Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Surinder Pal vs M/O Defence on 29 January, 2025
1- O.A. No. 1095/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.1095/2021
Pronounced on: 29.01.2025
Reserved on: 22.01.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. No. 14272531N. Sh. Surinder Pal s/o Sh. Maghi Ram Sharma, aged
50 years, CSBO Grade-I, WCCSR, Chandimandir -134107.
2) No. 14272655H, Sandeep Kumar s/o Sh. Chote Lal, CSBO Grade-1,
WCCSR-134107.
3) No. 14272548F, Amarjeet Kaur, w/o Late Sh. Vikaramjeet Singh,
CSBO Grade-I, WCCSR-134107
4) No. 14271988H, Chandu Lal Negi s/o Sh. Gina Ram, Tele Supervisor,
WCCSR-134107
5) No. 14272468K, Sh. Prasanna Kr Das s/o Sh. Sona Ram Das. Tele
Supervisor, WCCSR-134107
6) No. 14272469M, Sh. Indu Kumar Hazarika s/o Late Sh. Baga Ram,
CSBO Grade-I, WCCSR-134107.
7) No. Ex- 6376952X, Sh Bhupinder Singh s/o Sh. Satpal Singh, CSBO
Grade-I. WCCSR134107
8) No. 14273236X, Rajbeer s/o Sh. Raj Kumar, CSBO Grade-II,
WCCSR134107,
9) No. 14272546W, Baljit Kaur W/o Rajinder Singh, CSBO Grade-I,
WCCSR134107
10) No. 14273241H, Sh. Jaimuni s/o Sh. Jagat Ram, CSBO Grade-II,
Station, HQ, Kasauli-173202.
11) No 14272690L Sh. Sukhvinder Singh s/o Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, CSBO
Grade-I, WCSR, Chandimandir-134107.
12) No. 14273167N. Mrs. Shyamli w/o Sh. Piyush Sharma, CSBO Grade-
II, WCSR, Chandimandir-134107.,
13) No. 14272769N. Sh. Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Jaipal Singh, CSBO
Grade-I, WCSR, Chandimandir-134107.
14) No. 14273213W, Mrs. Jyotshna Pal w/o Sh. Rajesh Pal Kumar, CSBO
Grade-II, WCSR, Chandimandir-134107.
2- O.A. No. 1095/2021
15) No. 14272758F, Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Hawa Singh, CSBO
Grade-i WCSR, Chandimandir-134107,
16) No. 14273049Y. Sh. Paramjit Singh s/o Sh. Dilwag Singh Chillar,
CSBO Grade-II, WCSR, Chandimandir 134107.
17) No. 14273281K, Sh. Dhruv s/o Sh.Om Parkash, CSBO Grade-II.
Station HQ, Ferozepur-152001
18)Smt. Santosh Kumari w/o Late Sh. Ravinder Sharma, (Retd CSBO
Grade-1), r/o kothi No. 33 Bharpur Garden Opp, New Moti Bagh Palace,
Patiala-147001. (Retd from St. HQ, Patiala)
19)Jagdish Singh s/o Late Sh. Gopal Singh (Retd CSBO Grade-1) r/o
House No. 519/3, Mohalla Khalsa, Patiala-147001. (Retd from Stn. HQ,
Patiala).
20)Smt. Surjit Kaur w/o Late Sh. Gurcharan Singh, (Retd CSBO Grade-
1) r/o House no. 5, A-One Street, Gurbax Colony, Patiala-147001. (Retd
from Stn. HQ, Patiala).
21)Sh. Madan Chandra Urma s/o Late Sh. Kalicharan Urma, (CSBO
Grade-I Retd) r/o House No. 4097A, 11ST Floor, Sector-46-D.
Chandigarh-160047. (Retd from WCCSR, Chandimandir)
22). Sh. S.K. Khosla, s/o Sh. Girdhari Lal, (CSBO Grade-I, Retd.) House
No. RN. 17A, Mahesh Nagar. Ambala Cantt-133001. Retd from WCCSR,
Chandimandir).
(All the applicants are Group-C employees)
All the applicants are working except Sr. no. 18 to 22 as they have
retired from service.
.... Applicants
By Advocate: Mr. K.B. Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2 SO-in-C (Signal Officer-in-Chief), Directorate General of Signals,
Signals-4 (C) GS Branch, DHQ, PO New Delhi-110011
3 Officer-in-Charge, The Signals Records, Jabalpur (M.P.)
4 Commanding Officer, Western Command, Composite Signal Regiment,
Chandimandir-134107
5 Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (P), Draupadi Ghat
Allahabad(U.P).
6. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, Western Command, Sector-
9, Chandigarh - 160009.
