Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Udaiveer vs Union Of India Through on 29 March, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2801/2010 New Delhi this the 29th day of March, 2011.
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) Sh. Udaiveer, S/o late Sh. Shankar Lal, R/o A1-361, Madan Pur Khadar, J.J. Colony, New Delhi-76. . Applicant (through Sh. M.L. Chawla, Advocate) Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Govt. of India, M/o Defence, South Block, New Delhi-1.
2. The P.C.D.A., G Block, K Kamraj Marg, New Delhi-11.
3. National Commission for Scheduled Castes, through its Chairman, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-3. . Respondents (through Ms. Pooja Wahal, Advocate) Order (Oral) The applicant has assailed the order dated 14.01.2009 of the respondent in which, after regularization of his service as casual employee, he was given a lower pay band as compared to his juniors who were placed in higher pay band. Although he had prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him regularization when his name ripened for that purpose and when his juniors were granted such regularization, learned counsel for the applicant confined his arguments to grant the higher pay band of Rs. 5200-20200/- from 14.01.2009 when he was regularized and his juniors were placed in this pay band.
2. It is the applicants case that he had joined the department as a casual employee long before the employees mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 of the impugned letter and as such was entitled to the same pay band of Rs. 5200-20200/- as his juniors got but his pay scale was fixed at Rs. 4440-7440/-, which was subsequently raised to the higher pay band in the order dated 08.09.2009 w.e.f. 02.07.2009. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant has been noticed earlier in the order dated 17.02.2011.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant did not have the requisite qualification in terms of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission; he was to under-go a short training programme. It was only after completion of the training programme that the higher pay scale was granted to the applicant. In this connection, my attention was drawn to the following recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, which were accepted by the Government:-
7. Fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure Note 1
(a) In the case of Group D employees, the pay in the revised pay structure will be fixed initially in the IS pay band as per Clause (A) above with the appropriate grade pay and arrears paid accordingly. Thereafter, pay of such of those Group D employees who already possess the revised minimum qualifications recommended by the Commission prescribed for entry into PB-1 would be fixed with effect from 1.1.2006 in PB-1 with grade pay of Rs. 1800.
(b) Such of those existing Group D employees who do not possess the revised minimum qualifications for entry into PB-1 would be re-trained by the concerned Department preferably within a period of six months so that payment of arrears on account of upgradation are not delayed. After re-training, these Group D staff will also be placed in the Pay Band PB-1 with the grade pay of Rs. 1800 with effect from 1.1.2006 and arrears drawn accordingly. Once placed in the PB-1 Pay Band, this category of Group D staff will regain their seniority vis-`-vis the other category of Group D staff that already possessed the minimum qualifications and were, therefore, placed in the PB-1 Pay Band as on 1.1.2006. inter-se seniority of all the employees in erstwhile Group D will be fully maintained with Group D employee in a higher pre-revised pay scale being placed higher vis-`-vis an employee in a lower pay scale. Within the same pre-revised pay scale, seniority which existed prior to revision would continue. It no where says that the pay band of Rs.5200-20200/- will be granted only from the date of successful completion of the training programme. On the other hand it says that the higher pay band should be given w.e.f. 01.01.2006 after a Group-D employee completes the training programme. In other words, grant of the pay band is not from a prospective date but is allowed retrospectively from 01.01.2006 for a regular employee who will retain his original seniority. In the present case, it would operate from 14.01.2009 when the applicant was regularized.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant did not participate along with the first batch of trainees. He completed the training on 26.06.2009 and accordingly was granted the higher pay scale w.e.f. 02.07.2009.
5. Since the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission does not mention that the grant of higher pay band was to be made prospectively from the date of successful completion of the training programme, I find some force in the contention of the applicant that he was entitled to this pay band from the date of regularization even though he completed the training programme on a later point of time.
6. In the circumstances, the O.A. is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to grant the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200/- to the applicant w.e.f. 14.01.2009 when he was regularized and when admittedly his juniors were granted the higher pay band within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) Member (A) /vv/