Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Md Masoom Ali vs M/O Defence on 14 November, 2019
1 OA 021/1265/2013
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD
Original Application No.21/1265/2013
Reserved on: 22.10.2019
Pronounced on: 14. 11.2019
Between:
Md. Masoom Ali,
S/o. Sri Osman Ali,
Aged about 57 years,
Occ: Senior Gestetner Operator/P. No. 050295-1,
Stores Section, Ordnance Factory,
Yeddumailaram, Medak - 502 205,
R/o. Old Type II, No. 2043,
Ordnance Factory Estate,
Yeddumailaram, Medak - 502205.
... Applicant
And
1. Union of India, Represented by its
Director General and Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence,
10-A, S.K. Bose Road,
Kolkatta - 700 001.
2. The General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
Ministry of Defence,
Yeddumailaram Post, Medak - 502205.
... Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant ... Mr. K. Ram Murthy
Counsel for the Respondents ... Mr. B. Laxman, Advocate representing
Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. CGSC
CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Administrative Member
2 OA 021/1265/2013
ORDER
{As per B.V. Sudhakar, Administrative Member}
2. The OA is filed challenging the grant of 2nd and 3rd ACP/MACP in grade pay hierarchy instead of promotional hierarchy.
3. Factual Matrix is that the applicant joined the respondents' organisation as Peon on 26.7.1983 and promoted as Daftry on 18.5.1987. Post of Duftry was re-designated as Jr. Gestetner Operator on 1.10.1991. Later, applicant was promoted as Sr. Gestetner Operator in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 which was revised to Rs.5,200- 20,200 with Grade Pay (GP) of Rs.1900. The post of Sr. Gestner Operator is equivalent to LDC/Hindi Typist with the next higher posts as UDC with GP of Rs.2400 and Superintendent with GP of Rs.4200. Applicant was granted 2nd financial upgradation under ACP with GP of Rs.2000 w.e.f. 26.7.2007 after completion of 24 years of service instead of GP of Rs.2800 as granted in sister organisations for similar cases. As Peon and Duftry posts have been merged the next post in the hierarchy is UDC with GP of Rs.2800 and thereafter, Office Supdt with GP of Rs.4200 on completion of 30 years of service. Instead of granting these grade pays, applicant was granted Rs.2000 and Rs.2400 on completion of 24 and 30 years of service. Applicant represented on several occasions and the last one was on 21.5.2012 for which there is no reply given. There was a proposal on 16.6.2000 to re-designate Sr. Gestner Operator's post as LDC and post those eligible in the said post and if none found eligible, the posts get wasted. Applicant claims that he is suitable for LDC post as he has the requisite experience and can be promoted retrospectively from 3 OA 021/1265/2013 the date of eligibility and further promotions can be granted as UDC and Office Supdt. etc since his juniors have been promoted so and are awaiting promotion to the cadre of Jr. Works Manager. In case he is considered on the technical side, he is eligible to be promoted as Highly Skilled and thereafter, as Master Craftsman. Applicant has cited the decisions of Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench in OA 1038/2010 which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Despite many representations to grant the eligible Grade Pay, respondents not acceding to the same, has led to the filing of the present OA.
4. The contentions of the applicant are that his juniors have been promoted as Tracer in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 and hence, his pay has to be stepped up to that of his juniors or promote him as Tracer. 2nd respondent took up the issue of the applicant of lower pay being paid than his juniors with the 1st respondent but there is no reply. Applicant claims that the post of Sr. Gestetner Operator is equivalent to LDC with grade pay of Rs.1900, for which the promotion post is UDC with grade pay of Rs.2800 and therefore applicant needs to be granted grade pay of Rs.2800 after completion of 24 years of service. Even if the post of Sr Gestetner Operator is re-designated as LDC as proposed, the applicant would be eligible for higher grade pay of Rs.2800 and Rs.4200 on being promoted as UDC/Office Supdt. Financial upgradation has to be done based on promotional hierarchy and not under MACP Rules. In 5th CPC, financial upgradations were granted in promotional hierarchy where there are no posts available to promote employees and hence, applicant is eligible for 2nd financial upgradation in UDC with GP of Rs.2800.
