Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Ramesh Chandra Gautam Son Of Shri Brij ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary To ... on 19 April, 2011
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH
Jaipur, this the 19th day of April, 2011
TRANSFER APPLICATION NO. 32/2009
IN
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7332/2008
CORAM
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HONBLE MR. ANIL KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Ramesh Chandra Gautam son of Shri Brij Mohan Gautam, resident of A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
2. Rajendra Kumar Sharma son of Shri Ram Kishore Sharma, resident of 6, Ganesh Colony, Khatipura, Jaipur.
3. Rama Shankar Sharma son of Shri Shrawan Lal Sharma, resident of J-712, Purana Ghat, Agra Road, Jaipur.
4. Kailash Kumawat son of Shri Ghanshyam Kumawat, resident of 25, Narendra Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.
5. Mahesh Kumar Jaimini son of Shri Babul al Jaimini, resident of Babji Nagar, Baran.
6. Jagdish Prasad Dagur son of Shri Yad Ram, resident of Village Dhanota, District Bharatpur.
7. Ravindra Kumar Saxena son of Shri Shyam Lal, resident of Surajmal Nagar, Bharatpur.
8. Arun Kumar Jaimini son of Shri Girraj Prasad, resident of Chhatrapura Road, Bundi.
9. Shyam Mohan Sharma son of Shri Kishori Lal, aged about 45 years, resident of Dadabadi, Kota.
10. Arvind Kumar Bais son of Shri Kalyan Singh, resident of 37, IHS Colony, Sahu Nagar, Sawaimadhopur.
11. Dev Narain Sharma son of Shri Hira Ram Sharma, resident of Dausa.
12. Birdi Lal Jat son of Shri Kalyan Mal Jat, resident of C/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
13. Surendra Kumar Sharma son of Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
14. Ghewar Chandra Prajapati son of Shri Durga Ram, resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
15. Shankar lal Sahlot son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Sahlot, resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
16. Gopal Vaishnav son of Shri Champa Lal Vaishnav, resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
17. Vinod Kumar Shukla son of Shri Girja Shankar, resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
18. Hari Ballabh Gopa son of Shri Gopal Das Gopa, resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
19. Mahendra Singh Sindal son of Shri Bhupal Singh, resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
20. Mahaveer Prasad son of Shri Dana Ram, resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
21. Hari Singh Charan son of Shri Panne Dan Charan, resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
22. Rajendra Kumar Purohit son of Shri Girdhar Lal, resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
23. Sita Ram Naraniya son of Shri Lal Ram, resident of D-19, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Feet Road, Jaipur.
24. Madhusudan Acharya son of Shri Chhagan Lal, resident of C/o Ramesh Chandra Gautam, A-109, Janata Colony, Jaipur.
25. Shankar Singh Rawar son of Shri Sewa Singh, resident of Village and Post Kanakhedi, via Srinagar, District Ajmer.
..Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Prahlad Singh)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Shastri Bhawan, C-Wing, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, 2nd Floor, Core IV, Seope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, Vikas Marg, Delhi.
3. The Zonal Director, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, G.T. Karnal Road, Alipur, Delhi.
4. The Zonal Director, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, Room No. 205, Kendriya Sadan, Khand-A, Sector 10, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
..Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Sushil Sharma Respondent no. 1.
Mr. Hemant Mathur Respondent nos. 2 to 4)
ORDER (ORAL)
By way of this TA, the applicant claimed for the following reliefs:-
(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 4.6.2008 (Annexure-8) may kindly be declared to be illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside and if any fixation of the petitioners is made in the lower pay scales during the pendency of the writ petition and if any recovery is made from them, the same may also kindly be taken on record and may be declared to be illegal and null and void and the recoveries made may kindly be ordered to be refunded to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
(ii) further by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to pay to the petitioners salary in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 as first financial upgradation under the ACPs from the dates the petitioners completed 12 years of service as ACT. The respondents may further be directed to pay to the petitioners the second financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 under the ACPs from the dates they completed 24 years of service. The respondents may further be directed to make fixation in the above pay scales accordingly and pay arrears to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the dates they became due to the petitioners in the upgradation under the ACPs.
(iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners.
2. It is not disputed by the applicants that the controversy involved in the present OA is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 83/2009 decided on 22.04.2010, Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 250/PB/2009 decided on 15.07.2010, Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 174/2009 decided on 21.09.2010 and Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 148/2009 decided on 08.03.2011.
