Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
B.D. Phulara vs Union Of India Through on 18 April, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 1882/2009 New Delhi this the 18th day of April, 2011 Honble Mr.Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) B.D. Phulara, S/o late Shri Hari Datt, R/o RZ3 Sainik Enclave Part-2 Opposite CRPF Camp, New Delhi Applicant (Through Ms.Jyoti Singh,Senior Advocate with Shri Amandeep) VERSUS 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, CRPF, CGO Complex, New Delhi 3. Inspector General of Police, CRPF, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police CRPF, R.K. Puram. New Delhi Respondents (Through Shri Ashish Nischal, Advocate) O R D E R Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) :
The Applicant is aggrieved that by order dated 26.03.2009 his pay, which had been stepped up to the level of the pay the person junior to him was receiving, has been stepped down, without considering his representation against the notice to show cause issued on 06.03.2009. He is seeking the following reliefs:
A. Quash/ set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.2009 and the final order dated 26.03.2009, being illegal.
B. Declare that the Applicant is entitled for the stepping up of pay and the consequential benefits accrued to him, following the order passed by the respondents, vide their order dated 27.06.2001.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 17.02.1969 in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) with effect from 16.06.1975. He was then promoted to the post of Inspector (Ministerial) with effect from 24.05.1988. On promotion to the post of Inspector (M), the Applicant was required to exercise an option for fixation of his pay, which was to be exercised within 30 days from the date of promotion. The Applicant thus had time up to 24.06.1988 to exercise his option. However, the Respondents fixed his salary by order dated 15.06.1988, without waiting for his option, which he could give within one month of his promotion. The Applicant was further promoted to the rank of Office Superintendent with effect from 31.10.1994 and was posted to Allahabad. While posted as such he came across the service book of one Shri K Ramakrishnan, a person junior to him, who was drawing more pay than the Applicant. He made a representation to the competent authority to step up his pay and bring it on par with that of his junior. The Respondents accepted his plea and by order dated 27.06.2001 stepped up his pay, ante-dating increment from 01.05.1989 to 01.01.1989 in order to bring his pay on par with that of Shri K Ramakrishnan. He was paid the arrears of his pay on re-fixation of his pay and he continued to draw the same till it was stepped down by the impugned order. The Applicant gave a detailed representation against the notice to show cause dated 06.03.2009, but without due consideration the order dated 26.03.2009 stepping down his pay was passed. The Applicant retired on superannuation on 31.03.2009.
3. The learned senior counsel for the Applicant would contend that the Respondents committed a serious mistake of fixing his pay without waiting for his option, which he could submit up to 24.06.1988. The Respondents realised this also, while passing the order dated 27.06.2001 in the following terms:
"On thorough examination of proposal received vide your letter under reference, it is revealed that SM (OS) B D Phulara (G List 67) of GC, Gurgaon is eligible for anti (sic) dated increment from 1.5.89 to 1.1.89 at par with the pay of a junior SI (M) K Ramakrishnan with Date of Next Increment being 1. 1. 90. Necessary orders may be issued under FR 27 accordingly."
It was urged that because of the option given by the person junior to him, the pay of the junior was fixed to be higher than the pay of the Applicant, whereas he was deprived of the opportunity to exercise his own option. The argument of the learned senior counsel is unexceptionable. The learned counsel for the Respondents fairly conceded that a mistake had been made, while stepping down his pay.
4. In the light of the above discussion the OA is allowed and the impugned show cause notice dated 06.03.2009 and the impugned order dated 26.03.2009 are quashed and set aside. The Applicant's would remain fixed as per the order dated 27.06.2001, as if the order dated 26.03.2009 had never been passed. He would be eligible for all consequential benefits, which may accrue to him in the light of above directions. The Respondents would pass an appropriate order quashing the impugned order of 26.03.2009 and restoring the status as it existed after the passing of the order dated 27.06.2001 within four weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
( L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K.Bali ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /dkm/