Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vinod Kumar Verma vs Chairman & Managing Director on 12 December, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi OA No.4377/2011 OA No.4378/2011 OA No.4379/2011 New Delhi this the 12th day of December, 2011. Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) OA No.4377/2011 Vinod Kumar Verma, Accounts Officer, Quarter No.E-3, BSNL Telephone Exchnage, J.P. Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab. ..Applicant (By Advocate Ms. Kiran Dharam for Mr. Puneet Verma) Versus 1. Chairman & Managing Director, MTNL Corporate Office, 12th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi-110011. 2. Executive Director, MTNL, Telephone House, Prabha Devi, Dadar (West), Mumbai, 400 028. -Respondents OA No.4378/2011 R.S. Bhatnagar, A-302, Shanti Nath Avenue, Chakradhar Nagar, Nalla Sopara West, Distt. Thane, Maharastra-401203. ..Applicant (By Advocate Ms. Kiran Dharam for Mr. Puneet Verma) Versus 1. Chairman & Managing Director, MTNL Corporate Office, 12th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi-110011. 2. Executive Director, MTNL, Telephone House, Prabha Devi, Dadar (West), Mumbai, 400 028. -Respondents OA No.4379/2011 T.R.K.R. Kumhar, 568 K/56, Krishnapalli, Alambagh, Lucknow-226005. ..Applicant (By Advocate Ms. Kiran Dharam for Mr. Puneet Verma) Versus 1. Chairman & Managing Director, MTNL Corporate Office, 12th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi-110011. 2. Executive Director, MTNL, Telephone House, Prabha Devi, Dadar (West), Mumbai, 400 028. -Respondents O R D E R (ORAL) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J):
By this common order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid OAs, as the relief sought by the applicant is the same and the challenge has also been made to the same impugned order dated 29.07.2011 by which the representations of the applicants were rejected.
2. The case projected by the applicants is that while working on the post of Postal Assistants in the then Department of Posts they were sent to MTNL as Junior Accounts Officer on deputation basis in the year 1999. It is further stated that at the time of appointment of applicants on deputation basis in MTNL they opted only for ex-cadre post i.e. Junior Accounts Officer and not the pay along with deputation allowance like one Shri Rajender Singh Tushir. It is further stated that the Board of Directors, MTNL, Mumbai vide its decision dated 5.6.2000 decided to get switched over all the Group A and B officers from five-day week to six-day week and to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to all the Group A and B officers working in MTNL. The said compensation was to be paid w.e.f. 1.4.1999 or from their date of joining MTNL, whichever is later till the IDA pay scales become operative for Group A and B officers. However, the grievance of the applicants is that despite the said decision and the fact that the said benefit has been extended to one Shri Rajender Singh Tushir, who is similarly situated, respondents have not extended the said benefit to the applicants and their representations have been rejected solely on the ground that the benefit to Shri Rajender Singh Tushir was extended on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Tribunal. It is on the basis of these facts applicants have filed these OAs, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
8.1 Call for the records of the case for perusal;
8.2 Quash the action of the respondents in not giving the benefit of monthly compensation of Rs.3000/- w.e.f. 21.06.1999, (Annexure A-1 & Annexure A-2) without assigning any proper reason; being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, untenable, without jurisdiction with all its consequences;
8.3 Direct the Respondents to pay the applicant compensatory allowance of Rs.3000/- with arrears w.e.f. 21.06.1999 to 30.09.2002 the period when the applicant remained on deputation in MTNL as was given to Shri Rajender Singh Tushir and other persons to the applicant being a similar situated persons and also pay interest @12% on the same till the actual payment of the said amount;
8.4 Allow costs of application;
8.5 Pass any other order(s), which this Honble Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case
3. We have heard learned counsel of the applicants at admission stage and also gone through the impugned order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure A-1), whereby representations of the applicants were rejected. We have also perused the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in TA-181/2009, decided on 09.07.2010 in the case of Rajender Tushir v. Chief Managing Director & others (Annexure A-7). From the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Rajender Tushir (supra) it is evident that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is in the nature of declaration and the same cannot be said to be confined to the applicant therein only and that the Tribunal has not given a specific direction that the respondents should make payment of compensation @Rs.3000/- p.m. w.e.f. 8.4.1999 to 07.05.2005; what the Tribunal has held in the operative portion is that respondents shall pass speaking order separately on the subject of grant of monthly compensation amount as well as newspaper allowance, keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment. At this stage, we wish to reproduce paras 5.1 and 5.2 of the judgment, which thus read:
5.1 From a perusal of the records before us, we find that the decision of payment of consolidated compensation amount had been given in lieu of certain incentives being paid previously to the employees. Further, while this was made subject to several conditions, no distinction had been made between the deputationists from other Departments. Thus we hold the view that the attempt on the part of the respondents to draw such a distinction is not supported by a bare reading of their own office order. In the matter of deputation allowance, the plea of the applicant about his not being in receipt of such an allowance has not been rebutted by the respondents. As regards the admissibility of allowances and benefits while on deputation, Appendix 5, para 7.6 of Swamys Compilation of FRSR, while prescribing the guidelines on the subject states the following:-
Allowances not admissible to regular employees of corresponding status in the borrowing organization, shall not be admissible to the officer on deputation/foreign service, even if they were admissible in the parent organization.
