Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
H C Mainali vs M/O Home Affairs on 23 November, 2023
1
Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(Circuit Sitting At Nainital)
O.A. No. 85/2016
This the 23rd Day of November, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. H. C. Mainali, S/o Late Sri Devi Dutt Mainali Presently
posted as Account Officer, Frontier Head Quarter,
Ranikhet, District Almora, Uttarakhand.
2. Joginder Pal S/o Sri Diuuan Chand R/o Account Officer,
Force Head quarter, New Delhi
-Applicants
(By Advocate :Mr. Kishor Kumar)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Bikaner House/Annexee Shahjahan Road, New
Delhi.
2. Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal (S.S.B.) East
Block, V.R.K. Puram, Force Head Quarter, New Delhi
110066.
3. Assistant Director, (PERS-I) Sashastra Seema Bal
(S.S.B.) East Block, V.R.K. Puram, Force Head Quarter,
New Delhi 110066.
4. Inspector General, Ftr.Hqrs. Ranikhet District Almora,
Uttarakhand.
2
Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016
5. Staff Officer, (PERS and TRG) SSB, Frontier Hqrs.
Ranikhet District Almora.
6. Staff Officer, (PERS and TRG) SSB, Force, Hqrs. New
Delhi
-Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R S Bisht)
3
Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) The matter was reserved for orders. Thereafter, the matter was kept for "For Being Spoken" as certain clarifications were to be sought from both the parties. Today, the matter has been taken up for final adjudication.
2. In the instant OA the applicants seeks the following reliefs:-
"i) Set aside the impugned order dated 13.5.2014 issued by respondent no. 3 (Contained in Annexure No.1), the order dated 21.07.2014 issued by Staff Officer, (PERS and TRG) SSB, Frontier Hqrs. Ranikhet District Almora (Contained in Annexure No.2) and impugned order dated 31.08.2017 passed by Assistant Director, PERS-I, Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate General, SSB, New Delhi. (Contained as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition).
ii) To restore the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to the petitioner at par with the SAS Accounts Officer without any discrimination and not to amend adjusting RRS to the disadvantage of the applicant/petitioner.
iii) Issue a direction to the respondent no.1, directing to take a decision on the proposal of the S.S.B for restoration of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to the Accounts Officer (Non S.A.S.) in S.S.B. w.e.f. 1.1.2006, as intimated by the respondent no.3 through its order dated 12.08.2015, (Annexure No.6).
(iv) Issue any order of direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
(v) To award the cost of the present claim petition in favour of the petitioner.
(vi) Set aside the impugned order dated 15.1.2018 issued under the signature of Assistant Director PERS-I and the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the letter no.1/149/CR(NC)/PERS-V/2016 (CF3352813)/PERS-III dated 18.10.2017 (Contained as Annexure No.4 and 5 to the writ petition)."4
Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016
3. The brief facts of the case of the applicants are carved out in the fashion mentioned below:-
3.1 As per the memorandum dated 18.09.2008 on the basis of recommendations of the Pay Commission, the applicants were granted the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/-
alongwith grade pay of Rs.4800/- (Part-B, Section 11(1) of the Notification dated 29.08.2008) and SO/PS on completion of 4 years of regular service in the grade on or after 01.01.2006 shall be granted revised pay of Rs.15,600- 39,100/- alongwith grade pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3. The applicants were working as Accounts Officer which was analogous to the post of SO/PS as mentioned in clause 12 of memorandum dated 18.09.2008 in the Supplementary Affidavit and they drew the same till further memorandum was issued.
