Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Joint Forum Of Retired Csir Scientists ... vs Council Of Scientific & Industrial ... on 18 January, 2024
1
OA 1103/2022
Item No.6/C-6
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1103/2022
This the 18th day of January, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. Joint Forum of Retired CSIR Scientists in
Group IV (2-5) through its President
Dr. SD Sharma, B/7, 215, Sector 4,
Rohini, New Delhi - 110085
2. Dr. S.D. Sharma,
B/7, 215, Sector 4,
Rohini, New Delhi - 110085
... Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Vaibhav Vats with
Ms. Anupriya Shyam )
Versus
1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
(CSIR)
Through their Director General,
CSIR, Anusandhan Bhawan,
2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001
2. Ministry of Finance,
Through its Secretary
Department of Expenditure
Room No. 129-A, North Block, New Delhi -
110001
3. Union of India,
Through Secretary Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research,
Ministry of Science and Technology,
Government of India, Technology Bhawan,
Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110016
... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Arun Sanwal for R-1,
Mr. Vijender Singh for R- 2 and 3)
2
OA 1103/2022
Item No.6/C-6
O R D E R (ORAL)
In the instant matter, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Allow the original application
(b) Direct the respondents to count the two additional increments granted to the applicant Scientists towards payment of DA, HRA and pension and pensionary benefits as has been granted to Scientists 'C-F' of its equivalent Scientists Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) Ministry of Defence, Department of Space or Department of Atomic Energy. Since Scientist Group IV (2-
5) of CSIR and Scientists 'C-F' of DRDO and the equivalent scientists in DOS/DAE are having same pay scales, same additional increments and governed by same pension Rules and are undertaking scientific research and development in various fields of national endeavor Scientists in CSIR are also entitled for counting of 'additional increments towards payment of DA, HRA and pension and pensionary benefits as has been allowed in the case of Scientists in DRDO/DOS/DAE. Any official order contrary to counting of two additional increments for pension and Pensionary benefits should be set aside keeping in view the orders/directions of Hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble Courts, further any arbitrary or discriminatory treatment to the applicants in matters of fixation of pension will be violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India will be against Rules and law on the subject.
(c) Direct the respondents to revise PPO of retired applicants / Scientists and pay arrears of DA, HRA and pension and pensionary benefits including leave encashment, Gratuity etc. to the applicants after counting of two additional increments calculated @3% of the total basic pay in their respective pay band plus corresponding grade pay for those recruited promoted after 01.01.2006 or from the date of option exercised for revised pay scale in respect of those recruited/ promoted before 1.1.2006 for their pension and pensionary benefits.
(d) Direct respondents to produce relevant records on the subject under adjudication.
(e) Grant any other reliefs which Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also that these retired Scientists have served the cause of Industrial development of the nation and are in the sunset of their life."3 OA 1103/2022
Item No.6/C-6
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that two additional increments has been granted to the applicants towards DA, HRA, pension and pensionary benefits, as being given in DRDO and ISRO. During the arguments, he has drawn my attention to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 9070/2014 in the matter of Navneet Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, wherein the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order of the CAT, which had dismissed the OA of the applicant and the respondents were directed to issue necessary orders for re-
computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioners by taking into account the special pay granted to the petitioners. He has also drawn my attention to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 12040/2018 with batch in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Dr. O.P. Nijhawan and others (2020) 14 SCC 420. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgement reads as under:-
33. Now, we come to the main issue i.e. Issue (iii) The submission which has been pressed by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the special pay of Rs 2000, which was sanctioned by the Office Memorandum dated 3-2-1999, although describes the said amount of Rs 2000 as special pay but the real nature of the aforesaid payment was not the special pay as defined in Fundamental Rule 9(25). The said payment was in lieu of a separate higher pay scale.
