Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Bahadur Singh vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 22 February, 2023
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.3111 of 2012
Vijay Bahadur Singh ... ... ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
Development (Department of Higher Education), Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi
2. National Institute of Foundary and Forged Technology Hatia, Ranchi
through its Director
3. The Director, National Institute of Foundry and Forged Technology
Hatia, Ranchi though its Director
4. The Professor-in-Charge Administration, NIFFT, Hatia, Ranchi
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Mehta, Advocate
---------
22/22.02.2023 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Office Order No.176 of 2011 dated 27.09.2011, whereby and whereunder, the respondent-NIFT have degraded the petitioner from Group 'A' to Group 'B' category by reducing his salary from Pay Band 3 (Rs.15600-39100) +5400 GP being the Group 'A' entry grade to Pay Band 2 (9300-34800)+5400 GP meant for the Group 'B' Category posts. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to extend the Financial Up-gradation as per MACP Scheme w.e.f., 01.09.2008 in the Pay Band 3 (15600-39100 +6600 GP) and to pay the consequential arrears of pay and allowance for the period from 01.09.2008 to 30.06.2011. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to fix the pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits on the basis of last Pay drawn on 30.06.2011 in the Pay Band 3 (15600-39100+6600 GP) and to pay the arrears with interest. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents for payment of Retiral Gratuity along with statutory interest.
2. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the prayer regarding payment of gratuity along with statutory interest at this stage.
3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was initially appointed as Upper Division Clerk on 29.10.1976 2 and was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 01.11.1984. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent (Admn.) in the revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 under V Pay Revision. An Internal Advertisement No.1/2004 was floated by the respondent-NIFFT for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar (Admn.) by promotion only from the Internal Candidates and accordingly, the petitioner upon being found suitable by the Selection Committee amongst the internal candidates, was selected vide letter dated 31.05.2004 to the post of Assistant Registrar (Admin) in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13000 (V Pay Revision). It is specific case of the petitioner that after VI Pay Revision was implemented in the Central Government, the same was also implemented in the respondent - NIFFT vide Letter No.2/7/2009-T.S.VI New Delhi dated 13.11.2009 and the corresponding Revised pay scale for the post of Assistant Registrar in the VI Pay Revision Commission is Pay Band-3 (15,600-39100+5400 GP). The petitioner had drawn pay and allowance in the Pay Band-3(15,600- 39100+5400 GP) for more than 5 years and completion of age of superannuation, retired on 30.06.2011 on the said pay band. After superannuation of the petitioner, the respondents vide impugned order dated 27.09.2011 degraded the petitioner in Pay Band 2 (15,600- 39100+4800 GP) in place of Pay Band 3(15,600-39100+5400 GP) and also reduced the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.18,950/- to Rs.18,750/- and without gratuity. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner represented before the respondents on several occasions, but no heed was paid. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that petitioner is entitled for pay scale of Rs.15,600-39100 +5400 GP in. Pay Band-3, which is the pay-scale of Assistant Registrar and he has superannuated on the said pay-scale and as such, last pay drawn by him at the time of superannuation should be taken into consideration for fixation of pension, but the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily issued the order for reduction of the pay-scale. He further submits that after retirement, it was not open for the respondents to reduce the pay-scale, which was fixed in accordance with the Rule and as per the Notification of the Central Government itself. There cannot be two pay-scales i.e. PB-3 (Rs.15,600-39100+5400 GP) & PB-2 (Rs.9300- 3 34800+5400GP) for same post i.e. one is for the direct recruits and other for the promotion promotees. If an employee is holding substantive post, by way of promotion or by way of direct recruitment, he is entitled for the same pay-scale. He further argues that vide Notification dated 28.01.2009, provisional pay fixation was done and Notification dated 13.11.2009 itself was approved by the Central Government and thereafter, pay-fixation of the petitioner was done on 21.12.2009 on the basis of letter dated 13.11.2009 and any reduction in the said pay-scale amounts to discrimination. The petitioner was holding a Group A post, there is no matter whether he is directly appointed or promoted. He further submits that petitioner is also entitled for the benefits of MACP, which has already been given to the similarly situated employees.
4. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-NIFT vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there are two pay-scales for the Assistant Registrar, one is for the direct recruits and other is for the promotees. He further submits that vide office order dated 21.12.2009 issued under the signature of the petitioner himself, but no approval was accorded by the competent authority to allow PB-3 (15,600-39100+5400 GP) to the petitioner. The petitioner was not entitled for PB -3 (15,600-39100+5400 GP) in view of letter dated 29.08.2008 and Memorandum dated 03.10.2010. The petitioner is entitled for pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800+5400 GP (PB-2), which was also approved by the competent authority. The petitioner has wrongly drawn the arrears of pay and allowances in the revised pay scale of Rs.15,600-39100+5400 GP in PB-3 and received the same without authority of law. He further submits that impugned order dated 27.09.2011 was issued to the petitioner as he was entitled to pay scale of pay Rs.9300- 34,800+5400 GP in PB-2 and as such, it is not the case that petitioner has been down-graded from Pay-Band-3 to Pay Band-2 i.e., Group A to Group B. The petitioner is not a direct recruitee rather he is promoted at the age of 54 years. The gratuity amount has been withheld on account of pendency of criminal case. Regarding, benefits of MACP, it has been argued that already petitioner was granted three promotion in the his service career and as such, he is not entitled for benefits of 3 rd MACP. Learned counsel for the respondents places heavy reliance on the reported judgment of 4 Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417.
5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that petitioner is entitled for pay scale of Rs.15,600-39100+5400 GP in Pay Band-3 on the ground that admittedly, aforesaid pay-scale of the Assistant Registrar was approved by the Central Government and as such, on that basis, pay-scale of the petitioner has been fixed in PB-3 (15,600- 39100+5400 GP). The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-NIFFT that there are two pay-scale for the post of Assistant Registrar i.e., one is for the Directly appointed and other is for the promotee, is not acceptable to this Court as for the same post, there cannot be two pay-scales and also the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Registrar on the basis of limited departmental examination. Annexure-F (dated 13.11.209), which was annexed to the counter-affidavit dated 04.08.2014, has already been approved by the Central Government, wherein the pay-scale of Assistant Registrar was mentioned as 15,600- 39100+5400 GP in PB3 and the pay-fixation was done on 21.12.2009, there is no illegality or infirmity in the pay-scale of the petitioner as fixed in PB-3. Since the petitioner has already superannuated, and there is no recovery order, the pensionary benefits, which has been fixed on the basis of last pay drawn by the petitioner, cannot be interfered with. The Reliance of the learned counsel for the respondents in case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal(supra) is of no help to them as there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the pay-scale, which was fixed/ approved by the Central Government itself, the same cannot be altered/changed/reduced by the respondent-NIFFT. In the entire service career, nowhere the pay-scale of the petitioner has been questioned neither disturbed as he got promotion in the year, 2004 and VI Pay Revision was implemented in the NIFT in the year, 2009 and petitioner superannuated in the year, 2011.
6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, impugned order dated 27.09.2011 is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, same is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent that petitioner is entitled for pension as well as pensionary benefits as per PB-III (15,600-39100+5400 GP) and not PB-II.
57. So far as benefits of 3rd MACP is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner has received three promotions in the entire service career, he is not entitled for the same. As far as gratuity is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner itself does not press the said prayer at this stage; hence, no interference.
8. In view of part quashment of the impugned order, the petitioner is entitled for his pension fixation in pay-scale of Rs.15,600-39100+5400 GP in PB-III and as such, the respondents are directed to calculate the same and pay the entire arrears of the pension and also revise the pension of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Resultantly, writ petition stands partly allowed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) Punit/-