3.2 Thereafter, by impugned order the said pay scale has been withdrawn without show cause. The impugned order dated 13.05.2014 page 36 reads as under:-
"In pursuance of Cabinet Secretariat order No.1/98/2008-EA- I-735 dated 18/03/2011 and MHA UO note No. 27013/24/2013-PF-IV(SSB) BEARING No. CF-3193624/14 dated 13/01/2014, the Pay Band and Grade Pay to the Accounts Officer/Accountant in SSB are revised w.e.f. 01/01/2006 as under:-
Sl. No. Name of the Post Pay Band Grade Pay 5 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016
1. Accounts Officer (SAS qualified) PB-2 Rs.5400/-
2. Accounts Officer (Non-SAS) PB-2 Rs.4600/-
3. Accountant PB-2 Rs.4200/-
3.3 The applicant no.1 has been superannuated on 30.06.2017. The applicant no. 2 has been extended the benefit with effect from 18.10.2017 as evident from the office order dated 15.01.2018. The said order reads as under:-
"Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide Letter No. 1/149/CR (NC)/PerV/2016(CF-3352813)/Pers-III dated 18th October' 2017 has extended the scale in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay Rs.5400/- (pre-revised) revised to PAY MATRIX LEVEL-09 to the post of Accounts Officer in SSB with effect from date of issuance of ibid letter. 2. Accordingly, the Accounts Officer of SSB are extended the Pay Scale PAY MATRIX LEVEL-09 w.e.f. 18.10.2017."
3.4 Hence the grievance of the applicant no. 2 is in so far as implementation of the same with effect from the order dated 18.19.2008 and it is also highlighted by the learned counsel that the applicant no.2 has already been promoted and joined the temporary post of Assistant Director in IB with effect from March 2021. In so far as applicant no. 1 is concerned, he has been superannuated and the said benefit ought to have also been extended to him. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that the basis of the impugned order i.e., 18.03.2011 has been quashed and set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA 6 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 No.2682/2012 decided on 18.01.2019 as a result of which following order has been passed :-
"24. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the respondents were not justified in making recovery of the purported over-payments made to the applicant for the period between 06.04.2009 to 30.06.2012 without first issuing him a show cause notice. This finding is in addition to and independent of the finding on the first point of adjudication referred above.
25. As a result, for the foregoing reasons, the OA is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.3.2011 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accordingly revise the pay scale and grade pay of the applicant and refund the amount that may have been deducted from the pay of the applicant along with interest at the prevailing GPF rates. These directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs."
3.5 Learned counsel for the applicant further draws reference to various orders passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Atma Prakash Dixit and others vs. Union of India and others - OA No.2866/2012 decided on 13.05.2013. In the said case, the applicants were Senior Field Assistant and Assistant Field Officer and were claiming the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- respectively w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as have been given to their counterparts serving in various organizations under the control of Cabinet Secretariat. This Tribunal having considered the stand taken by the parties in Para 13 of the order, held as under:-
7
Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 "13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Respondents have acted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in granting lesser grade pay to the SFA, AFO, FO etc. of SSB from SFA, AFO, FO etc. serving in ARC, RAW and SFF without justification. When there is no change in the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Applicants after shifting of administrative control of SSB from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs, the Respondents should have maintained the same grade pay to them also at par with the grade of the corresponding posts in all the organizations still under Cabinet Secretariat. The FOs under the SSB, as already stated, have already obtained an order for granting them the grade pay of Rs.4800/- at par with the FOs of ARC, SFF, RAW etc. with effect from 1.1.2006 vide order of this Tribunal in OA No. 1011/2011 (supra) and the Respondents have already implemented the order."
Also, J.S.Thakur vs. Union of India and others - OA No. 39/2017 decided on 22.02.2023, for our purpose, we may reproduce para 11 of J.S.Thakur (supra), which reads as under:
"11. In the light of the facts and the discussion narrated above, we have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order dated 13.02.2015 and we proceed to do so. We further hold that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of pay band and the associated Grade Pay as was admissible for Section Officers belonging to the organised ministerial cadre as on 01.01.2006. Accordingly, the Competent Authority amongst the respondents is directed to pass 9 O.A. No. 39/2017 Item No. 48 an appropriate order re- fixing the pay of the applicant at parity with the Section Officer of ministerial cadre, in accordance with the pay band and Grade Pay applicable as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Pursuant to this, the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears which accrue. These directions shall be complied with within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the benefits in terms of actual release of payment are extended within this period, the applicant shall not be entitled to any interest. However, in case payment of arrears is not made within the period accorded to the respondents, the same shall be admissible to the applicant along with interest at the rate applicable 8 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 on deposits in GPF. The rate of interest shall further be enhanced by 1% for each month of delay."
