gayatri Varma, Senior Central Government Standing
Counsel)
*****
2
OA.No.819/2022
ORAL ORDER
PER: HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):
i. Declare the action of the respondent in not placing the applicant in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 instead of Rs.5000-8000 from 1-1-1996 on par with other senior chargeman of NSRY by extending the Hon'ble Kerala High Court order in OP(CAT) 213/2017 dated 20-7-2017 & batch is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution apart from violation of natural justice.
ii. Direct the respondents to grant him the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 instead of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1999 accordingly and consequently, iii. Direct the respondents to release the arrears amounts after fixation of pay scale together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with quarterly rests from the date on with the same has become due and payable till the date of actual payment with all consequential benefits thereon.
iv. Further declare that the applicant is entitled for the costs of the litigation thrust on him by the respondents not extending the benefits and pass such other order and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the applicant had joined the Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam under the control of 2nd respondent and after completing the apprenticeship training in fitter trade, he absorbed as Grade-II Ship Fitter on 1.3.1969 and thereafter was promoted to Senior Chargeman on 1.6.1979. On implementation of V CPC, the Senior Chargeman of Naval Dockyard and NAIO was granted the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 whereas the pay of Senior Chargeman of AWS of Naval Armament Supply Organization(NASO) was fixed at Rs.5500-9000 which created pay anomaly among the similarly situated Chargemen of different civilian wings of Indian Navy. When the affected chargemen have brought the issue of the said pay anomaly and also a proposal for upgradation of their pay scales, to the notice of Ministry of Defence(MOD), the said MOD had turned down the proposal 3 OA.No.819/2022 stating that it will have wider financial implications. Aggrieved by the same, some Senior Chargemen of NSRY, Kochi have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP(CAT) No.213/2017 which was allowed by the High Court with an observation that the Chargeman of NAIO and ND are doing the same job as their counterpart of NASO and therefore the respondents therein were directed to rectify the anomaly and extend the benefit to the similarly situated Sr.Chargeman at the earliest. When the other affected Chargemen have been extended with the said benefit, the applicant alone left out and hence he made representation dated 12.09.2022 to the authorities requesting to extend the same benefits but all in vain. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed the present OA.
3. On notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and have filed reply statement opposing the claim of the applicant on the ground that when the issue of granting different pay scales in different civilian wings of Indian Navy was brought to the notice of Anomaly Committee, the said committee recommended for downgrading the pay scales from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.5000- 8000 in respect of Senior Chargeman of AWS Wing of NASO on the ground of mistaken identity. But this theory has not been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 was restored to Senior Chargeman of AWS Wing. Subsequently, when some more similarly situated persons have approached the Kerala High Court for upgradation of pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 in line with Technical Supervisor of AWS wing, respondents have revised their pay scale to that of Rs.5500-9000. Thereafter, a consolidated proposal was taken up with Ministry of Finance through MoD for extension of 4 OA.No.819/2022 similar benefit to the non-petitioners such as Senior Chargeman of Factory Wing of NASO, NAIO and Naval Dockyards who are similarly placed to that of the petitioners who approached the Kerala High Court, the Ministry of Finance was not agreed for extension of benefits for upgradation of pay scale to the non- petitioners. And moreover the applicant was already granted the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 in the year 1996 on attaining promotion in the post of Chargeman-I . Hence, no anomaly whatsoever has caused to the applicant in extending the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
5. When the matter has been taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is seeking only to consider his representation dated 12.09.2022 which has been submitted to the respondent authorities. However, the respondents have not considered the same. Therefore, the applicant has approached this Tribunal and prayed for the aforesaid relief.
6. In view of the submissions made by the parties, without extending the period of limitation and without going into the merits of the case, with limited relief, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the applicant dated 12.09.2022 and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and rules within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /ps/