Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Satish Kumar Sharma Son Of Sh. Ram ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 8 October, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 681-PB of 2013 Chandigarh, this the 8th day of October , 2013 CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J) HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A) 1.Satish Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Ram Chander aged 56 years, working as Superintendent, office of Central Excise Division, Derabassi, Punjab. 2.Baleshwar Dutt Tyagi s/o Sh. Ram Chander, Superintendent, office of Central Excise Range, Mohali, Punjab. 3.Jai Kanwar s/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal, Superintendent, Review Branch, Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh II 4.Mahipal Singh s/o Sh. Ajab Singh, Superintendent, Central Excise, Derabassi, Punjab. 5.Ram Pal Sharma s/o Sh. Ram Rattan Sharma, Superintendent, Central Excise Division, Mandi, Gobingarh. 6.Ravinder Kumar Arora s/o Sh. Ram Kishan Arora, Superintendent Central Excise Divison, Shimla Himachal Pradesh. Applicants BY ADVOCATE: SHRI ROHIT SETH VERSUS 1.Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. 2.Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-II C.R. Building, Plot NO. 19, Sector 17-C, Chandigrh. 3.Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-I, C.R. Building, Plot NO. 19, Sector 17-C, Chandigrh. 4.Assistant Chief Accounts Officer ( P & C), Office of Commissioner of Central Excise, C.R. Building, Plot NO. 19, Sector 17-C, Chandigrh. RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: SH. SANJAY GOYAL ORDER ( Oral)
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J):-
In this Original Application filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :-
(1) Quash the order dated 9.8.2012 (Annexure A-1) vide which representation submitted by applicant no.3 for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior Shri Rajiv Kumar Kaushal was rejected despite the fact that the applicant no.3 and all other applicants in the present O.A. were seeking and liable to be suo motto extended benefits of decision in O.A.No. 156-JK-2009 titled Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 19.1.2010 (Annexure A-2) as upheld by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure A-3) in CWP No. 12894 of 2010 titled Union of India & Others Vs. C.A.T. & Others in which the SLP NO. 7278/2011 filed by Union of India & Others was also dismissed on 2.5.2011 (Annexure A-4). This Honble Tribunal allowed another O.A. NO. 1162-PB-2011 titled Smt. Renu Bala & Others vide order dated 18.2.2012 (Annexure A-5) in as much as in that case the claim of applicants was denied on the ground that they were not a party in the case benefit of judgment wherein was being sought.
(2) Issue direction to the respondents to step-up the pay of the applicants at par with their juniors by granting them benefit of decision in the case of Ashok Kumar (Supra) and Smt. Renu Bala & Others (Supra) and step up their pay at par with juniors from due date with all the consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances and interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date the amount become due to the actual date of payment.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the issue raised in this case, as to whether a senior employee is entitled to step-up of pay at par with his junior to remove anomaly caused as a result of grant of benefits under MACP to the latter, stands clinched in O.A.No. 156-JK-2009 (Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI etc.) decided on 19.1.2010 by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, holding that in such cases a senior is entitled to step-up of his pay and not the pay scale. The arrears of pay and allowances were restricted to a period of 3 years. This order was upheld by Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.12894 of 2010 decided on 23.7.2010 observing that view taken by this Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The SLP No.7278/2011 was also dismissed on 2.5.2011 on the ground of delay as well as on merits. The issue was again thrashed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 19.1.2012 in O.A.No. 1084-CH-2011 (Sunil Behl & Others Vs. UOI etc.). The objection taken by the respondents, that the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) was applicable to the applicant therein only, was rejected holding that a view obtained by a Court/Tribunal on a point of law is applicable to all the similarly circumstanced and hedging its applicability to a given case would not be legally acceptable. Similar view was taken in O.A.No. 56-PB-2013 (Gopal Krishan Verma Vs. UOI etc.) and & O.A.No. 57-PB-2013 (G.P.S. Bagri & Others Vs. UOI etc.) decided on 14.2.2013 as upheld in CWP No.17891 of 2013 (UOI & Another Vs. C.A.T. & Another) on 19.8.2013 by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
3. Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents could not dispute that the similar controversy has been put at rest by this Tribunal in the O.A. No. 156-JK-2009 (Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI etc.) decided on 19.1.2010 and the matter has been remanded back to the respondents to take a final decision in view of the fact that similar benefits have already been extended to the similarly situated persons.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings on record, we find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in Ashok Kumar (Supras case). For the parity of reasons given therein, this O.A. stands disposed of in the same terms.
5. Disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER(J)
(RAJWANT SANDHU)
MEMBER(A)
Dated: 08.10.2013
`SK