3.6 Further a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Mukesh Kumar Joshi vs. Union of India, O.A No. 814/2016 decided on 03.02.2023 held as under:-
"12. We have no reason to hold a view which could be at divergence from what has been held by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the aforequoted OA as re- affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition referred to above.
13. Moreover, our attention is also drawn to an order passed by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1767/2010 which has been the trigger for the order dated
04.10.2013 vide which Non Functional Scale has been given to SOs/PSs of ARC. Now, it is a curious situation that while the similarly placed officials of ARC were extended the benefit of Non Functional Scale pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, the directions of the same very Tribunal in different OA's with respect to the SOs and PSs of SSB have not been extended.
14. We find that in OA No 1767/2010, the issues raised in the OA which is under consideration before us have been discussed, considered and adjudicated upon threadbare.
15. Against this background, we have no hesitation in allowing the present OA.
16. While allowing the same, the impugned orders Annexure A-1 colly. are quashed and set aside. Further, the applicants are held to be entitled to grant of Non Functional Scale on the analogy of the same having been extended to the cadre of ARC vide the order dated 04.10.2013 which has been quoted in the preceding paragraphs of this order.
17. The competent authority shall accordingly issue appropriate orders, granting them Non Functional Scale, on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and on actual terms w.e.f 03.10.2003, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the order dated 04.10.2013 referred to in the preceding paragraph.
18. These directions shall be complied with as expeditiously as possible and certainly not later than 12 weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016
19. The OA stands allowed against the background of these directions."
3.7 Learned counsel for the applicant states that once the basis of the impugned order has been found to be baseless, there is no occasion for the respondents to take a divergent view and to issue the impugned order inter alia restricting the benefit qua the applicant no. 2 with effect from 2017 and denial of the same benefit to applicant no. 1 merely because he has retired is also without any reason. In support of his contention, he further relies upon grounds urged in the OA.
3.8 Learned counsel for the applicant also refers to para Nos. 39 and 40, which reads as under:-
"39. That the contents of paragraph no.4 (s) of the O.A. are admitted to the extent that after bifurcation of SSB, as per the RRs notified on 20.11.2006 the post of Accounts Officer contains the pay scale of Rs.7500-250-12000/- and there is no such clause in the RRs for separate pay scale for SAS and Non-SAS incumbents. It has already mentioned above that the Accounts Cadre of SSB is an un-organized Accounts Cadre and the pay scale of Accounts Officers in SSB was Rs.7450-225-11500 which was upgraded to Rs.7500-250-12000 at par with organized Accounts cadre vide Cab. Sectt. order dated 17.07.99, 02.08.99 and 11.11.08.
Further, the applicant were given pay scale of Rs. 7500- 250- 12000 with effect from the date of their promotion as Accounts Officer which was at par with the pay scale of Accounts Officer of organized Accounts Cadre. Now this parity has been withdrawn by Cab. Sectt. vide their order dated 18.03.2011, as such, the pay scale of Non-SAS Accounts Officer in SSB has been revised from Grade Sinsay Rs. 5400/- to Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in Arsuance of Cab. Sectt. order and 10 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 instructions of MHA as mentioned above.
40. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.4 (t) of the O.A. it is submitted that earlier SSB was a part of DGS(Secretarial) Service and Accounts Officers were given parity at par with Organised Accounts Cadre w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Since Cab. Sectt. has withdrawn this parity, as such the pay scale of Accounts Officer of un- organized Accounts cadre of SSB has also been revised."
4. Opposing the grant of relief learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit more specifically upon para 12 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the Accounts Cadre of SSB is an un-organized Accounts Cadre. The Accounts Cadre of the DGS (Secretarial Service) is also an un- organized Accounts Cadre. The recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission at Para 3.8.5 in respect of un- organized Accounts Cadre are as under:-
"3.8.5 All the posts belonging to the organized accounts cadres are covered in the recommendations contained in Chapter 7.56 relating to Indian audit & Accounts Department. Apart from the posts in the organized accounts cadres, isolated posts of accounts staff in Group 'B' & 'C' exist across various ministries and departments of Central Government. The Accountants belonging to unorganized cadres have always sought parity with the posts in the organized accounts cadres.
