Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ss Tomar vs Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... on 28 July, 2017
(OA No. 060/00104/2015 ) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Order reserved on: 17.07.2017 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 060/00104/2015 om a Chandigarh, this the £8 day of July, 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J) & HON" BLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A) 1. 8.8. Tomar, s/o Shri Munshi Rarn, aged about €9 years, R/o 249, Sector 11, Panchkula (Haryana) 134 112. 2. Suresh Chand, s/o ShriPréem Chand, House NO. 1450, Sector Panchktlla _ Dr. Amod Ku aged about 68 years, r/o laryana)134 113 ava Chandra, aged about 56 . bout 62 years, (Haryana)134 Gtidhar, ages about 65 j Baltana 140 603 70, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana) 134 113. 7. Subhash Chander Jain, s/o Late Shri Rattan Chand Jain, aged about 62 years, R/o No. 2912, CHB, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh. 8. Surinder Kumar Angra, s/o Shri Fakir Chand, aged about 65 years, R/o House No. 315, Sector &6-A, Chandigarh. .. APPLICANTS (Argued by: Shri Navdeep Singh , Advocate) en VERSUS wy ? 2 f (OA No. 060/00104/2015 ) 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Dethi- 110001. | 2. Director General-cum-Secretary, Government of India, Council of Science and Industrial Research, Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001. .. .RESPONDENTS (By Advocate: Shri I.S. Sidhu) ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)--
(Annexure (Annexure A
101) taken | of Expenditure (DoE), x aly in"fitment Table in declining thei revised pay inthe fi of pre-revised highe scale:S- 26°Ir 5-24 scale,
2. The facts in brief, are that all the applicants were in ~ service as on 1.1.2006 (in the senior grades) with the Central Scientific Instruments Organization (CSIO), an organ of CSIR. Their case is that in the wake of implementing the recommendations of the 6" Central Pay Commission report their pay has not been correctly fixed. According to ther, anomalies had arisen in the fitment tables of pay scale S-26 vis-a-vis S-24 & S-25, The officers belonging », to scale S-26 and S-27 are placed at lower pay in the revised pay in (OA No. 060/00104/2015 ) the running Pay Band-4 in comparison to junior of pre-revised lower S-24 and S-25 scale despite their pre-revised pay scale S-26 and S-
27 being higher. Thus there is a big recurring monetary loss to every individual belongs to both S-26 and S$-27 scales. They have cited anomalies in details as under.
3.
i) Rs. 18,300/18,700 of scale S-25 and Rs. 18,400 of scale S-29 are fixed to revised pay of Rs, 44,700. Whereas Rs. 18,200 of scale S-26 and scale $-27 is fixed to lower pay at Rs. 42,120/- and Rs. 18,650 of these two pre-revised scales is fixed to lower pay at Rs. 43,370.
witys@ net loss of rs.
-26 and 'S-27 is fixed to 1350 in their
5. 21350/21800 47,440/-, 2400" 0F S-30 are fixed to oO whereas Rs. 22240 of S-
Rs..48,870 at a net loss rbasic pay:
700..for pre-revised S-25 scale whereas pre-revised S-26 and S-27, being higher to S-25 scale, are given Rs. 8900 Grade Pay but in pay revision these scales S-26 and S-27 are lowered. Thus the increments and the pay --scales were higher in pre-
revised two scales S-26 and S-27, these higher scale are given less pay in fitment/fixation of pay under revised pay in the running pay Band-4 then the lower pre-revised scale S-25. As such, there had been some administrative/cierical miscalculation in fitment tables in revised pay in running pay band PB-4 for S-26 and S-27 scales and the same needs to be corrected.
