Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bhadar Sain Chandolia vs N/A on 30 April, 2024
1
Item No. 110/ Court-4 O.A. No. 2479/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 2479/2022
This the 30th day of April, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Bhadar Sain Chandolia
S/o. Late Sh. Bali Ram
Age: 69 Years
R/o FF-28 (3rd Floor), Mangal Bazar Road, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092 Retired as DTP Operator, Government of
India Press, Minto Road
2. Bakhshi Ram
S/o Late Sh. Sunder Ram
Age 70 Years
R/ Village Banalag, P.O. Banalag, Tehsil Tuni Devi, District
Hamir Pur, Himachal Pradesh
Retired as DTP Operator, Government of India Press,
Minto Road
3. D. D. Chauhan
S/ Sh. Bulle Ram
Age 68 Years
R/o S-679 A, School Block, Shakar Pur, Delhi-110092
Retired as DTP Operator,
Government of India Press, Minto Road
4. Ganga Shanker Lal
S/o Late Sh. B.B. Srivastava
Age 67 Years
R/F-1001, Park View Spa Next, Sector 67, Gurugram
(Haryana)
Retired as DTP Operator,
Government of India Press, Minto Road
2
Item No. 110/ Court-4 O.A. No. 2479/2022
5. Jagdish Singh
S/ Sh. D.S. Bisht
Age 68 Years
R/o 34-A, Pocket B, Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi-110091
Retired as DTP Operator,
Government of India Press, Minto Road
6. Sh. P.N. Daundial
S/o Sh. N.R. Daundial
Age 68 Years
R/o C-11, 607, Gulmohar Park Enclave, Rakesh Marg
Nehru Nagar-III, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Retired as DTP
Operator, Government of India Press, Minto Road
7. Ram Karan
S/o Dhan Singh
Age 68 Years
Rio Village and Post Office: Kherwa Sonipat (Haryana)
Retired as DTP Operator,
Government of India Press, Minto Road
8. Shiv Charan Singh
S/o Sh. Hari Singh
Age 68 Years
Rio B-45, Pocket 5, Kendriya Vihar II,
Sector 82, NOIDA (U.P.)
Retired as DTP Operator, Government of India Press, Minto
Road
9. Thakur Singh Rawat
S/o Sh. Dalip Dingh Rawat
Age 70 Years
Rio RZ 1/76, Vinod Puri, Vijay Enclave, Palam,
New Delhi-110045
Retired as DTP Operator, Government of India Press, Minto
Road
10. Tara Chand
S/o Late Sh. Jogi Ram
Age 70 Years
3
Item No. 110/ Court-4 O.A. No. 2479/2022
R/o H. No. 542, Gali No. 2, Shankar Garden, Line Par,
Bahadur Garh, District Jhajjar, Tehsil Bahadur Garh,
(Haryana)
Retired as DTP Operator,
Government of India Press, Minto Road
(Applicants are retired DTP operators/Key Board Operators
from Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi)
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr Sudarshan Rajan & Mr Ramesh Rawat)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. Director,
Directorate of Printing
B-wing, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi-110001
3. The Manager,
Government of India Press,
Minto Road, New Delhi-110001
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms Anu Singh)
4
Item No. 110/ Court-4 O.A. No. 2479/2022
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) Vide the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
i) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2017
(ii) Direct the Respondents to grant the 1st, 2nd and 3rd MACP in the Grade pay of Rs. 4600/-, Rs. 4800/- and Rs. 5400/- respectively to the Applicants w.e.f.
01.01.2006 as has been granted to other similarly placed DTPO's / KBO's in the other branches of the Government of India press.
(iii) Grant the Applicants the arrears of pay and allowances in view of grant of prayer (i) above.
(iv) Direct the respondents to recalculate their terminal benefits and pension after consideration of their last drawn pay in the Grade pay of Rs. 5400/-.
(v) Direct the Respondents to pay costs to the Applicants
(vi) Pass such other further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case and in the interest of justice.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the impugned order dated 16.05.2017 which has been passed merely on the ground that the case of I D Sharma and Ors vs. Union of India of this Tribunal passed on 10.10.2013 is an isolated case and no 5 Item No. 110/ Court-4 O.A. No. 2479/2022 special treatment is to be given to the applicant even though they are similarly situated.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that there is no basis of denial of the benefits to the applicant which is forthcoming. He draws strength from the argument in light of the observation made in a later case of Union of India & Ors. V/s Vijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. in W P (C) No. 16503/2022 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, relevant paragraphs of which read as under:
"5. No appeal was preferred by the Department against the order passed in I.D. Sharma (supra.) The petitioners' SLP against the order in R.N. Srivastava (supra) has been dismissed. That being the position, the learned Tribunal had logically granted the same relief to the petitioners in the OA, as had already been granted to the other employees similarly placed. Indeed the learned Tribunal could not have ordered anything else.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
8. For the past, almost a decade the benefit flowing from I.D. Sharma (supra) has been known to all employees who are identically placed. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to make a special case of the present beneficiaries of the impugned order, one which has all along been accepted by the Department concerned that the view prevailing so far has been incorrect.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
12. In view of the aforesaid, ex facie, the court is of the view that the petitioners' conduct is objectionable. The court is inclined to impose costs. At the request of the 6 Item No. 110/ Court-4 O.A. No. 2479/2022 learned counsel for the petitioners, it would refrain from doing so, at this stage. The petition is frivolous and the same is accordingly dismissed, along with pending application."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore states that no discriminatory treatment can be given qua the applicant.
6. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averment made in the counter affidavit. She relies upon the fact that the Assured Career Progress Scheme was introduced 09.08.1999 by the Government to mitigate hardship in cam acute stagnation either in a cadre or in an isolated post decided to grant two financial up-gradation in a period of years of service from the date of initial appointment.
7. She further states that from the record of the service book of these applicants, it is noted that they were initially appointed to the post of Compositor Gr-II in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590 (5th CPC). Thereafter, they were appointed by absorption on transfer basis to the post of Key Board Operator (Key Board Operator later on re-designated as D.T.P. Operator) in the Scale of 4500-7000 (5th CPC) and their pay was fixed under FR 22(C), the provision of pay fixation in case of promotion. Thus, they got the benefit of promotion which is counted as 1 financial up-gradation. So they were eligible for 2d up-gradation under the ACP Scheme on 7 Item No. 110/ Court-4 O.A. No. 2479/2022 completion of 24 years of service and from the provisions of ACP Scheme it is observed that the up-gradations received by the employees during the countable service is also countable for the ACP up-gradation.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that as per the clarification given at point No.4 of DoPT's OM dated 10.02.2000 (Annexure R-2), in case of absorption St (transfer)/deputation, ant promotions earned in the previous/present organization, together with the post regular service shall also count for the purpose of ACPs. However, if the appointment is made to higher pay scale either as on direct recruitment or on absorption (transfer) basis or first on deputation basis and later on absorption (on transfer basis), such appointment shall be treated as direct recruitment and past service/promotion shall not count for benefits under ACPS.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further argues that in a later decision in Union of India & Ors V/s Om Prakash & Ors decided on 27.03.2023 in Writ Petition (C) no. 3353/2021, relevant paragraphs of the same is reproduced below:
18. The plea of the petitioners is primarily by relying upon dated May 19, 2009 of the DoP&T which in terms of paragraph 5 stipulates as under, defines the 'regular service' for the purpose of grant of MACP:
"9. 'Regular service' for the purposes of the MACPS shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct 8 Item No. 110/ Court-4 O.A. No. 2479/2022 entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption/re-employment basis. Service rendered on adhoc/contract basis before regular appointment on pre- appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning However, past continuous regular service in another Government Department in a post carrying same grade pay prior to regular appointment in a new Department, without a break, shall also be counted towards qualifying regular service for the purposes of MACPS only (and not for the regular promotions). However, benefits under the MACPS in such cases shall not be considered till the satisfactory completion of the probation period in the new post."
19. From the reading of the above clause, it is clear that regular service for the purpose of MACP shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption/ re- employment basis. In other words, the date of absorption would be the date from which the regular service for the purpose of MACP shall be determined.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
24. We note, the Tribunal has not considered the effect of clause9 while giving the directions in the manner it did in the impugned order It follows the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is a perverse finding. We are of the view that the direction of the Tribunal for grant of second ACP to the respondents could not have been granted. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated January 30, 2020 passed by the Tribunal is set aside.
10. She states that therefore no benefit can be granted to the applicant herein.
9Item No. 110/ Court-4 O.A. No. 2479/2022
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
12. The impugned order has been passed on the analogy that case of I D Sharma and Ors vs. Union of India benefits is granted which is treated as an isolated case. It is not in dispute that no challenge to the findings of the I D Sharma was laid in a superior court. If the same analogy has to be adopted and the condition of the respondents has to be accepted with I D Sharma's case it cannot be relied upon and there is no explanation coming forth as to why Union of India & Ors. V/s Vijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. which is a subsequent case on the basis of which the relief was granted to Shri Vijay Sharma by the Hon'ble High Court, no challenge was led to the same.
13. The facts of the above case are clearly distinguishable with the facts of the present case as the Hon'ble High Court had an occasion to deal with the case OM dated 19.05.2009. This is not the case in the present case.
14. In view of the same we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2017 thereby directing the respondents to file the ratio of I D Sharma and Vijay Sharma and grant benefits thereto.
10Item No. 110/ Court-4 O.A. No. 2479/2022
15. Consequential action shall follow within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. No order as to costs.
(Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /ks/