Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Dr. O P Nijhawan & Ors on 18 July, 2014
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Vipin Sanghi
$~1.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 18.07.2014
% W.P.(C.) No. 3095/2014
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.P. Singh & Ms. Shipra Shukla,
Advocates for UOI.
versus
DR. O P NIJHAWAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gyan Prakash & Mr. Padmesh Kataria,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The Union of India (UOI) has preferred this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 22.01.2013 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/
Tribunal) in Original Application No. 1750/2012, whereby the Tribunal has
allowed the original application and granted to the respondents/ applicants
the relief for reckoning the special pay of Rs.2,000/- admissible from
01.01.1996 and Rs.4,000/- admissible from 01.01.2006 (as enumerated in
the OM dated 13.05.2009) for purpose of computation of pension and
pensionary benefits. The relief has been extended in respect of all those
who fall in the same categories without their having to approach the
Tribunal.
W.P.(C.) No.3095/2014 Page 1 of 5
2. The respondent applicants were serving as Scientist 'G' in the
Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Ministry of
Defence, from where they retired prior to the 5th Pay Commission report
being implemented. The Scientist 'G' in the DRDO were drawing pay in
the scale of Rs.5900-7300 along with Scientist/Engineers-H working in the
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) as also the Department of Space
(DOS). The 5th Pay Commission sought to create parity between the
Scientist of the aforementioned groups with the Joint Secretaries to Govt. of
India. The Commission recommended a replacement scale of Rs.5900-7300
and Rs.5900-6700 with a revised pay scale of Rs.18400-22400. Since the
pay scale of Rs.5900-6700 had been associated with the post of Joint
Secretary/equivalent, the Scientists in the aforementioned three Scientific
Departments, i.e. DRDO, DOS and DAE made a case for suitably
compensating the Scientists/Engineers in the pay scale of Rs.5900-7300
(pre-revised).
3. The Government, after considering all other relevant factors decided
to grant a special pay of Rs.2000/- p.m. to these categories of Scientists in
the replacement pay scale of Rs.18400-22400 in lieu of a higher pay scale
followed by a review from 01.01.1996. Consequential orders were issued
by the said three Departments with prior approval of the Cabinet.
4. On the plea of scientists, the CAT in OA No.1153/2002 vide order
dated 14.05.2003 directed the petitioner to take an appropriate decision for
grant of special pay of Rs.2,000/- p.m. as a part of the pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996
for computing all allowances as a part of pay with all consequences. In
other words, the special pay was directed to be reckoned for calculation of
W.P.(C.) No.3095/2014 Page 2 of 5
pension and other retrial benefits. The special pay of Rs.2,000/- p.m. was
revised to Rs.4,000/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as a consequence of the
acceptance of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.
5. Other similarly placed Scientists approached the Hyderabad Bench of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, who were also granted relief as granted
by the Principal Bench in OA No.1153/2002. The same benefit was
extended to the applicants of OA No.268/2007 vide order dated 23.04.2007
by the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The order
passed by the Tribunal on 14.05.2003 was assailed by the petitioner herein
in WP (C) No.1710/2007 before this Court. The said petition was
dismissed. The challenge to the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench order dated 23.04.2007, before the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. (C) No.267/2008 was similarly dismissed.
Similar orders were passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal to seek implementation of the said orders. OA No.
2509/2010 was preferred before the Tribunal, wherein it directed extension
of the benefit to the applicants in the said OA. Several other similar original
applications were preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
which were similarly disposed of.
6. The petitioner, in the meantime, preferred an SLP to assail the
decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal
dated 29.03.2007 in OA No.184/2006 as upheld by the Andhra Pradesh
High Court. The said SLP, being SLP No.4842/2009 was, however,
dismissed.
W.P.(C.) No.3095/2014 Page 3 of 5
7. With this background, the respondents in the present petition
approached the Tribunal to seek implementation of the earlier orders of the
Tribunal as referred to above. The Tribunal after detailed consideration of
the submissions of the parties and several decisions of the Supreme Court
allowed the original application, as aforesaid. The operative part of the
impugned order reads as follows:
"21. In conclusion we would like to take a case leaf out of the
case of Girdhari Lal vs. Union of India (supra). The
Government itself has extended the benefit of the decisions cited
vide the order dated 13.5.2009 to the Scientists falling within
the eligible categories without making a distinction of the date
of retirement or between those who came to this Tribunal and
those who did not. We have also seen that admittedly the
concession of including the special pay as a part of the
emoluments to be reckoned for pension and post retrial benefits
has been given as a measure of exception and there has been no
change in rules which continue to hold good. Further, the
Government reserves the right of taking recourse to legal
remedies as the matter of law has been left open. We,
therefore, respect this position emerging and only hold that the
respondent authorities should provide the benefits of the OM
dated 13.5.2009 irrespective of the fact that whether the eligible
persons have come to this Court or not. It has to be
appreciated that where all the eligible persons come to this
Court turn by turn, it would impose a serious efficiency burden
upon functioning of this Tribunal and also cause harassment
and expenses to the applicants. This, in short is also likely to
be a wasteful exercise thereby exposing this Central
Administrative Tribunal to directly unproductive and futile
exercise. Hence the following directives are given:
(1) The claim of the applicants are allowed for reckoning the
special pay of Rs.2000/- admissible from 1.1.1996
andRs.4000/- admissible from 1.1.2006 in the respective grade
W.P.(C.) No.3095/2014 Page 4 of 5
pays as enumerated in the OM dated 13.5.2009 for pension and
pensionary purposes.
(2) It is further directed that those who fall within the
eligible categories as cited above are to be allowed this benefit
without their being required to approach this Tribunal.
(3) This, of course, is a measure of exception and leaves the
question of law undetermined.
(4) There shall be no order as to costs."
8. The orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.
41011/2012, affirming the orders similarly passed by the Bangalore Bench
of the Central Administrative Tribunal and similar orders of the Bangalore
Bench have been placed before us.
9. In the light of the aforesaid position, we fail to appreciate as to how it
is open to the petitioner UOI to once again approach this Court to assail the
order of the Tribunal which merely seeks to implement the earlier concluded
decisions of the Tribunal which have been affirmed not only by this Court,
but in respect whereof the SLP has also been dismissed.
10. We, therefore, find no merit in the present petition and dismiss the
same leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J JULY 18, 2014 B.S. Rohella W.P.(C.) No.3095/2014 Page 5 of 5