The applicant no. 1 preferred representations dated 23.1.2009, 26.5.2009, 29.10.2009, however, the same were not ' te 'ols (OA No. 060/00104/2015 ) accepied vide letter dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure A-3). The petition dated 29.10.2009 preferred by the applicant to P.M. office was forwarded to the Secretary, (DoE), Ministry of Finance vide letter dated 24.11.2009. The applicant again submitted representation dated 14.4.2012 (page 101). Ultimately, the request of the applicant for removal of anomalies in fitment table was rejected by the Ministry of Finance, (DoE) vide decision dated 30.7.2014 conveyed through letter dated 8.8.2014 (Annexure A-8). Hence the instant O.A. with the following prayers.
i) That.8 rectify the admitte S-26 vis-a-vis appended.wit Je to nadvert Respondent No. 1.wh legitimately expected:
consequential" benefits pensionary and post-r fy, with all no limited to the icable.
Respondent No. 1 be directed to rectify the said anomaly by | upgrading the fitment of the Applicants and similarly placed employees at a rate above or at least equal to inferiar/subordinate scales rather than expressing helplessness towards the issue, with all consequential benefits as prayed for in the main prayer."
4. The respondents refuted the claim of the applicants and filed written statement, wherein preliminary objection has been taken that the O.A. is barred by limitation and no application has been filed for condonation of delay and as such O.A, deserves to be dismissed (OA No. 060/00104/2015 ) on this ground alone. It is further stated that recommendation of the 6" CPC in respect of fitment relating to pay scales S-24, S-25 and . 26 has lost its relevance because the Govt. in substantially improving the pay structure and the fitment benefit in respect of these pay scales over and above the pay structure recommended by the 6° CPC, altered the pay scales upwardly, necessitating a different methodology for fitment in these pay scales, which has resulted in benefits much higher than what was recommended by the 6" CPC ised-pay scales in 4 ay applicable to to S-27. As regards fitment rom preécrevised to revised pay structure, the commission in para 2.2.21 of its report recommended for a multiple factor of 1.74 to be applied on the existing pay (Pre-revised pay as on 1.1.2006) for arriving at the revised pay in the pay band.
The reason why fitment of 1.74 was taken was the rate of Dearness Allowance 74% as on 1.1.2006 without taking into account merger of 50% DA as Dearness Pay which was allowed by the Govt. from 1.4.2004., (OA No. 060/00104/2015 )
5. On merit it is submitted that the fitment table prescribed by Govt. in terms of the OM dated 30.8.2008 in respect of various pay scales including S-26 is based on reasonable parameters occasioned in the light of the improvements made by the Govt. on the recommendations of the 6" CPC for overall benefit of employees in general, and in particular the employees in the 4 pay scales from S- 24 to S-27 which were upgraded from PB 3 to PB 4, and reflecting the principles of fixation of pay contained in the Rule 7 of the CCS nN pre-revised S-24 and S-25 aS compared fo the applicants was getting basic pay in the pre- revised scales at Rs. 19.100/- like the applicant no. 1 and 5 in particular. The fitment tables for various pay scales including S-24, S- 25 and S-26 have been devised strictly in accordance with the position as emerging out of the improvements made by the Govt. on the recommendations of the 6" CPC for overall benefit of all empioyees and as per the principle of fixation of pay recommended ~~ (QA No, 060/00104/2015 ) by the 6" CPC. The applicants have conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that the 6° cpc recommended fitment multiple 1.74 and not 1.86. the fitment multiple of 1.86 was as a result of improvement made by the Govt. Since the fitment recommend by the 6" CPC, which has been quoted by the applicant in respect of the stage of Rs. 19,100 in pay scale of 9-24, S-25 and S-26 were specifically pertaining to lower PB 3 and a lower multiple of 1.74, the same is not significant in the wake of significant improvements made by the Govt.
by not only upgrading these pi to multiple of 2.61), 'buriching and it is for this reason that twc ac "slages..in hese pa Scales had been increment-of 3% fst :
ae | fitted in the same lev after.a stages. Based on this the stag 400 in this pay scale comes to Rs. 44700/-. Since the next pay scale of S-25 is the Selection Grade of IAS and IFS, extra two increments had to be given and as such the stage of Rs. 15100 in the pay scale was required to be fitted at a level higher than the fitment stage for the same stage of rs.
