Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Brisho Dhar Nautiyal vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 28 October, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH,
CHANDIGARH.
O.A.No.1132/HP/2013 & Date of Decision : 28.10.2014
M.A.No.1077/2013 Reserved on : 16.10.2014
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Brisho Dhar Nautiyal, P.A. No.36713-R, Draughtsman Grade-II, No.805 SU, AF C/o 56 APO s/o Sh. Tej Ram, aged 46 years, Resident of VPO Khalogra Sultanpur, Tehsil & District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
3. Air Officer in Charge Personnel, Air Headquarters (VB), Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110011.
. Respondents
Present: Mr. V.K.Sharma, counsel for the applicant
Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, counsel for respondents
O R D E R
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
8 (i) Issue direction to the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 14.09.1992 and designate him as Draftsman Grade-II w.e.f. 14.09.1992 and grant him all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and bring him at par with his junior by stepping up his pay inasmuch as he would be drawing less pay than his junior Sh. Dharam Paul even after the grant of pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 and direct the respondents to step up his pay at par with his named junior as per law on the subject in the case of Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Vs. Ram Sarup Gainda, 2007 (2) SCT 476 and in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Gurmail Singh, 2008 (3) SCT, 18 and step up the pay of the applicant from due date with all the consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances with interest @18% per annum from the date anomaly has arisen to the actual date of payment as case of applicant is fully covered by decision of this Tribunal in the case of Anil Vashishtha Vs. Union of India etc. in OA No.1063/JK/2011, decided on 02.03.2012 in which the claim of a senior for stepping up of pay at par with his junior was allowed clearly holding that one cannot claim grant of same pay scale in stepping up of pay but he can seek stage of that pay scale in his own pay scale / grade pay and also quash the order dated March, 2004 (Annexure A-10) to that extent.
2. Background of the matter is that the applicant who has the qualification of Intermediate in Science Group from UPSEB in 1983, obtained two years Draftsmanship Mechanical from ITI Srinagar (Garhwal) U.P. in 1985. He obtained four years experience in Draftsmanship in the HPIPH Department during August, 1985 to 1989. The applicant appeared for interview on 24.07.1989 for the post of Draftsman (Mechanical) and was appointed as Tracer in the pay scale of Rs.950-1540 w.e.f. 18.09.1989. The applicant was promoted as Draftsman on 14.09.1992 (Annexure A-4) in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040.
3. Averment has been made in the OA that the respondent Department decided to restructure and implement the revised pay scales in the Indian Air Force as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein vide letter dated 15.09.1995 as circulated vide letter dated 19.04.1996 (Annexure A-6). On the date of the notification, the applicant was working as Draftsman since 14.09.1992 in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 and hence it is claimed that he was entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300, but the respondents did not effect this placement while his junior one Sh. Dharam Paul was placed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 from the date of his appointment and designated as Draftsman Grade-II making him senior to the applicant. The applicant was granted this pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 after completion of 5 years as Draftsman on 14.09.1997. It is further stated that the applicant could not challenge his non-placement in the scale of Rs.1400-2300 as a charge sheet was issued to him on 22.10.2003 regarding absence from duty. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 05.03.2004 and his appeal was rejected on 15.12.2004, a revision petition was allowed on 04.10.2005 The dismissal order was set aside and denovo enquiry was ordered and applicant was treated under deemed suspension. However, the applicant was visited with penalty of compulsory retirement on 06.06.2007. The appeal filed against this was rejected on 28.10.2007. The revision petition too was rejected on 21.10.2008. The applicant filed OA No.616/HP/2009 which was decided on 09.05.2011 in his favour. The suspension was revoked on 22.02.2012. He filed another OA No.536/HP/2012 challenging the De Novo Proceedings which had been decided on 05.08.2013 and the OA had been allowed.
