Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Milan And Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 13 January, 2014
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Fateh Deep Singh
CWP No.21738 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.21738 of 2012
Date of Decision:13.01.2014
Ram Milan and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,
Chandigarh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Brijesh Mittal, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
HEMANT GUPTA, J(Oral).
CM No.2843 of 2013
Application is allowed.
Written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 is permitted to be taken on record.
CM No.2845 of 2013
Application is allowed as prayed for.
CM no.187 of 2014 The application is to place on record an affidavit to clarify the issue in pursuant to order dated 22.10.2013 passed by this Court.
Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to place the affidavit on record.
The application is, therefore, allowed.
Sharma Aarti 2014.01.21 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.21738 of 2012 -2- CWP No.21738 of 2012 The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 2nd July, 2012 (Annexure P/6), whereby, an original application filed by the petitioners, challenging the order passed by respondent No.1, refixing the pay of the petitioners on the post of Accountant, a post on which the petitioners were promoted was dismissed. The challenge was also to order Annexure A-2, whereby, the recovery was sought to be effected from the pay of the petitioners consequent to the refixation of pay.
All the petitioners have been promoted as Accountant after 01.01.2006. The petitioners namely Ram Milan, Anish Kumar, Narinder Kumar and Abdula have been promoted before the appointment of direct recruits to the post of Accountant on 31.12.2010, whereas, direct recruits were appointed on 19.5.2007 after the promotion of Naveen Sharma and Parveen Sharma on 09.04.2007.
The petitioners were working as clerks in the pre-revised pay scale of `3050-4590. The revised pay scale to the post of Clerk after the recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006 is `5200-20200 with grade pay of `1900/-. The pre-revised pay scale of the promotion post of Accountant is `4500-7000 and the corresponding revised pay scale is `5200-20200 with grade pay of `.2800/-.
The claim of the petitioners is that initially they were granted revised pay scale of the post of Accountant in terms of Fundamental Rule 22 but, subsequently, vide impugned order, their pay has been revised and revised pay granted to the petitioners on the promoted posts have been withdrawn. Consequently, the recovery has been ordered to be effected.
On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the Sharma Aarti 2014.01.21 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.21738 of 2012 -3- Fundamental Rule 22 stands superseded with Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The pay of the petitioners was fixed in terms of Rule 13 of the aforesaid rules in the revised pay scale of `5200-20200 with grade pay of `2800/-. But since the initial pay scale of the direct recruits appointed subsequent to the promotion of the petitioners was higher therefore, the pay of the petitioners has been revised equivalent to that of the direct recruits from the date when the direct recruits were appointed.
The claim of the petitioners has not found favour with the Central Administrative Tribunal. A finding has been returned that the petitioners cannot be treated equivalent to direct recruited Accountant from the date of their promotion, as none the direct recruit was appointed on the date of promotion of the petitioners.
We find that the reasoning given by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality. The pay of the petitioners was revised in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 to the post of Accountant by giving benefit of 3% increase on the total pay, which the petitioners were drawing against the post of the Clerk. Such revised pay scale was in terms of rule of pay fixation in respect of promotion effected after 1.1.2006. However, the anomaly arose on account of appointment of direct recruits after the promotion of petitioners on the promoted post. The pay payable to the direct recruits was higher than the pay scales of promotees. Therefore, the pay of the promoted officials was revised upwards from the date the direct recruits were appointed. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim pay scale admissible to the direct recruits from the date they were promoted.
The argument that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Sharma Aarti 2014.01.21 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.21738 of 2012 -4- revised pay scale at par with the pay payable to the direct recruits from the date they were promoted as Accountant is not tenable. A perusal of Annexure R-4 shows that in fact the petitioners were earlier placed at higher pay scale from the date they were promoted in terms of Rule 13 of the 2008 Rules. The petitioners were earlier given pay scale of direct recruits from the date of their promotion. The pay of the petitioners was required to be fixed in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 which was initially not fixed. Thus, the claim of the petitioners for revised pay scale at par with direct recruits from the date of their promotion is not tenable. They have been rightly granted pay- scale at par with the pay granted to the direct recruits appointed after the petitioners from the date of the appointment of the direct recruits.
Accordingly the present writ petitions stands dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE 13.01.2014 aarti Sharma Aarti 2014.01.21 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document