Certain allowances such as HRA/CCA; Joining Time and Joining Time Pay, Travelling Allowances and Transfer T.A, Children Education Allowance and LTC being regulated with mutual consent of the lending and borrowing organizations; and Certain Allowances and Facilities such as Dearness Allowance, Medical Facilities and Leave to be regulated in accordance with the relevant Rules. In the matter of Dearness Allowance, it is specified that this would be dependant upon whether the employee has opted to draw pay in the time scale of ex-cadre post or his own grade plus deputation allowance.
From a holistic reading of the above rules it would follow as a logical corollary that the allowances other than those mentioned in Rule 7.6 as are made admissible in the borrowing organizations would also be admissible for the deputationists.
5.2 On the subject of compensation, we, therefore, do not find any reason as not to make the same admissible to the applicant as well, which, of course, would be subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in the relevant order. In this context, it is noted that this compensation amount was made payable till IDA pay scale became operative for Group A and B Officers. It is also relevant that as submitted by the respondents, the adhoc payment on this account had been recovered from the arrears of pay on operation of the IDA pay scales as per their OM dated 23.2.2004. The applicant has contended about his having opted for the ex-cadre pay scale. However, whether he was already in the IDA pay scale or not would need to be determined by the respondents and subject to that payment of such amount would have to be considered. Needless to say such an exercise would also take into account the terms and conditions of the deputation in this case.
4. Based upon the observations made above, this Tribunal in the operative portion in para-7 of judgment has given the following direction:
7. In view of the foregoing, we dispose of this TA with a direction to the Respondents to pass speaking orders separately on the subject of grant of monthly compensation amount as well as the Newspaper Allowance. Needless to say, while doing so they would bear in mind our observations on various aspects in the body of the order. While making payment of compensation amount, the respondents would consider the exact terms and conditions of deputation and particularly the pay scale which the applicant had been drawing during his tenure in the MTNL. This has to be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs.
5. Thus, as can be seen from the portion as quoted above, that the observations made by the Tribunal, which led to grant of relief to the applicant Rajender Tushir, cannot be said to be confined only to the applicant in that OA. In para-5.1 this Tribunal has categorically stated that the decision of payment of consolidated compensation amount has been given in lieu of certain incentives being paid previously to the employees and also that no distinction had been between the deputationists from other departments. It was further held that the attempt on the part of the respondents to draw such a distinction is not supported by a bare reading of their own office order and in the matter of deputation allowance the plea of the applicant about his not being in receipt of such an allowance has not been rebutted by the respondents. Thus, in view of such an observation made by this Tribunal in para-5.1, it cannot be said that the judgment rendered by this Tribunal was confined only to the applicant in the earlier OA. Rather reading of pra-5.1 of the judgment made it clear that the said finding was intended to apply to all employees in particular category, irrespective of whether they are parties to the litigation or not. Thus, we are of the view that the action of the respondents in rejecting the representations of the applicants vide impugned order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure A-1) is without basis and these OAs can be disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to pass fresh and speaking orders within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as to how the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Rajender Tushir (supra). We order accordingly. Needless to add that, in case applicants are still aggrieved by the decision to be taken by the respondents, they shall be at liberty to challenge the same by filing substantive OAs. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be kept in each case.
(Manjulika Gautam) (M.L. Chauhan) Member (A) Member (J) San.