3. After careful perusal of the issue raised in the OAs viz. judgments of the coordinating Benches as also upheld by the respective Honble High Court, for example Punjab & Haryana High court had dismissed the Civil Writ No. 22313/2010 vide order dated 15.12.2010 and observed as under:-
This petition by Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangthan is directed against the order dated 15.7.2010 (P-3) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, the Tribunal) holding that the facts of the present case are identical to those of the judgment rendered by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 83 of 2009 (Indrajit Patel and Others vs. Union of India & Others). The Tribunal has reproduced some paras of the judgment and held that the facts were identical and therefore disposed of the Original Application in terms of the decision rendered in Indrajit Patels case (supra). The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted, especially when it has not been pointed out that the judgment of the Cuttack Bench stands set aside either by the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution or by Honble the Supreme Court. There is, thus no merit in the petition. Dismissed. (emphasis supplied).
4. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondents have not disputed that the issue involved in the present case is squarely applicable by the judgments of the coordinating benches of the Tribunal and also the judgment rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High court. The Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment had observed as under:-
5. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the point to be decided is whether there existed posts of Junior Accountant in the promotional hierarch, the feeder grade being ACT in the recruitment rules as on the date the applicants became eligible and/or entitled to grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset it is to be noted that the Respondents have not produced any letter bearing No. F-1-6/96 YS 1 dated 29.1.1998 wherein the approval of the Government of India had been accorded sanctioning four posts of Junior Accountants nor the letter dated 5.3.1998 making the post of Junior Accountant effective. We have gone through the order dated 14.5.1998 of the Government of India regarding the revision of pay scales of post- Sangathan employees of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, pursuant to the acceptance of the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission (Annexure A/3). In this connection, we would note the vital aspect of the mater in Para-4, which reads as under:
The emoluments structure and conditions of service will be exactly similar to those of the corresponding categories of the Central Government employees. NYKS shall modify their service Rules, if necessary, to ensure that the conditions of service of their employees are exactly similar to those of Central Government employees.
7. Apart from the above, the annexure to the above referred letter captioned as Replacement Scales for Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan does not contain any post of Junior Accountant carrying the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-. Incidentally, it may be noted that the Department of Personnel and Training vide OM dated 18.7.2001 had issued clarification to the effect that provisions in the existing Recruitment Rules in various organizations providing for multiple channels for promotion are not consistent with the guidelines on framing of the Recruitment Rules. As such Rules should be reviewed immediately so as to provide only a single channel of promotion. In this connection, it is worthmentioning that no such Recruitment Rules in accordance with the guidelines issued by the DOP&T dated 18.7.29001 providing only a single channel of promotion has been produced by the Respondent- Department, based on which they have submitted that the Junior Accountant is the promotional hierarchy, the ACT being the feeder grade.
8. In so far as grant of benefit under the ACP to the applicants is concerned, it goes without saying that ACP Scheme has been introduced on the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission to deal with the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of financial upgradation. This by itself makes it clear that the benefit under the ACP Scheme could only be granted to the next higher grade hierarcy. The Respondent-Department have not produced any such Recruitment Rules wherein the Junior Accountant is the next promotional grade of ACTs even as on the date when the applicants were granted the benefits under the ACP Scheme in the years commencing from 2003 to 2006. It is also not the case of the Respondents that until the applicants are promoted to the higher grade in the hierarcy they shall be granted the benefit just above the pay scale drawn by them in the feeder grade. What all the record reveals is that the next promotional grade of ACT is Junior Accounts Officer carrying the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-. This being the position, there was nothing wrong in granting the benefit of 1st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme to the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- due to stagnation and so also the 2nd financial upgradation to Rs.6500-10500/-.
9. Having regard to what has been discussed above, we answer the point in issue that there exists no posts of Junior Accountant in the promotional hierarchy, the feeder grade being ACT in the recruitment rules as on date(s) the applicants became eligible and entitled to grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme.
5. The additional plea which has been raised by the applicants is with regard to the issue the directions to the respondents to pay them the salary in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 as first financial upgradation under the ACPs from the date they completed 12 years of service as ACT and second financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13000 under the ACP from the dates they completed 24 years of service. This aspect has also been thoroughly examined by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal.
6. We are in agreement with the observations made by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal. Accordingly the order dated 04.06.2008 (Annexure A/8) is quashed and set aside in terms indicated in the judgment of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal. The respondents are directed to refund the excess amount, if any, recovered from the applicants forthwith within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With these observations, the OA shall stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
(ANIL KUMAR) (JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) AHQ