Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Satyavati Sharma vs Union Of India on 20 October, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.4361/2010 New Delhi, this the 20th day of October, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Mrs. Satyavati Sharma, aged 63 years, W/o Late Shri Tilak Raj Sharma, R/o B-166, Nirman Vihar, Delhi-110092. .... Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri D.R. Gupta) Versus 1. Union of India, through, The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 2. Joint Secretary (Trg) & CAO, MOD, E Block Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi-11. 3. Director (IC), Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate : Shri B.K. Barera) : O R D E R :
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Mrs. Satyavati Sharma, the applicant herein, joined as Jr. Translator on 26.6.1979. She got her promotion to the grade of Sr. Translator in February, 1980 on adhoc basis and in September, 1982 on regular basis. Her next promotion was to the rank of Assistant Director, Official Language (AD(OL) in short) on ad hoc and regular basis on 16.3.1999 and 24.9.2001 respectively. It was her case that the pay scale of Sr. Translator and AD(OL) was upgraded from `5500-9000 to `6500-10500 and `6500-10500 to `7500-12000 respectively by order dated 02.09.2004 with effect from 01.01.1996 but the actual benefit and arrears were given w.e.f. 11.02.2003. With the implementation of 6th CPC recommendations, AD(OL) pay scale was upgraded to `8000-13500 and revised to Pay Band 3 (PB-3) with pay scale of `15600-39100 plus Grade Pay (GP) of `5400 with effect from 01.01.2006. The applicant retired from Government service on superannuation on 31.5.2007. It is further the case of the applicant that she has been granted retiral benefits on the pre-revised pay scale as the 6th CPC pay scale recommendations have been accepted by the Government in September, 2008. On the revision of her pay on the basis of the 6th CPC recommendations, she received arrears of difference of pay and retiral benefits in April, 2010 and 10.11.2010 after considerable delay beyond 3 months period. The applicants claim is that she is entitled to interest on delayed payment besides her pay fixation being wrongly done, the same deserves to be corrected and difference in pay and pension to be paid. She represented to the authorities concerned vide her letter dated 6.8.2010 which was responded in the letters dated 07.10.2010 and 19.10.2010 (Annexure-A1). She feeling aggrieved by the above two communications has approached this Tribunal in the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following prayers:-
(a) To allow the OA with cost.
(b) To quash and set aside the impugned order as at Annexure A-1 by which the pay of the applicant has wrongly been fixed on the basis of which the retiral benefits have been paid, after declaring the same as illegal.
To direct the respondent to fix the pay of the applicant in PB-3 along with fitment benefits as detailed in Table at page-91 of Swamys compilation on the basis of the upgraded pay scale as provided in the CCS PR Rules, 2008 within a period of one month.
To direct the respondent to revise the retiral benefits on the basis of the pay so fixed and within a period of one month and make the payment of the arrears of pay and allowances so fixed and of the retiral benefits on that basis.
To allow interest on delayed payments from the dates payments became due till the date of actual payment.
2. Shri D. R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant would contend that as per the recommendations of the 6th CPC and the Fitment Table given at Page 91 of the Swamys Compilation on the same had not been properly followed by the respondents while fixing her pay and pension under the 6th CPC. He further submits that the applicant is suffering financial loss and the respondents in issuing orders dated 7.10.2010 and 19.10.2010 have not accorded appropriate fixation of her pay and there is certain pay anomaly and as such, he requests that the appropriate directions should be given to refix her pay. As the payment of arrears of pay and allowances and the pension including other retiral benefits have been given after considerable delay, Shri Gupta would submit that the applicant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 % per annum.
