Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Partap Singh vs The Secretary on 16 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.2993/2010 MA No.2329/2010 New Delhi this the 16th day of January, 2012. Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) 1. Partap Singh, R/o A-37, Pandara Road, New Delhi. 2. Rama Datt, H.No. 49, Sector-37, Faridabad, Haryana. 3. Smt. Safia Ibrahim, Sector 8/N-261, Type-4, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 4. MPG Nair, 1026/S-XII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 5. K.L. Sikka, 16/430 Lodhi Colony, Delhi-3. 6. Amal Dutta Gupta, B-10, Nanak Pura, New Delhi. 7. Smt. Anupam Nanda, Pocket A-25/B, MIG Phase-3, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. 8. P.K. Bapuli, Supdt. (A/Cs.), 202, MS Flats, NW Moti Bagh, New Delhi. 9. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Supdt. (A/Cs), Directorate of Estates, Room No.602, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. 10. Virendra Prasad, Supdt. (A/Cs), 16/460, Lodhi Colony, Delhi-3. 11. Smt. Veena Chopra, Supdt. (A/Cs), CD-258, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. 12. Tajender Singh, Supdt. (A/Cs), E-45, Kalkaji, New Delhi. 13. Kishore Toppo, Supdt. (A/Cs), 41-C, Pocket-1, Sec-10, SFS, DDA Flats, Dwarka. 14. B.L. Gupta, Accountant, Directorate of Estate, Room NO.412-C, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 15. B. Shiv Kumar, Accountant, Directorate of Estate, Room NO.414-C, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 16. Smt. Usha Rani Wadhwa, Accountant, Supdt. (A/Cs),, Room NO.414-C, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 17. Kiran Pal, Supdt. (A/Cs),, 173, Sector-2, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-39. 18. Saleem Ahmad, Accountant, B-320, Street No.13/4, Subhash Vihar North Gonda, Delhi. 19. Vinod Kumar, Accountant, 1683, Sector-V, R.K. Puram, Delhi. 20. Ashok Kumar, Accountant, 655 Sec-1, R.K. Puram, Delhi. 21. P.L. Meena, Accountant, 14/2 NW Moti Bagh, New Delhi. -Applicants (By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) -Versus- 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Directorate of Estate, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri Satish Kumar) O R D E R (ORAL) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J):
MA-2329/2010 for joining together under Rule 4 (5)(a) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is allowed.
2. Applicants have filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
(a) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.08.2009.
(b) To direct the respondents to grant to applicants (Accountants, Supdt. (Acs) and Asstt. Dir. (A/cs) Grade pay of Rs.4600, 4800 in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 and 5400 in pay band of 15000-39100 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
(c) To allow the OA with cost.
(d) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
3. As can be seen from the prayer clause the grievance of the applicants is regarding order dated 20.08.2009 (Annexure A-1), which is not an order but a proceeding note of MOUD (Dte. Of Estates) in their file No.A-320022/1/2008-Admn.B, which is to the following effect:
Ref: Preceding notes of MOUD (Dte. of Estates) in their file No.A-320022/1/2008-Admn.B The following proposal of Ministry of UD (Dte. Of Estates) for upgradation of the Grade Pays of Superintendent (A/cs) and Asstt. Director (A/cs) has been examined by this Department:
Post Class of Post Pre-revised pay scale Revised Pay Band/Grade Pay Upgradation proposed Superintendent (A/cs) Gr. B Gazetted 6500-10500 PB-2/4200 PB-2/4600 Asstt. Director Gr. B Gazetted 7500-12000 PB-2/4800 PB-2/5400 It has, however, been observed that proposals for upgradation of pay scales, which are made mainly on account of (a) feeder grade posts coming to lie in same grade as the promotional post; and (b) posts in the same pre-revised grade getting a higher revised Grade Pay on account of specific recommendations of the Pay Commission defeat the very purpose of delaying for which the Pay Commission had recommended merger of pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500. It has, therefore, not been found feasible to agree to the proposal of MOUD (Dte. Of Estates) for upgrading the Grade Pay of the post of Superintendent (A/cs) from Rs.4200 to Rs.4600.
As regards the proposal for upgradation of Grade Pay of the post of Assistant Director (A/cs) from Rs.4800 in PB-2 to Rs.5400 in PB-2, MOUD may examine the matter in the light of position obtaining in respect of similar posts in the Organizations outside the Secretariat and thereafter refer the case with comparative position for consideration of this Department.
In the meantime the pay in respect of the posts of Superintendent (A/cs) and Asstt. Director (A/cs) should be fixed as per the advice already tendered by this Department vide page 7/N ante.
This issues with the approval of Director (C).
Sd/-
( S.D. SHARMA ) Under Secretary (IC-II) JS & FA, M/O Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
MOF (Expenditure) U.O. NO.22/02/2009-IC-II (7.46.2) dated 20.8.2009.
4. Thus, as can be seen from the note, as reproduced above, proposal of the MOUD for upgradation of Grade Pay of posts of Superintendent from Rs.4200 to Rs.4600/- has been rejected, whereas proposal for upgradation of Grade Pay of the posts of Assistant Director (A/cs.) from Rs.4800 to Rs.5400 has not been finally approved, but the matter has been remitted back to examine the matter in the light of the decision obtained in respect of seniors posts in the organizations outside the Secretariat and thereafter refer the case with comparative position to the Implementation Cell for consideration. Thus, according to us, inter-departmental communication and noting in the departmental file do not have the sanction of law, creating a legally enforceable right and cannot be said to be an order against which applicants can file OA. The aforesaid issue was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Vartak Labour Union, 2011 (3) SCALE 246, whereby the Apex Court in paras 14 & 15, relying upon its earlier judgment has made the following observations:
14. It is trite that inter-departmental communications and notings in departmental files do not have the sanction of law, creating a legally enforceable right. In Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 180, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a member has observed thus:
"Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned."
15. Similar views are echoed in Jasbir Singh Chhabra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 192. This Court has observed that:
"It must always be remembered that in a democratic polity like ours, the functions of the Government are carried out by different individuals at different levels. The issues and policy matters which are required to be decided by the Government are dealt with by several functionaries some of whom may record notings on the files favouring a particular person or group of persons. Someone may suggest a particular line of action, which may not be conducive to public interest and others may suggest adoption of a different mode in larger public interest. However, the final decision is required to be taken by the designated authority keeping in view the larger public interest."
5. When the attention of the learned counsel of applicant was drawn to the fact that the note recorded by the Implementation Cell vide impugned Annexure A-1 cannot be said to be an order creating a legally enforceable right in favour of applicants, learned counsel of applicants submitted that he will be satisfied, at this stage, if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the proposal of the applicants in the light of para 89.37 of the recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission (page 116 of the paper-book) and also the recommendation made by the Department (page 69-75 of the paper-book) and pass appropriate orders.
6. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the present OA can be disposed of at this stage with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders regarding the grievance raised by the applicant after taking into consideration the recommendations made by the VI CPC in para 89.17 and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these directions OA stands disposed of. No costs.
(Mrs. Manjulika Gautam) (M.L. Chauhan) Member (A) Member (J) San.