Personnel belonging to the organized accounts cadres not only have different duties but their skill requirement is also higher. The personnel belonging to organized accounts cadres have to compulsorily pass departmental examinations like SAS for promotion. Such is not the case for posts relating to accounts work outside the organized accounts cadres. It is, therefore, not possible to draw any comparison between the posts in organized accounts cadres and those outside it. The Commission is, consequently, unable to concede any parity between various posts in organized and unorganized accounts 11 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 cadres. The various posts in unorganized accounts cadres, however, have parity with the ministerial posts and this parity need to be maintained.
The Commission, accordingly, recommends that the existing relativity between the accounts related posts outside organized accounts cadres and ministerial posts shall be maintained.
The government had accepted the above recommendations of the pay commission and at Part B Section-II (III) of Notification dated 29/08/2008 had maintained that "the existing relativity between the accounts related posts outside organized accounts cadres and ministerial posts will be maintained and the accounts staff belonging to unorganized accounts cadres shall be extended the corresponding replacement pay band and grade pay."
4.1 The learned counsel further submitted that after obtaining the concurrence of AS&FA(EA) vide No. S- 474 AS (FA) /11 dated 07.02.2011, MoF (Deptt. of Exp.) vide No.7.5/1/2008/ 1C dated 25.02.2011 and with the approval of Secretary (R) vide Dy. No.640/F/Secy dated 15.03.2011 the Cabinet Secretariat had withdrawn the parity of Accounts Officers in RA&W/DGS(ARC & SFF) with Accounts Officers in Organized Accounts Cadre and issued a revised order bearing No.1/98/2008/EA.I-735 dated 18.03.2011 conveying the sanction of the President regarding grant of revised pay band and grade pay to the Accounts Officer/ Accountant in R&AW/DGS(ARC&SFF) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as under:-
Name of the Post Pay Band Grade Pay
12
Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016
Accounts Officer (SAS qualified) PB-2 Rs.5400/-
Accounts Officer (Non-SAS) PB-2 Rs.4600/-
Accountant PB-2 Rs.4200/-
4.3 It is further submitted that the Accounts Officers of SSB were members of erstwhile DGS (Secretarial) Service. Even after bifurcation of the erstwhile DGS (Secretarial) Service, the parity of Accounts Cadre posts in SSB with Accounts Cadre posts of ARC & SFF who belongs to DGS (ARC & SFF) Secretarial Service has been maintained. Therefore, the parity in Pay Scale admissible to Accounts Officers and Accountants of SSB with the Pay Scale of Accounts Officers and Accountant of DGS(S) Cadre was required to be maintained.
4.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the MHA vide their UO dated 13.01.14 bearing CF-3193624/14 directed SSB to withdraw parity and to issue order in line with Cab. Sectt. Order dated 18.03.2011. Accordingly, in pursuance to Cabinet Sectt. Order dated 18.03.2011 and MHA UO dated 13.01.2014, an Order dated 13.05.2014 revising the following pay scales of Accounts Officer in SSB w.e.f. 01.01.2006 has been issued. Name of the Post Pay Band Grade Pay Accounts Officer (SAS qualified) PB-2 Rs.5400/- 13 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 Accounts Officer (Non-SAS) PB-2 Rs.4600/- Accountant PB-2 Rs.4200/-.
4.5 Since both the applicants are non-SAS Accounts Officers, their Grade Pay from Rs. 5400/- in PB-2 has been downgraded to Rs.4600/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 appropriately.