15100 in the scale of S-24. This is how, the stage of Rs. 19100 comes to the revised stage of Rs. 46050/-.
(OA No. 060/00104/2015 )
6. it is further pleaded that scale of S-26, the minimum pre-
revised stage was Rs. 16400. This stage also fell in the next higher Pay scale of S-27. In the further higher scale of S-28 there was no stage of Rs. 16400 but a Stage of Rs. 16550. The Stage of Rs. 16550 in the S-28 scale is fitted at Rs. 39690 in the S-28 scale is fitted at Rs, 39690 and, therefore, obviously the Stage of Rs. 16400 in the pay scales S-26 and S-27 could not have been higher than this stage. It may be seen that the revised stage of Rs. 39890 has been prescribed for the pre-revised stages.of R O0-in.the scales of S-26 and S-
27 and also for Rs for the higher ps y scale of S-28. This is a athe light of the in view of two ration vis-a-vis not anomalous respondents, and reiterating € groun 5 contained in the O.A., the applicant has filed rejoinder,
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable help.
9. The learned counsel for applicants has placed on record following judgments in support of their claim:
1) 1989 AIR (SC) 669- M.L. Jain Vs. Union of India.
2) 1997 (2) S.C.T. 664- Union of India Vs. P. Jagdish.
s 3) 2008 (4) S.C.T. 453- Union of India and Anr. Vs. SPS Vains ee 3, a (OA No. 060/00104/2015 )
4) 1991 (1) S.C.T. 441 Air Vice Marshal S.N. Chaturvedi Vs. UO! & Ors.
10. The learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2000 SCC (1 g §) 53- Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Udham Singh Kamal and Others in support of his contention.
14. We have carefully considered the facts, the arguments placed before us by the rival counsels and have gone through the record,
42. the case 6f the applicant relates to the fitment Stage in 5° Fitment for pre-
CPS scale revised -- 8-26 as on | sca ; Scale in 6" CPC 31.12.2005 | w. ef 01.07.2008" cs | wef. 01.01.2006 Rs. 19,700 4470048700(P 8); 460: £50 °43390+8900(PB) =§3, 400%, . | 82,290 As ts evident from the above table, the case of the applicant is that while the pay scale of Rs. 19,700 was revised to Rs. 44,700 + 8700 = Rs. 53,400 in the case of S-24 and Rs. 46,050 + 8700 = Rs. 54,750 in S-25 scale, it has been revised to 43390 + 8900= Rs, 52,290 in S- 26 which is less. This, according to the applicant, is unacceptable on account of the fact that 9-26 happens to be a higher pay bracket than S-24 and S-25. In other words, it is a case where a person holding a higher position in terms of pay scale, is offered a lower salary NaS yo 4 (OA No. 060/00104/2015 ) ij justification for creating special fitment tables for Day scales from S- 24 to S-27, However, neither the detailed written statement nor the impugned order throws any light on the anomaly with respect to the fitment of a particular scale, namely, 19,100 that figures in S-24 S-25 and 5-26. No explanation had been offered as to how an employee belonging to S-24 drawing a basic pay of Rs. 19,100 in the pre- revised scale, could be given a fitment that entitles him to get more Salary than an employee drawing the basic pay of Rs. 19,700 but belonging to a higher S-26.ca The-same is true with respect to he justification for continuing with this anomaly is not forthcomi ing in any of the documents placed before us by the respondents.
15. As it is evident that this anomaly remains unexplained and lagically therefore, unresolved, we consider it just and proper to direct the respondents to examine this whole issue in the light of observations made by us in the preceding paragraphs and pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing this anomaly. The (OA No. 060/00104/2015 ) impugned order dated 30.07.2014, being inadequate, is accordingly quashed.
16. The respondents are further directed to consider the representations already made by the applicants in this regard and fake a view Specifically on the anomaly as pointed out in paragraphs above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
sae DAY KUMAR VARMA) 2 Le pratense Noy Ay 30 oe iy E.MLS"SULLAR)
- MEMBER (J) (JUSTIE Dated: $8.07.2017 ND*