3. Opposing the above contentions of Shri B. K. Barera, learned Senior Central Government Counsel representing the respondents would submit that on retirement of the applicant on 31.05.2007, her Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued at the earliest and necessary pension and retiral benefits have been paid to her in time. With regard to the 6th CPC recommendations accepted by the Government which has been given effect to from 1.01.2006, he would submit that the Government notified the pay scales only on 29.08.2008. Thereafter, the respondents have taken action to determine her basic pay as on 1.01.2006 by multiplying factor of 1.86 and in addition, the grade pay have also been calculated. It is further submitted that certain posts have been upgraded as a result of the 6th CPC recommendations and appropriate orders were issued only on 13.10.2008. In this regard, he refers to Annexure R/1 enclosed to the counter reply. In case of the applicant, he submits that when the applicant retired she was drawing pay in the pay scale of `7500-12000 which was upgraded in the pre-revised terms to `8000-13500. Accordingly, the Pay Band of `15600-39100 with Grade Pay of `5400 was fixed w.e.f. 1.01.2006. With regard to the orders of the Department of Expenditure dated 22.10.2008 the fitment of the applicants pay was appropriately done, for which the respondents have issued a separate order dated 22.10.2008. Giving the background of the processing of the revised Pay scale fixation for the applicant, Shri Barera referred to the Annexure R/3, R/4 and R/5 to say that revised pay was fixed for her in March, 2010 and the cheque was issued to her on 12.04.2010. After getting the option from the applicant on 2.08.2010, commutation of additional amount of pension was sent to the applicant. The case of pensionary benefit was taken up with the concerned authorities and Pension Payment Order was finalized on 19.10.2010. It is stated that on receipt of a representation from the applicant dated 9.06.2010, her representation was considered and she was intimated that anomaly in the pay fixation and increments were corrected as per rules and the same was communicated to her vide respondents letter dated 27.07.2010 (Anenxure-R/6). She was also advised to submit option form for commutation of additional pension. She submitted one more representation dated 6.08.2010 which was disposed of by the respondent son 7.10.2010, clearly conveying her that fixation of her pay was in accordance with the extant rules and provisions under 6th CPC and her revised PPO was in accordance with the rules. It is, therefore, submitted by Shri B. K. Berera that no grievance exists for the applicant, as all the arrears of pay, pension and retiral dues have been paid to the applicant in time. He also submits that no delay has been caused on this account as the arrears of pay and retiral dues need to be paid after getting option, consultation with the concerned authorities and clearance from the Audit. Therefore, the time taken for the same cannot be construed as intentional delay. Thus, Shri Berera contends that no interest would be admissible to the applicant.
4. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, with the assistance of the counsel, we perused the pleadings.
5. It is relevant for us to refer to the impugned letter dated 7.10.2010, wherein, the respondents have taken responsive decision in examining the applicants request dated 6.08.2010. It has been indicated in the said letter that the implementation of revised pay structure was given effect to from 01.01.2006. However, though the pay fixation was done properly but in the pay fixation proforma the scale of Pay Band-3 was erroneously indicated as `9300-34800 which was corrected by the respondents and rectified as `15,600-39,100. On the basis of the above corrections, the concerned pension sanctioning authority has been advised to issue consequential revised Pension Payment Order. Consequent to the above letter of 7.10.2010, the Administrative Officer, CAO of the respondent department has issued a corrigendum Pension Payment Order on 19.10.2010 and the same is available at Pages 12 & 13 of the Paper Book. The concerned authority has also issued directions to the applicants Bank Branch (Syndicate Bank, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi) to make appropriate payments and give credit to the applicants bank account.
6. During the hearing, counsel for the applicant indicated us that as on 01.01.2006 the applicant was drawing basic pay of `10750/-. It is noticed from the pleadings that the pay in the Pay Band-3 has been fixed at `20280 after granting increment to the applicant as on 1.07.2006 with Grade Pay of `5400. A comparative view manifests that as per the Fitment Table of the 6th CPC annexed by the applicant at Page 17 of the Paper Book, the pay fixation matches. Therefore, on the account of pay fixation, the revision of pension and grant of arrears of retiral dues, we do not find logic and rational ground on which any direction can be issued to the respondents.
7. In respect of the applicants claim for the interest for the alleged belated payment of pay arrears and retiral dues we notice that the time taken by the respondents was mainly due to the receipt of option from the applicant, appropriate processing within the Department and consultation with the concerned authorities. The time taken by the respondents is no way can be attributed to be any intentional delay and no prejudice could be attributed to have been caused to the applicant on this point. Accordingly, we are also of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled to receive any interest.
8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account our discussions above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no ground on which we can issue any direction to the respondents. Accordingly, the orders dated 7.10.2010 and 19.10.2010 are legally tenable. Thus, the OA being devoid of merits is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /pj/