Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Onkar Singh Dhaka vs Union Of India Through on 26 August, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1456/2013
Reserved on : 21.08.2015.
Pronounced on : 26.08.2015.
Honble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
1. Sh. Onkar Singh Dhaka,
S/o late Sh. Vijay Singh,
R/o 116, Type-II,
Press Colony,
Mayapuri, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Baru Ram,
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan,
R/o F-113, Rajdhani Park,
Nangloi, Delhi-41.
3. Sh. Sukhdev Singh,
S/o late Sh. Chamel Singh,
R/o 9/7, Gali No.4,
Kushak Road,
Near Kali Mata Mandir,
Swaroop Nagar, New Delhi. .. Applicants
(through Sh. K.K. Jha with Sh. Tripurari Jha, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-1.
2. The Directorate of Printing
Through Deputy Director (A-1),
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-1.
3. The General Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Ring Road, Mayapuri,
New Delhi.
4. The Assistant Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Ring Road, Mayapuri,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. R.K. Jain, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicants joined the respondent department as Compositors Grade-II on different dates in the year 1972 in the revised pay scale of Rs. 3500-4590. On 27.09.1996, they were re-deployed on the post of Offset Plate Makers in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. On 01.11.1999, they were granted the benefit of second ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and were placed in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. Their grievance is that the respondents have denied to them the benefit of MACP Scheme on their completion of 30 years of service. They made several representations in the year 2011. However, their representations were rejected by the impugned O.M. dated 16.08.2012. Hence, they have filed this O.A. before us seeking the following relief:-
(i) To quash the O.M. No. A-43013/27/RRP/2008-Estt.1/334 dated 16.08.2012 signed by the Assistant Manager (Admn) on 14.08.2012 on behalf of the Directorate of Printing declaring the same as illegal and unreasonable and an act of arbitrary action of respondents;
(ii) direct the respondents to grant the 3rd Financial Upgradation under MACP Scheme to the applicants after counting their past service of Compositors in this regard;
(iii) Any other order/relief or direction which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet ends of justice.
2. According to the applicants, the action of the respondents was illegal, arbitrary and against well settled principles of law. Their representations have been rejected without considering the relevant rules. The respondents have failed to appreciate that the applicants had been granted second financial upgradation w.e.f. 09.08.1999. They have also failed to appreciate that the applicants cannot be treated as direct recruits on their re-deployment as Offset Plate Makers as the re-deployment was on the sweet will of the respondents themselves. The applicants had completed regular service of more than 24 years when they were re-deployed and this service cannot be ignored. This dispute qua the benefit of past service has already been settled by the Tribunal and the respondents have even complied with those orders. The applicants have relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-16/2010 dated 02.02.2011 (Govt. of India Press Workers Union & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.). They have also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-3291/2010 (Vijay Kumar Rajput and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.) dated 07.04.2011.
3. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the applicants were appointed as Compositors Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.110-198 (pre-revised) w.e.f. 01.01.1972, 11.09.1972 and 12.09.1972 respectively. These posts were declared surplus in the year 1996 due to Modernization Technology of the Press. Thereafter, the applicants had under gone six months training as Offset Plate Maker and also qualified the trade test. They were selected by DPC and re-deployed on the post of Offset Plate Maker in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1320-2024 (revised pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000) w.e.f. 27.09.1996 and their pay was also fixed as per FR-22(i)(a)(i). The applicants were also granted financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. 09.08.1999. Since re-deployment of the applicants on the post of Offset Plate Maker was in a higher pay scale, this has been treated as direct recruitment and their service for grant of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP Scheme has been counted only from the date of their re-deployment w.e.f. 27.09.1996. A similar case was referred to DoP&T in 2006. That Department advised that if an employee has joined a post carrying higher pay scale, he should be treated as a direct recruit and his services for the purpose of ACP should count only from the date of his deployment on higher post. In view of this, the applicants were not entitled to any benefit w.e.f. 01.09.2008. In fact, they should not have been given the benefit of ACP Scheme as well which had been given to them w.e.f. 09.08.1999.
4. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. It is not denied that the posts of Compositor Grade-II occupied by the applicants had been declared surplus necessitating re-deployment of the applicants. As per the revised Scheme for the disposal of personnel rendered surplus as prescribed under DoP&T O.M. No. 1/18/88-CS(III) dated 01.04.1989, re-deployment of surplus employees is to be treated as a transfer in public interest. Thus, as per this Scheme on re-deployment such employees have been allowed joining time, joining time pay and transfer TA for moving to the new place located in the Central Government Department. This re-deployment is entirely different from cases in which a Government employee on his own accord applies and is selected for a higher post as a direct recruit. The two cannot be equated. While the former is in public interest, the latter is on account of an employees wish for career progression. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the respondents action in ignoring more than 24 years of service rendered by the applicants prior to their re-deployment was grossly unfair and unjust. This re-deployment was thrust on the applicants because their posts had become surplus. They had never opted for the same.
4.1 We have gone through the provisions of MACP Scheme also. Para-23 of Annexure-I of MACP Scheme issued vide DoP&T O.M. No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19.05.2009 reads as follows:-
In case an employee is declared surplus in his/her organization and appointed in the same pay-scale or lower scale of pay in the new organization, the regular service rendered by him/her in the previous organization shall be counted towards the regular service in his/her new organization for the purpose of giving financial upgradation under the MACPS. 4.2 Thus, while the Scheme provides for counting of past service for the purpose of MACP for employees declared surplus and re-deployed in new organization in lower pay scale or same pay scale, the Scheme is silent as to how cases of those employees who have been re-deployed in higher pay scales have to be treated. Since there is no provision in the Scheme as to how surplus employees re-deployed in higher scale should be treated, the respondent department should have got this matter examined in consultation with DoP&T. However, they rejected the case of the applicants citing 2006 case in which DoP&T advice had been taken.
4.3 The applicants have relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-16/2010 (supra). On going through the facts of this case, we find that the applicants therein had been placed on the post of Key Board Operators in higher pay scale. However, they had never been declared surplus. The issue involved in this O.A. was the discrimination made between the applicants therein and Lino and Mono Operators. Hence, the facts of this case were different and clearly distinguishable from the present case. This judgment will, therefore, be of no help to the applicants.
4.4 Next the applicants relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-3291/2010 (supra). On going through the facts of this case, we find that the applicants therein were working in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 when they were re-deployed as a result of technological upgradation of the Government Press in the same pay scale. Since the re-deployment in that case was in the same pay scale, it is different from the present case where the re-deployment was in higher scale. Hence, this judgment also cannot be of much help to the applicants.
5. Nevertheless, on account of reasoning given above in Paras 4 to 4.2, we are of the opinion that the past services of the applicants prior to their re-deployment cannot be ignored by treating them as fresh recruits on the post of Offset Plate Makers. At best, since this re-deployment was in a higher pay scale, it could have been counted as a financial upgradation/promotion for the purpose of ACP/MACP benefit. Accordingly, the respondents themselves have rightly granted them the benefit of second ACP w.e.f. 09.08.199. This has been done after taking into account their past services rendered before their re-deployment. The same treatment should have been extended to them for the third MACP benefit as well.
6. We, therefore, allow this O.A. and quash the impugned order dated 16.08.2012. We direct that the cases of the applicants for grant of MACP benefit be re-examined by the respondents in consultation with DoP&T in the light of observations made above. In case the applicants are found suitable for grant of third MACP benefits, they shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of pay fixation and payment of arrears of pay and pension. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (V. Ajay Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/