Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Tara Nath Singh vs M/O Defence on 25 August, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/336/2023
Date of order: This, the 25th day of August 2025
HON'BLE MRS. HARVINDER OBEROI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Between
No. 6406633H FED Tara Nath Singh,
Aged about 53 years
S/o Late Faudar Singh,
310 Petroleum Platoon, ASC, Missamari, Sonitpur,
Pin - 905310, C/o - 99 APO.
.......Applicant
By Advocates: Sri A.R. Tahbildar
1. The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government
Of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. The OIC Records,
ASC Records(South), Bangalore,
Pin - 560007, C/o - 56 APO.
3. The Accounts Officer,
Area Accounts Office,
Bivar Road, Shillong - 793001.
4. The Comptroller of Defence Accounts
Narengi, Guwahati.
5. The Officer Commanding,
310 Petroleum PI ASC,
Digitally signed by O.A. No.040/336/2023
SOURABH KUMAR
2
Missamari, Sonitpur,
Pin - 905310, C/o - 99 APO.
.......Respondents
By Advocate: Sri R. Hazarika, Addl. CGSC
ORDER (ORAL)
PER MRS. HARVINDER OBEROI, MEMBER (J):
The applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):
"8.1 To direct the authorities to pay the upgraded scale of pay that includes all the components of such pay to the applicant to which he is entitled to & to upgrade the Grade Pay of the applicant under 6th CPC, as upgraded to other Fire Fighting Cadre.
8.2 To direct the authorities for immediate re-fixation of the applicant's pay with effect from the date he is entitled to such upgradation of his pay.
8.3 To direct the authorities to pay arrears to the applicant to which he is entitled to on upgradation of his scale of pay with adequate interest thereon.
8.4 To quash and set aside any order/direction passed or action taken by the authorities that has the effect of depriving the applicant from upgradation of his pay with all its components or make him suffer loss to any financial benefits to which the applicant is otherwise entitled to.
8.5 To pass such other or further order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Fireman Grade II (Group-D) on 02.05.1988 in the Army Service Corps(ASC). Thereafter, Digitally signed by O.A. No.040/336/2023 SOURABH KUMAR 3 he was promoted to the post of Fire Engine Driver(FED) on 26.07.1999 which is a Group-C post. The applicant is basically comparing his services with one Shri Bijoy Kumar Limbu, LFM, who was also appointed on the same date and rank as of the applicant, is getting higher pay in the rank of LFM than the applicant who is holding the senior most post of FED since 1999. The only difference being is that the said Sri Bijoy Kr. Limbu was never promoted from Group-D to Group-C post. However, he was upgraded from Group-D to Group- C post under the recommendation of the 6th CPC and was, therefore, getting equal pay with that of the applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is senior to said Sri Bijoy Kumar Limbu and as such, the applicant cannot be getting the same salary as that of said Sri Limbu. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the issue was raised by the applicant on a number of occasions. However, on 23.12.2021, the Office of the LAO(Army), Tezpur has Digitally signed by O.A. No.040/336/2023 SOURABH KUMAR 4 stated that the service documents of the applicant has not been audited by the ALAO FSD Missamari after 2010. The local audit office had requested the concerned authority to review the service book of the applicant. Counsel submits that in 2010 itself, the four grade promotional scheme applicable to the Civilian Drivers had been extended to the Fire Engine Drivers which were then merged with the Fire Fighting Cadre leading to this anomaly.
3. The respondents on issuance of notice has filed their counter affidavit/written statement, wherein at para 11, they have stated as follows:
"...........
11. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 4.15 of the O.A., the deponent begs to state that it was intimated to the Applicant by the Unit that as per MACP Scheme one should compare only with same rank and trades. The Applicant and LMF Bijoy Kumar Limbu were appointed on the same date and same grade Fireman Grade-II on 07.05.1988 under S-3 2650-65-3300-70-4000. He was promoted from Fireman Gd-II to FED in the pay Scale S-5 3050-75-3950-80-4590 on 26.07.1999.
LEM Bijoy Kumar Limbu was upgraded from Group 'D' to 'C' under recommendation of 6th CPC on 26.07.2010 at S- 5 3050-75-3950-80-4590 with GP Rs. 1900/- and getting equal pay with the Applicant.
..........."Digitally signed by O.A. No.040/336/2023 SOURABH KUMAR 5
4. On giving our considered thought, we are of the opinion that the case of the applicant requires to be looked at by the respondents, as the Applicant has been making representations and has filed this detailed O.A. along with all supporting documents.
5. In the interest of justice, it would be appropriate, if the respondents would be directed to consider O.A. as a representation and decide the same as per Rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Ordered accordingly.
6. Needless to say, the respondents shall also require to issue speaking order to the applicant after examining his case.
7. Accordingly, the instant O.A. stands disposed of. No costs.
8. Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (HARVINDER OBEROI)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SK/
Digitally signed by O.A. No.040/336/2023
SOURABH KUMAR