Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Vishnu Prasad Tiwari vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 13 May, 2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.995 of 2013
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 13th day of May, 2016
SHRI S.K. KAUSHIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Vishnu Prasad Tiwari, Aged about 61 years,
S/o late Shri Babulal Tiwari, R/o M.I.G.71, Shiv Nagar,
Damoh Naka, Jabalpur-482001 (MP)
(Ex-Senior Accounts Officer)
Retired w.e.f. 31/7/2012) -Applicant
(Applicant in person)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt.of India, South Block, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, Delhi Cantt.110010.
3. The Principal Controller of Accounts (FYS),0-A, S.K.Bose Road,
Kolkatta-700 001 West Bengal.
4. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
Dropdighat, Allahabad-211014 (U.P.) -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.K.Mishra)
(Date of reserving the order: 09.05.2016)
O R D E R
By G.P. Singhal, AM:
By filing this OA the applicant has sought for the following main relief:
8.1 The Honble Tribunal be pleased to command the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicant at Rs.10,500/- w.e.f. 1/1/2006 in the pre-revised scale and its equivalent stage in the VIth Pay Commission revised scale of pay, the Respondents be also commanded to grant the DNI from 1/7/2006 and further fixation be carried forward giving one increment in July 2007 and so on. The Respondent be also directed to carry out the further fixation of the applicants pay till his superannuation and his pension be refixed accordingly. The Respondents be also directed to work out the arrears consequent upon refixation of applicants pay and pension as aforesaid and the said arrears be directed to be paid to the applicant with 12% interest from the respective date till the payment of the said arrears to the applicant.
2. Relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was promoted to the grade of Accounts Officer in the pay scale of Rs.7500-250-12000 w.e.f. 9.9.2005. Since his pay before promotion was Rs.9925/- it was fixed at Rs.10,000/- on 9.9.2005 as applicant had opted for pay fixation in promotional grade with effect from date of next increment. Therefore, on date of next increment i.e. 1.3.2006 his pay was fixed at Rs.10,500/-. On implementation of 6th CPCs recommendation his pay was fixed at Rs.18,600/-, by taking his pre-revised pay at Rs.10,000/- on 1.1.2006 with date of next increment as 1.7.2006. Later, when department vide order dated 21.7.2010 sought revised options for pay fixation, the applicant opted for fixation of his pay in 6th CPC pay scales with effect from the date of next increment. This option was accepted and his pay was refixed vide order dated 18.4.2011 (Annexure R-6). By this order his pay was fixed at Rs.19,530/- with effect from 1.3.2006, and Rs.20,280/- with effect from 1.7.2007. Since as per an earlier Factory order dated 3.6.2009 (Annexure R-4), which was based on option of pay fixation from date of promotion, his pay was fixed at Rs.19,070/- with effect from 1.1.2006 and at Rs.19810/- w.e.f. 1.7.2006, and at Rs.20570/- with effect from 1.7.2007, it was clear, that vide order dated 18.4.2011 his pay had been reduced. Therefore, the applicant asked for correction of his pay fixation. The applicant superannuated on 31.7.2012. Thereafter, the applicant filed representation for correction of his pay on 10.12.2012. On his representation, the Controller of Accounts wrote to CGDA office for resolution of his grievance. However, CGDA vide communication dated 31.7.2013 (Annexure A-11) replied to the office of Principal Controller of Accounts that the applicants pay at the time of promotion has been fixed after giving benefit of one increment in the pre-revised scale i.e. on 1.3.2006 and, therefore, he will not be entitled for another increment in the pre-revised scale as enumerated in the OM dated 19.3.2012. In this view of the matter the applicants representation was rejected. Principal Controller of accounts again wrote for reexamination of the issue, however, the same has been rejected vide communication dated 4.9.2013 (Annexure A-13). Hence, this Original Application.
3. Heard the applicant in person and learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
4. The only dispute in this case is in regard to pay fixation in 6th CPC pay scale subsequent to grant of increment to the applicant on his promotion with effect from 9.9.2005. The pay of applicant, by making pay fixation from date of next increment was fixed at Rs.19530/- (1.86 x 10,500) with effect from 1.3.2006 and at Rs.20280/- with effect from 1.7.2007. Now, the applicant has suggested that the date of next increment in the pre-revised pay be preponed to 1.1.2006, and his pay should be fixed by taking his pre-revised pay as 10500/- on 1.1.2006. The contention of the applicant is that since DOPT OM dated 19.3.2012 provides for preponing of increment due in between Feb.2006 to June 2006 to 1.1.2006, applicants pay should also be refixed by pre-poning his date of next increment to 1.1.2006. However, applicants case when sent by the Principal Controller of Accounts Office, Kolkata for acceptance of this formula, has been rejected by the Controller General of Defence Accounts vide communication dated 4.9.2013 (Annexure A-13) on the ground that this is not covered under any rules framed and pay fixation in the revised scale of pay between Feb to June 2006 on account of promotion/MACP etc. will not be covered under the ambit of OM dated 19.3.2012 of the Ministry of Finance, GOI. The Applicant has not challenged this order of CGDA in the Original Application. Further he has not filed any rejoinder to controvert the averments made by the respondents in their reply in this regard. In view of the aforesaid we do not find any justification to grant the relief sought for by the applicant in this Original Application.
5. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (S.K.Kaushik)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
rkv
3
Sub: fixation of pay OA No.995/2013
Page 3 of 3