3- O.A. No. 1095/2021
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with Mr. Pankaj
Khurana
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:-
"(i) That the impugned letter dated 31.08.2021(Annexure A-10) be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That respondents be directed to extend them benefit of judgment dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure A-5) passed by the Hon'ble Principal Bench in O.A. No. 3204/2011, upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 32936.2017 on 15.11.2019 and grant them benefit of 1st, 2nd and 3rd MACPs in the Grade pay of Rs. 4200/-, 4600/- and 4800/-from due dates and grant them all consequential benefits arising out of such fixation of pay with interest @ 12% p.a including revised pensionary benefits in case of retired employees.
2. The applicants who are working or retired as Tele/Switch Board Supervisor, Civilian Switch Board Operator (hereinafter referred to as 'CSBO') Grade I and Grade II. The controversy involved in the present case is that the Government of India vide order dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure A-4) sanctioned the Time Bound Promotion Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'TBPS') to CSBO under General Staff Branch common roaster of the Defence Department w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as per which they CSBOs were granted 1st TBPS to the post of CSBO I in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 and 2nd TBPS to the post of Tele/SB Supervisors 4- O.A. No. 1095/2021 in the scale of Rs.5500-9000. However, in the year 2008, on the recommendations of 6th CPC, the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, 5500- 9000 and 6500-10500 were merged in one pay Grade PB-2 in the grade pay of Rs.4200 and thus the time bound promotion scheme became ineffective. The Government of India issued clarification/instructions, inter alia, stating that the employees, who have been granted financial upgrdation under the ACP Scheme/one time bound promotion scheme in the erstwhile scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 are eligible to get the next higher grade pay.
3. The similarly situated employees raised this issue before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3204/2011 titled Madhu Sudan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others claiming financial upgradations under MACP Scheme in Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, Rs. 4600/- and Rs.4800/- on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service which was allowed vide order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure A-5). The respondents challenged the said decision of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of CWP No. WP(C) No. 3974/2017 which was allowed vide judgment dated 09.05.2017 (Annexure A-6) and the SLP No. 32936/2017 filed there against by the Department was also dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. Despite the representations filed by the applicants, who are similarly situated like the applicants in the case of Madhu Sudan (supra), the respondents did not extend the similar benefit to the applicants herein.
5. The respondents filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicants while relying upon condition no. 13 of MACP Scheme 5- O.A. No. 1095/2021 which state that the both Time Bound and MACP schemes shall not run concurrently.
6. The applicants have also filed rejoinder reiterating their contentions.
7. From the perusal of the decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Madhu Sudan (supra), it is seen that the controversy raised herein has already been settled, upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. The aspect of validity of the condition 13 of the MACP Scheme that both Time Bound and MACP schemes shall not run concurrently, has already been examined in the case of Madhu Sudan (supra) by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and it has held as under:-
"12. The grounds for rejection of the applicants' claim clearly is the provisions of para 13 of the MACP Scheme which states that time bound promotion scheme and MACP Scheme cannot run concurrently. However, we find that in the case of Drivers, the Government themselves have allowed the concurrent application of both the time bound scheme and the MACP Scheme. Moreover, it would be clear from the order of the CAT Mumbai Bench that the Department of Posts have adopted the MACP Scheme. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondents cannot take the stand that as per para 13 of the Guidelines, MACP and time bound promotion scheme cannot run concurrently or having adopted the time bound scheme it cannot be jettisoned for adopting the MACP Scheme in light of the OM dated 19.05.2009 regarding Drivers and the Department of Posts to give up the CSBO scheme altogether and adopting the MACP Scheme, as this would clearly be discrimination. Moreover, the government introduced the scheme for the benefit of employees and therefore, choice should have been left to the employees at the time MACP Scheme was introduced whether or not they would like to continue with the old scheme or adopt the new 6- O.A. No. 1095/2021 scheme. Having not done so the respondents cannot discriminate between different employees as regards these benefits. We, therefore, see merit in the OA and the same is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to grant financial upgradation to the applicants under MACPs in the grade pay of Rs.4200, 4600 and 4800 on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service under the MACP Scheme. No costs."
8. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicants are not similarly situated like the applicants in the case of Madhu Sudan (supra), as is evident from the letter dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure A-10) wherein they only stated that the Government sanction for implementation of court order for grant of MACP to all CSBOs other than the 36 applicants (O.A. No. 3240/2011) has not yet been recieved. The action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of the judicial pronouncement to the similarly situated employees just for the reason that they were not party in that relevant case is illegal in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. C. Lalitha, 2006 (1) SC, 640 and by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) SCT 354.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the issue involved in the instant O.A. has already been settled by the Principal Bench in the case of Madhu Sudan (supra), which has attained finality and stands implemented qua the applicants therein, therefore, the applicants being similarly situated like the applicants in the case aforementioned are entitled to the similar benefits. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of the aforementioned decision in the case of Madhu Sudan (Supra) to the applicants herein, being similarly situated like the applicants in the said case. The needful 7- O.A. No. 1095/2021 be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Original Application stands allowed. No costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
'mw'