Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
K Rama Sharma vs M/O Defence on 21 July, 2017
S564 f IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD O.A. No.021/01190/2015 Date of Order :21.07.2017. Between : 1. K.Rama Sharma, s/o late K.Seethapathi Rao, aged about 60 yrs, Occ:Scientist-G, - Research Centre Imarat Vignayanakancha, Hyderabad-69, r/o Hyderabad. 2. Dr.N.Manickam, s/o G.Narayanasamy, aged about 60 yrs, Occ:Scientist-G, Advanced Systems Laboratory, Defence Research and Development Organization, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-58, r/o Hyderabad. 3. P.Raghavendra Rao, s/o P.Satyanarayana, aged about 60 yrs, Occ:Scientist-G, Centre for High Energy Systems and Sciences Defence Research and Development Organization, Hyderabad, r/o Hyderabad. ... Applicants And 1. Union of India, rep., by the Secretary to the Govt., M/o Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2. Defence Research and Development Organization, rep., by the Director General Research and Development, M/o Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110 001. 3. The Director General (Personnel), M/o Defence, DRDO Bhavan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110 001. 4. The Principal Controller General of Defence Accounts, Allahabad. ... Respondents Counsel for the Applicants .. Mr.Siva | Counsel for the Respondents _. Mr.T.Hanumantha Reddy, #rePe" for Central Govt. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.MINNIE MATHEW, MEMBER (ADMN.) to ORAL ORDER
{ As per Hon'ble Mrs.Minnie Mathew, Member (Admn.) } The applicants retired as Scientist 'G' in Laboratories under the administrative control of the 1" and 2™ respondents. Based on a policy decision taken by the first applicant, the 3° respondent had issued orders on 03.02.1999 providing incentives to Scientists in the department keeping in view the role played by them in the development of High Technology and Systems for Strategic Applications. As per the said order, the Scientists in the pay scale of Rs18,400-22,400/- would be given a special pay of Rs.2000/- in lieu of a separate higher pay scale after peer review. The special pay was subsequently revised upward to Rs.4000/- with effect from VI Pay Commission on 1.1.2006. In accordance with the aforesaid policy decision, the applicants were extended the benefit of Special Pay and have drawn pay and allowances duly incuding the special pay. However, when they retired their terminal benefits and pension was fixed without including the special pay drawn by them as stated in the order dated 03.02.1999,
2. The applicants contend that the same benefit was granted to the Scientists working in the Department of Space and Department of Atomic Energy. When the special pay was not included for the purpose of determination of terminal benefits due to them, the Scientists of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) challenged the action in O.A.No.1153/2002 before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said OA was partly allowed by order dated 14.05.2003 quashing the non-inclusion of the special pay as pay for the purposes of pension. The respondents were also directed to re-consider the matter including grant of special pay of Rs.2000/- per month to the Scientists/Engineers 'H' in the Department of Space with effect from 1.1.1996. This order was implemented by the Department of Space as well as Department of Atomic Energy by ordering that the special pay be treated as part of pay for the purposes of pensionary benefits. Pursuant to this, the similarly placed Scientists in the DRDO also filed O.A.No.184/2006. Aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal in favour of the applicants therein, the respondents filed Writ Petition No.267/2008, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 26.9.2008. The Hon'ble High Court had also given a finding that the special pay can be treated as pay as defined under Rule 9 (21) of the Central Civil Services (Fundamental Rules) and held that the Tribunal had not committed any error in allowing the same. The Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents against the order of the Hon'ble High Court was also dismissed on 70.4.2009. Thereafter, the Ministry of Defence issued an order dated 13.5.2009, wherein Presidential sanction was conveyed to count the special pay of Rs.2000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and Rs.4000/- from 1.1.2006 for pension and pensioary benefits. In pursuance of this order, the 2" respondent also issued a letter to all the Directors of the Laboratories under its control requesting that necessary action may be initiated to revise the pension payment orders of Scientist 'G' who retired/superannuated. Accordingly, proposals were sent for revision of the pension payment orders and release all the arrears. However, the pension payment orders were not amended and amounts due to the applicants have not been released as on date.
3. The applicants also contend that the inaction of the respondents was assailed in a batch of cases. The Tribunal had thereupon directed that the benefit is liable to be passed on to all those who are similarly placed. It is the case of the applicants that they are similarly placed as the applicants in the OAs before this Bench. However, the respondents have failed to release the arrears due to them.
4. The applicants point out that the inaction of the respondents in not revising the pension payment order with effect from the date of their retirement inspite of the directions of this Tribunal that similar treatment is to be meted out to those who are similarly placed is arbitrary and discriminatory. They point out that this is a clear case of making an invidious discrimination to those who approached this Tribunal and those who did not. Thus, in view of the invidious discrimination meted out to them, they are drawing pension lower than what they are legally entitled to.
5. The respondents have filed reply statement contesting the OA. The respondents concede that OA.No.184/2006 filed by certain retired Scientists 'G' of DRDO had been allowed by this Tribunal with a direction to extend the benefit to the applicants as has been done by the Department of Space and Department of Atomic Energy, if they are similarly situated to the applicants in O.A.No.1153/2002 before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal. They also concede that the Writ Petition filed by them against the said order in O.A.No.184/2006 was dismissed. The SLP filed against the orders of the Hon'ble High Court was also dismissed with the following observations:
"On the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, the question of Law is left open."
It is also confirmed by the respondents that the Government therefter had issued the Annexure.A-9 letter dated 13.5.2009 for counting of special pay for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits in respect of Scientists 'G'. However, since the question of law was left open by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said Government letter was issued without prejudice to further legal recourse in the matter or any other subsequent matter.