xxx xxx xxx
35. Whether the amount of Rs 2000 sanctioned as special pay to the respondents were covered within the definition of Rule 9(25) is a question to be answered. When we look 4 OA 1103/2022 Item No.6/C-6 into the Memorandum dated 3-2-1999, there is categorical statement that the special pay of Rs 2000 per month is sanctioned to Scientists only in the pay scale of Rs 18,400-22,400, in lieu of a separate higher pay scale, after peer review. The order does not indicate that it has been granted to the Scientists due to specially arduous nature of the duties; or specific nature/work of the respondents. The genesis for amount of Rs 2000 as special pay was on account of the grievances raised by the Scientists when two pay scales under the Fourth Central Pay Commission were merged into one pay scale by the Fifth Central pay Commission i.e. Rs 18,400- 22,400. Scientists, who were in the pay scale of Rs 6700- 7300 had raised grievances and it was on account of peer review that government sanctioned the special pay in lieu of a separate higher pay scale. The Memorandum dated 13-2-1999 was obtained by preparing and submitting a Combined Cabinet Paper to Cabinet Secretariat by all the three mentioned departments to remove anomaly that belonged to all Scientists, who were in the (pre-revised) scale of Rs 5900-7300 prior to the Fifth Central Pay Commission and were entitled to higher pay scale but were intermittently merged with a lower pay scale at the time of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. If the genesis of sanction dated 13-2-1999 is taken to its true import, it is clear that the said sanction or extension of benefit does not fit in the definition of special pay as contained in Fundamental Rule 9(25), rather it was to redeem the pay structure anomaly. Subsequent interpretation and decision taken by the Union of India for not giving the benefit of amount of special pay of Rs 2000 in definition of pay was by picking up the words "special pay" as occurring in the Office Memorandum dated 3-2-1999.
36. The definition of Fundamental Rule 9(21)(a) (i) clearly excludes following two from the definition of pay i.e. (i) the special pay or. (ii) pay granted in view of his personal qualifications. The special pay as occurring in Fundamental Rule 9(21)(a)(i) has to take colour from the definition of special pay as contained in Rule 9(25). The special pay as defined in Rule 9(25) is sanctioned to a government servant or to a post looking to the special arduous nature of the duties or a specific addition to the work or responsibility, which is related to essentially performance of duties and specific addition to the work. The second exclusion i.e. it is granted in view of professional qualifications also indicates that the special pay is only taking into consideration the personal qualifications of a person. Thus, special pay is in recognition of aforesaid factors and for compensating in the above circumstances. Special pay is granted for specific purposes and in response to specific situation and circumstances. Thus, there is a rational for excluding special pay from the pay as defined in Rule 9(21)(a)(i) but the special pay granted by the Office Memorandum dated 5 OA 1103/2022 Item No.6/C-6 3-2-1999 to the respondents was not in any of the circumstances as mentioned in Rule 9(25). Rather the said benefit of Rs 2000 was in lieu of a separate higher pay scale. It is, thus, clear that grant of special pay of Rs 2000 was in lieu of a separate higher pay scale, which does not fit in the nature of special pay as contemplated by Rule 9(25). Thus, the addition as granted by the Office Memorandum dated 3-2-1999 also does not fit in the special pay, which is excluded from the definition of pay given under Rule 9(21)(a)(i). Thus, addition of benefit of Rs 2000 w.e.f. 1-1-1996 styled as special pay has to be included in the definition of pay given under Rule 9(21)(a)(i) looking to the true nature and character of the benefit, which was extended to the Scientists on the basis of peer review."
3. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents has raised the issue of limitation as the applicants have been fensitters and they have approached this Tribunal very late.
However, when this OA is at last leg of its adjudication and nine proceedings have also taken place and there is a recurring cause of possible pecuniary loss to the applicants on account of pension and other pensionary benefits. The objection is overruled. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention in similarly placed matter, i.e., OA No. 1099/2022, wherein the OM issued by the Ministry of Finance and the action taken by the respondents adversely affecting the applicants, is the OM issued by CSIR has affected the contention of the applicants.
However, the formula devised for the purpose is adversely affecting the applicants. The applicants have made multiple representations to Respondent No. 1, i.e., CSIR about consideration of these additional increments/special pay for 6 OA 1103/2022 Item No.6/C-6 various benefits and the same are not disposed of by the respondent.
4. The Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to dispose of the representations based on the settled position as an outcome of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Dr. O.P. Nijhawan and others (2020) 14 SCC 420 and the judgement of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 9070/2014 in the matter of Navneet Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. This disposal should be in a time bound manner by way of reasoned and speaking order not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In view of the aforesaid, the OA stands disposed of. The applicants shall be at liberty to take legal course of action as per law, if any grievance subsists. No order as to costs.
(Anand S. Khati) Member (A) /akshaya/