4 OA 021/1265/2013
5. Respondents in the reply statement state that the posts of Peon/Duftry/Jr. Gesterner Operator have been merged granting grade pay of Rs.1800. Applicant was promoted as Sr. Gestner operator on 21.11.1995 with grade pay of Rs.1900 vide memo dated 4.11.2008. Applicant chose to be in the post of Jr. Gestetner Operator since it carries Operator Allowance and for getting early promotion as Sr. Gestetner Operator. However, the post of Sr. Gestener is a dead end post with no further promotional opportunities. On completion of 24 years of service, under ACP Scheme, applicant was granted the next hierarchical pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 and as per 6th CPC, with grade pay of Rs.2000 on 20.4.2012. On completion of 30 years, applicant has been granted the 3rd financial up-gradation under MACP with grade pay of Rs.2400 on 29.7.2013. Juniors to the applicant in the post of Duftry have opted to be re-designated as Record Supplier, which has a different line of promotion whereas applicant chose to be re-designated as Jr. Gestener Operator. Consequently, juniors got promoted as Tracer with Grade Pay of Rs.2000 and thereafter, on completion of 7 years of service, they were granted grade pay of Rs.2400. Respondents assert that in no other sister organisation the grade pay of Rs.2800 was granted for similar cases as claimed by the applicant, by filing memos issued by Ordinance factory, Ambajhari and clarificatory letter of Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi. Further, the grade pay of Sr. Gestetner Operator is Rs.1900 and the next higher grade is Rs.2000 whereas for UDC the grade pay is Rs.2400. As per Statutory Rules and Orders (SRO), promotion to UDC is from LDC and not from Sr. Gestetner Operator. In regard to stepping up of pay on par with his juniors, the representation made was examined and rejected 5 OA 021/1265/2013 since Sr. Gestetner Operator post is not the feeder post to the post of Supervisor/ Tracer. No proposal has been received to re-designate the post of Sr. Gestetner Operator as LDC.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record.
7. I) Applicant joined as Peon and promoted as Duftry which was re-designated as Jr. Gestetner Operator. Applicant chose the post of Jr. Gestetner Operator with grade pay of Rs.1800, as it has Operator Allowance and the scope for early promotion to the post of Sr. Gestetner post exists. Thereafter, applicant was promoted as Sr. Gestetner Operator with grade pay of Rs.1900 and on completion of 24 years, he was granted financial upgradation under Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme to the next higher grade pay of Rs.2000. On completing 30 years of service, he was granted the next higher grade pay of Rs.2400 under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP).
II) Applicant claims that his juniors are getting higher pay than him in Tracer post with grade pay of Rs.2000 whereas he is getting grade pay of Rs.1900 as Sr. Gestetner Operator and therefore either his pay has to be stepped up on par with his juniors or promote him as Tracer. Applicant opted for the re-designated post of Jr. Gestener Operator whereas his juniors have opted for the post of Record Supplier. The career progression for the Record Supplier is Tracer post with grade pay of Rs.2000 and with 7 years service as Tracer, they are granted the grade pay of Rs.2400. In contrast, applicant opted for Jr. Gestetner Operator post with grade pay of Rs.1800, since it is informed that the said post has an operator allowance and that the promotion to Sr. Gestetner Operator 6 OA 021/1265/2013 post could be quick. Later, applicant was promoted as Sr. Gestetner operator with grade pay of Rs.1900 which, incidentally, is a dead end post with no promotional avenues. Further, Sr. Gestetner Post is not a feeder post to the post of Tracer to promote the applicant as Tracer and therefore, applicant cannot be granted promotion to Tracer Post as sought by him nor can he seek the grade pay of Rs.2000 associated with the post of Tracer. Besides, juniors opted for a different line of career progression commencing from Record Supplier with different grade pays and hence the applicant cannot compare himself with them for stepping up of his pay. Further, the relief sought is not in congruence with the stepping up of pay for a junior as laid down in DOPT letter dated No. 4/7/92- Estt.(Pay-I), dated 4-11-1993.
III) To further his claim, applicant has alleged that in other sister organisations, higher grade pay was paid for similarly placed employees but the respondents have submitted documents of Ambhaji Ordnance Factory and clarificatory letter of Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi to disprove the claim of the applicant. Therefore, the claim of the applicant in this regard is not true.
IV) Besides, the verdict in OA 1038/2010 of Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench is not applicable to the present case since the facts and circumstances are different as the applicants therein are LDCs.
V) Applicant further claims that he should be granted higher grade based on promotional hierarchy and not on next higher grade pay as per MACP rules. To answer this aspect, we have noticed that the applicant was promoted from Jr. Gestetner to Sr. Gestetner Post with 7 OA 021/1265/2013 grade pay of Rs.1900. As the Sr. Gestetner post is a dead end post, two financial up-gradations in the next higher grade pay have been given on completion of 24/30 years of service with grade pay of Rs.2000/2400 respectively under ACP/MACP Schemes. Essentially, financial upgradation is to the next higher scale/ grade pay, if the employee is not promoted in the stipulated time period, but not to the grade pay of the next promotional post. The crucial aspect in the present case is that the Sr. Gestetner post is a dying cadre with no future promotional avenues and yet, the applicant opted for this cadre resulting in grade pays being granted for which he is entitled.
VI) Lastly, respondents have confirmed that there is no proposal to equate Sr. Gestetner Post with LDC and the applicant has also not produced any document to this effect.
VII) Therefore, in view of the aforementioned facts, the OA being devoid of merit, merits dismissal and hence dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(B.V. SUDHAKAR) (MANJULA DAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated, the 14th day of November, 2019
evr