6. The respondents also submit that after the issuance of the Government letter dated 13.5.2009, the pension authority at Allahabad referred the matter to the Controller General of Defence Accounts, New Delhi (CGDA) to clarify as to whether the Government letter shall be applicable only to the litigants or to all similarly placed Scientists 'G' of DRDO. It was thereafter held that the order dated 13.5.2009 issued by the Ministry of Defence cannot be implemented by PCDA (Pension), Allahabad in other similar cases in the absence of such orders by the nodal ministry for pension. Consequently, the applicability of Government letter dated 13.5.2009 was restricted to the applicants only.
7. It is also submitted by the respondents that Rule 9 (21) (a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules reads as under:
"(i) The pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualification, which has been sanctioned to a post held by him substantively or in officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reason of his pension in a cadre......"
8. It is contended that from the above it is clear that the special pay of any kind does not form part of emoluments, which can be reckoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
9. The respondents' case is that since Rule 33 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 read with Rule 9 (21) (1 (i) of the Fundamental Rules does not provide for special pay to be counted for pension and the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dimsised SLPs leaving the question of law open, the applicants are not entitled to the relief prayed for. It is also stated that a similar matter was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.12706/2015 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court had issued notice to the Scientists in the SLP and stayed the contempt proceedings, if any. Since then the Hon'ble Apex Court issued ay notices in number of SLPs filed by the Union of India on similar matters and the same SLPs © are presently pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondents also submit that the applicants were not parties in the earlier OAs and orders issued previously are not applicable to the applicants.
10. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
11. The learned counsel for the Applicants heavily relied on the subsequent judgments of this Tribunal in O.A.No.1153/2002, O.A.NO.306/2010, which pertain to the DRDO itself and which was allowed by this Tribunal with the following direction:
"Therefore, this OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to make comlete payment by 37° January 2011 of the pension and pensionary benefits to all the Scientists 'G' (including the applicants) who have retired/superannuated. In terms of the aforesaid letter dated 13" May 2009. Any further delay thereafter would entitle the applicants 9% compound rate of interest per month on the dues, Cost of Rs.1,000/- is imposed on the respondents which would be paid to the applicants by 31° March 201]. Any further delay would entitle the applicants 9% simple rate of interest per month on the amount of cost. Respondent No.] is free to recover the amount of cost from the official(s) responsible for this unnecessary litigation/harassment to the retired Scientists 'G' (including the applicants) and, the precious loss of money and time."
12. Following this order, this Tribunal had further allowed OA.No.851/2012, dated 27.7.2012, O.A.No.284/2013, dated 9.7.2013 and O.A.No.1426/2013, dated 20.11.2013.
13. The learned counsel for the Applicants argued that the respondents are selectively implementing the orders only in respect of persons who have approached the Tribunal ten hee inspite of the unequivocal and categorical direction of this Tribunal in O.A.No.306/2010 that the benefit shoud be extended to all the Scientists 'G' including the applicants who have retired/superannuated in terms of the letter dated 13.052009.
14. Mr.Jose Kollanoor representing the learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, argued that the question of law is still left open and that there are several SLPs pending on similar issues before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the matter has not attained finality.
15. Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record, it is clear that this Tribunal had in several OAs as mentioned in Para 12 (supra) directed that the special pay granted to the Scientists 'G' be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. In OA.No.306/2010, dated 07.01.2011, this Tribunal had categorically held that the inaction of the authorities had deprived the superannuated applicants belonging to the distinguished class of Scientists of their dues at an advanced age and has caused unnecessary expenditure to the applicants and the Government by continuing the litigation. eee while allowing the OA, a direction was issued to complete payment of pension and pensionary benefits to all Scientists 'G' including the applicants who have retired/superannuated The respondents have not shown any material to show that they have _ challenged the orders of this Tribunal in OA.No.306/2010.
16. From the reply statement, it is seen that the authorities have been implementing the direction for including the special pay for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits to Scientists who have got favourable orders from the Tribunal/Hon'ble High Court.
Ay
- Ty
17. It is a settled position of law that where there are similarly situated persons and when the same relief is granted to a few persons who approached the Court and there are others who are similarly situated, the Government on its own should grant the same relief to others as well and should not force them to approach the Court. This dictum has been laid down in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Dhawan v. State of Punjab (1997 (2) SLJ 589), Satyapal Singh v. State of Haryana (1999 (2) RSJ 371) and Amirtlal Berry vs Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi (1995 (1) SLJ 153 SC). Further, in Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor (2000 (1) SCC 644), the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down that precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice and that the Tribunal is bound by the judgments of the Coordinate Benches. Thus, following the orders of this Tribunal in OA.No.306/2010, OA.No.85 1/2012, dated 27.7.2012, O.A.No.284/2013, dated 9.7.2013 and O.A.No.1426/2013, dated 20.11.2013, this OA is allowed. The applicants are entitled for counting the special pay drawn by them for payment of pension and pensionary benefits. The respondents are directed to disburse the arrears thereof. However, it is made clear that this order shall be subject to the final outcome of the pending SLPs filed by the Respondents.
srrera WTA CERTIFIED TRUE COPY a ae etROA\: A Jalis ~ os oS: sul Tou Berm "Silall7 oom at iat gy Te eAT archer?
carbons CAtiosg / Couct officer a roe ver WUT ayhizewrear ;
Sail seareitee S Tribuna Weeerare mares Hyderabad Benct
18. There shall no order as to costs.
Toe ORR ER Cot a need sre