4. The applicant submitted a representation dated 07.04.2013 (Annexure A-8) for placing him in pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 of Draftsman Grade-II w.e.f. 18.09.1989 i.e. initial date of appointment like his junior Sh. Dharam Paul was placed as such from date of his initial date of appointment i.e. 02.07.1993 without fulfillment of recruitment rules. The applicant has claimed stepping of his pay at par with his junior placing reliance on Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Vs. Ram Sarup Gainda, Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Gurmail Singh and Anil Vashishtha Vs. UOI & Ors.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that only Draftsmen appointed directly on or after 13.05.1982 in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2400 were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 with effect from their date of initial appointment, but Draftsmen promoted from Tracers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 after completion of 5 years regular service in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2400. As per GOI letter dated 15.09.1995, the Draftsman appointed on or after 13.05.1982 were to be placed in the revised scales of pay. Further, as per ibid letter, Draftsman directly appointed in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 were required to be placed in the revised scale of Rs.1400-2300, it they have been appointed with qualification of certificate or Diploma in Draftsmanship from a recognized institution of not less than 2 years duration including six months practical training with 1 year experience. Otherwise, they would continue in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. Further, those appointed to the post of Draftsman by promotion were to be placed in the revised scale of Rs.1400-2300 as and when they complete the requisite length of service as prescribed under 3(1)(b) of the GOI letter dated 15.09.1995. The applicant was promoted as Draftsman w.e.f. 14.09.1992 in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. Thus, for upgradation to the scale of Rs.1400-2300, he was required to complete 5 years of minimum service in the scale of Rs.1200-2040, his pay scale was upgraded to Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 14.09.1997 as per the ibid GOI letter. The applicant had not challenged the GOI letter dated 15.09.1995, instead he is claiming the revised pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 14.09.1992 from the date of his promotion in Draftsman Grade which is contrary to this letter dated 15.09.1995. It is further stated that Sh. Dharam Paul, Draftsman was appointed to the grade of Draftsman on 02.07.1993, Sh. Dharam Paul had the requisite qualification required to be placed as Draftsman Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 with effect from his initial date of appointment which was as per the GOI letter dated 15.09.1995. The placement of the applicant and Sh. Dharam Paul in the revised pay scale were made strictly as per the provisions of the GOI letter dated 15.09.1995.
6. The applicant was promoted as Draftsman on 14.09.1992 and granted the benefit of Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 14.09.1997 in the year 1998. A charge sheet was issued to the applicant on 22.10.2003. The claim raised by the applicant vide his application dated 07.04.2013 was forwarded to HQ WAC, IAF (Oi/CPC) on 10.06.2013. Reply was received vide Air HQ (VB) letter No.AirHQ/23056/10/68/PC-3, dated 27.07.2013 (Annexure R-2) wherein reference was also made to earlier clarification issued in March, 2004.
7. No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the applicant.
8. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the applicant stated the background of the matter and pressed that the applicant was entitled to the scale of Rs.1400-2300 from 1992 while he had actually been given the same in 1997. He stated that since Sh. Dharam Paul was junior to the applicant as per the seniority list of Draftsman and he had been allowed this scale from the date of his recruitment in 1993, the applicant was entitled to the revision of his pay w.e.f. 1992 when he was promoted as Draftsman.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the pay of the applicant had been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 as per GOIs letter dated 15.09.1995 and these instructions had not been impugned through the present OA. Moreover, the applicant could only get the upgraded scale of Rs.1400-2300 after completing 5 years minimum service in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. The applicant had been promoted as Draftsman w.e.f. 14.09.1992 in the scale of Rs.1200-2040 and hence his pay was upgraded to 1400-2300 w.e.f. 14.09.1997 as per GOIs letter dated 15.09.1995.
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is evident that the pay of the applicant has been fixed keeping in view the GOIs instructions dated 15.09.1995 that have not been impugned through the present OA. The applicant cannot compare his case with that of Sh. Dharam Paul, who was direct recruit while the applicant had been promoted from Tracer to the post of Draftsman on 14.09.1992. Moreover, this OA has been filed on 14.08.2013 while the cause of action could be considered to arise in 1997 when the applicants pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 14.09.1997 rather than 14.09.1992 as claimed by him and his contention that he could not represent in the matter as he had been served charge sheet in October, 2003 does not support his case. Hence, in view of the fact that the pay fixation of the applicant is in accordance with the GOIs instructions in the matter while these instructions have not been impugned through the present OA, we conclude that there is no merit in the applicants claim and hence the same is rejected. MA.No.1077/2013 also stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) JUDICIAL MEMBER Place: Chandigarh Dated: 28.10.2014 sv:
??
??
??
??8
(OA.No.1132/HP/2013) & (MA.No.1077/2013)