4.6 Further, it is also submitted that both the applicants had filed an OA No. 331/00032 of 2015 in CAT Allahabad Circuit bench at Nainital (Uttrakhand) for restoration of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. This Tribunal disposed of the said OA vide order dated 18.06.2015 at the admission stage with the following directions:-
"Mr. L.P. Tiwari Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel who appeared on receipt of advance notice submitted that the representation made by the applicant against the order of reduction of pay and for restoration of the Grade Pay is pending adjudication before Director General, Force Head Quarters, SSB, New Delhi i.e. respondent No. 2 and would be decided within eight weeks. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel, the O.A is disposed of at admission stage with a direction to the respondents to take decision in the said representation within the time limit suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents by passing a detailed speaking order under intimation to the applicant. The O.A is accordingly disposed of at admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs."
4.7 The learned counsel further submitted that accordingly, an interim speaking order vide this office order 14 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 No.13/SSB/Pers-I/2014(1)-10087-90 dated 12.08.2015 has been issued under intimation to the applicants mentioning therein that the representations dated 17.06.2014 of Shri H.C. Mainali and dated 10.06.2014 of Shri Joginder Pal, Accounts Officer for restoration of Grade Pay of Rs.5400 to Accounts Officer in SSB w.e.f. 01.01.2006 have been examined. Both the applicants have been granted Grade Pay Rs.4600/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 being Non SAS Accounts Officers. They would be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 if the proposal of SSB for restoration of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to Accounts Officers (Non SAS) in SSB w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
4.8 It is submitted that the case for restoration of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 of the Non-SAS Accounts Officers has not been acceded to by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Therefore, the Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is not admissible to Non-SAS Accounts Officers including the applicants of this OA and conveyed to the applicants vide order dated 31.08.2017 issued by FHQ. Accordingly the representation moved by applicants have been disposed of in pursuance of the order 15 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 dated 18.06.2015 passed by CAT Allahabad Circuit Bench at Nainital in O.A. No.331/32 of 2015 (H.C. Mainali and another Vs. U.O.I. and others).
4.9 Consequent upon the approval of the Cadre Review / Re-structuring in r/o Non-organized cadre of SSB by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs issued order dated 18.10.2017 and subsequently SSB Force Headquarter also issued order dated 15.01.2018 by which Grade Pay of Accounts Officers has been advised to Rs. 5400/- without specifying the Pay Scale Non-ANIKHET /SAS Accounts Officers w.e.f. 18.10.2017.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to draw distinction between the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the applicant of the Coordinate Bench in OA No. 396/2016 decided on 12.04.2017 titled as Thiyam Kiran Singh vs. UOI. No further arguments have been advances by other counsel for the parties.
6. Analysis:
6.1 On careful examination of case, we also find that it apparently not disputed in the counter affidavit that decision regarding cadre review of Non -Combatised Cadres granting the pay scale Rs. 5400/- was taken pursuant to 16 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 office order 18.10.2017 which came to be implemented vide office order dated 15.01.2018. We also find that order of rejection of representation dated 17.06.2014 and 10.06.2017 was disposed of by virtue of the order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the respondents. It is also noticeable that since concurrence was obtained by the Competent Authority, the respondents ought not to have passed the order dated 31.08.2017 so far as the applicant is concerned.
6.2 We find that in the matter passed in Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6027/2014 titled Samir Kumar Majumder vs. The Union of India & Ors. decided on 29.09.2023, the following has been recorded:-
"44. We direct that the appellant will be entitled to take into account the past service rendered by him as substitute teacher in different spells, from the date of obtaining temporary status (04.03.1990). The appellant should be extended the same benefits as were extended to others, who were granted continuity by the letter of 28.12.1998.
45. The appellant has superannuated now. The pay of the appellant shall be re-fixed after granting continuity of service with all consequential benefits in accordance with Clause 6 of the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991. All the necessary increments and allowances due on that basis also should be granted. The retrial benefits also should be consequently reworked. The unpaid arrears amount be paid to the appellant with six percent interest from the respective dates the various amounts fell due. Let the payment be made within eight weeks from today.
46. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court dated 19.07.2011 passed in W.P.C.T. No. 130 of 2009 is set aside. The Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs."17
Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 6.3 We further draw reference from the decision in Civil Appeal Nos.5529-5530 of 2023, titled B.C. Nagaraj & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. decided on 13.09.2023 by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The relevant part of the same reads as under:-
"6. It is not in dispute that the case of Shri N. Ramesh in Writ Petition No. 5855 of 2008, decided by the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court on 13th February 2009, was similar to the present appellants. The learned Single Judge held that the said Shri N. Ramesh was entitled to the benefit of the revised UGC pay scale from 1st January 1996 based on the order dated 15th November 1999. Shri N. Ramesh had superannuated on 28th February 2006 as Physical Education Director from a Government aided college. The judgment of the Karnataka High Court attained finality as a Writ Appeal preferred against the judgment and the Special Leave Petition have been dismissed.
7. It appears that the Order dated 19th October 2006 issued by UGC and the Order dated 4th July 2008 issued by the State Government were not pointed out to the learned Single Judge who decided Writ Petition of Shri N. Ramesh on 13th February 2009. Even in the appeal before the Division Bench and in the Special Leave Petition before this Court, both the orders were not brought to the notice of the Court.
The State Government never applied for the review. It is true that in the subsequent decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court dated 29th April 2011 in Writ Appeal no. 234 of 2007, the High Court noted the directions issued by the UGC on 19th October 2006 and the Government Order dated 4th July 2008 based on the directions of UGC and held that the Government employees were not entitled to a revised pay scale with retrospective effect.
8. It must be noted here that the State Government implemented the order in the case of Shri N. Ramesh. In another order passed by a learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court on 30th July 2012, in Writ Petition no. 62679 of 2012 and other connected matters (Irayya & Ors. v. The Secretary & Ors.), a direction was issued in 18 Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 favour of the similarly placed employees who were entitled to revised UGC pay scales with effect from 1st January 1996 along with all consequential benefits. The order was confirmed by a Division Bench by an order dated 27th August 2013.
9. Along with the same application, the appellants have produced a copy of the order dated 7th January 2014 in the case of one Shri K.C. Patil and Shri S.H. Hallur, who were retired librarians. By the said order, the two librarians, who were similarly placed as the appellants, were granted the benefit of the revised pay scale from 1st January 1996 along with consequential benefits in terms of the order dated 15th November 1999.
Therefore, not only in the case of Shri N. Ramesh but even thereafter in 2014, to the employees who were similarly placed as the appellants, the benefits of the revised UGC pay scale in terms of the Government order dated 15th November 1999 were granted.
10. The State Government ought to have applied for review of the order of this Court in the case of Shri N. Ramesh. However, the Government had allowed the said order to become final. Notwithstanding the Government Order of 4th July 2008, as can be seen from the additional documents, the benefit was granted to the employees who were similarly placed with the appellants even on 7th January 2014. It was a conscious decision of the State Government to accept the decision of the High Court in the case of Shri N. Ramesh.
Now, the State Government cannot rely upon the Government Order dated 4th July 2008, which was not pointed out to the Courts which dealt with the case of Shri N. Ramesh as the State Government accepted the judgment in the case of Shri N. Ramesh and granted benefits to him of the Government Order dated 15th November 1999. There is no reason why the appellants should be denied the same relief, especially when even as of 7th January 2014, the same benefit was granted to the similarly placed employees.
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 9th October 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. We direct the State Government to extend the benefits under the Government Order dated 15th November 1999 to the appellants within a period of three months from today. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs.
12. We make it clear that this judgment will apply to all cases, pending before either the Administrative Tribunal or High Court, of similarly situated employees in which a similar relief is claimed.19
Item No. 3 (Suppl. List) O.A. No. 85/2016 However, this judgment shall not be used to file new cases by retired employees who have been denied the benefit and who have not challenged the action till date.
No case, which has been concluded, shall be reopened on the basis of this judgment."
7. In view of the aforesaid, the OA is allowed with aforesaid terms. We quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 13.5.2014 and 21.07.2014 and direct that the Competent Authority amongst the respondent who shall pass appropriate orders in respect of similar benefits to the applicant no. 1 as accorded to applicant no. 2. No recovery, if any, ought to be initiated qua the applicants. We also direct the aforesaid direction shall be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
8. The OA stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sm/