Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Naval Employees vs M/O Defence on 11 April, 2023
j OA No.O77, 709, FLO of R13 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.677, 709 & 710 of 2013 Dated this Tuesday, the 11" day of April, 2023 CORAM : Hon'ble Shri Justice M.G.Sewlikar, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member (Administrative) 1. Naval Employees' Union Through its General Secretary, . Shr RU K.Singh, Age 40 years, (62/8 Jina (Blossom) Mansion Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 0071, 2. Shri Ladu K. Sethi, Milind Nagar, Gall No.3, Premier Gate No.6, Kurla (West), Mumbai 400 070 Werking as Highly Skilled | in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai 400 023, - Applicants in OA 6877/2013 1. Naval Employees' Union Through its General Secretary, Shri R.CSingh, Age 40 years, 1652/6 Jifina (Blossom) Mansion Madi Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001, 2. Shr Sachin K. Ghanekar, 1178/3, Anand! Bhuvan Pannaial Ghosh Marg, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064. . Working as Highly Skilled | in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai 400 023, - Applicants in OA TOS/20138 q. Naval Employees' Union Through its Genera! secretary, Shri RUK Singh, Age 40 years, 162/6 Jijina (Blossom) Mansion Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai 490 001. £. Shri Somaya A. Palan, Beena Kumari Co-op Hsg. Sac. Building No.2, Room No.103, Mahatma Phule Road, Mulund (East), Mumbai 400 084. Warking as Highly Skilled in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai 400 623, ~ Applicants in OA 7160/2043 (By Advocate Shri R.P.Saxena) Versus Union of India, through The Senretary to Govt. of india, Ministry of Defence, South Block, Naw Delhi 110 004. " i So 2 GA No.677, 709, 710 of 2013 tae _ 2. The Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DOPT), North Block, New Delhi 110.001. os The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, HQs Western Naval Command Naval Dockyard, Mumbai 400 023, 4. The Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai 400 623. art The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Navy) No.1, Cooperage Road, Mumbai 400 039. - Respondents (By Advacate Shri N.K.Rajpurohit) Reserved on 27.02.2023 Pronounced on 11.04.2023 COMMON ORDER
Per: Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member {A} These three OAs have been filed by the applicants on 09.10.2013, The common reliefs sought in OAs are these -
"fay, setting aside of impugned order dated 08.03.2013 issued by Staff Officer (Civilian Personnel) il for Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters Wester Naval Command, Mumbai by which General Secretary of Naval Employees Union was informed with reference to letters dated 06.11.2011 and 26.02.2012 that the cases had been examined in the Headquarters and it was observed that these cases do not fulfil laid down conditions. it was further informed that Shn- RY Gethe was appointed as a Skilled Tradesman whereas Shri Francis Anthony was appointed as Highly Skilled Grade |] Artisan with two ta advance increments:
(b}. direction to respondents to fix the applicants' pay in appropriate stage and if there is no stage to match the pay drawn by the Juniors from the date of receiving higher pay, the difference should be treated as personal pay and pay parity would be compared annually and maintained in future:
(c). direction fo the respondents to pay arrears of pay to the applicants with interest @ 9% per annum:
ang
(a). declaration that Clause 8 of Conditions for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme as ultre-vires, Reply and rejoinder have been filed by respondents and applicants in these cases. Arguments of counsels of the parties were finally heard on 27.02.2023,
2. Summarized facts :
OA No. 67 7/2013 -
2.1. Applicant No.1 is a registered Trade Union recognized by Government of India representing majority of workers of Western Naval Command, Mumbai.
Applicant No.2, Shri Ladu K. Sethi joined Naval Dockyard, Mumbai as unskilled worker on 13.05.1584 and was promoted as Semi-Skilled Worker on GA No.677, 709, 7iG of 2013 * ey Ke 'at 4 OA NO.677, 709, 710 of 2 12.04.1984, Skilled Worker on 30.12.1989, Highly Skilled Grade-l] on 31.12.1994 and Highly Skilled Grade | on S1.12.1999. Shri B.N Halder joined directly as Highly Skilled Worker Grade I] on 04.03.1995 and was promoted as Highly Skilled Grade | on 37.12.1999. Different applicants who joined as unskilled workers got promoted similar to Shri Sethi. During restructuring of cadre of Artisan Staff in Defence Establishments as per order of Ministry of Defence dated 20.05.2003, posts of Highly Skilled Grade | and Highly Skilled Grace | were classified as Highly Skilled w.ef 01.01.1985 in pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000/- and all promotions granted from the post of Highly Skilled Grade I) fo Highly Skilled Grade | from O7.01.1996 to 20.05.2003 were treated as cancelled. Shon Sethi was not granted financial upgradation under ACP Scheme because he hacl already been granted three promotions but Shri Haldar who was junior fo Shri Sethi was granted first financial upgradation under ACP Scheme from 04.03.2007 and thus he started drawing higher pay than Shri Sethi.
2.2. Aggtieved by this, the present agplicants filed 5 | OANo.O77, 709, 710 of 2013 earlier OA No.424/2012 but it was withdrawn by them to pursue the matter in accordance with law. The applicant No.? submitted a representation dated 06.11.2012 to respondent No.4 for stepping up of pay of the applicants to bring ff on par with the salary drawn by their juniors. However, by the impugned order dated 08.03.2013 from respondent No.4, the request has been rejected stating that the applicants' case was not fullling the laid down conditions, Therefore, this QA has been filed. OA 7709/2013 ~ 2d, Applicant Nog, Shri Sachin K. Ghanekar joined Naval Dockyard, Mumbai as Skilled Worker on 10.10.1988 and then was promoted as Highly Skilled H Worker on 31.12.1991 and Highly Skilled Grade | on 31.12.1996. Shri S.M.Wadkar joined Naval Dockyard Mumbai as Highly Skilled Worker Grade {J directly on 03.09.1982. Other workers who joined ihe Naval Dockyard from 02.11.1979 to 10.10.1990 were promoted as Highly Skilled Grade II from 25.09.1986 te 30.12.7995 and as Highly Skilled Grade { from 31.12.1998 tt 21.12.2002, As per the order dated 20.05.2002 issued é OA No.677, 709. 710 of 2015 by the Ministry of Defence, restructuring of cadre of Artisan Staff in Defence Establishments was carried out. Applicant No.2 and his junior Shri Wadkar were drawing the same pay scale of Rs.4.000-6,000/-. But on completion of 12 years of service, Shri Wacdkar was granted one financial upgradation under ACP Scheme from 24.05.2005 and his pay was fixed in the scale of R8.5,000-8,000/-. Applicant No.2 although senior to Shri Wadkar was not granted financial upgradation under ACP Scheme because he had already been granted promotions.
2.4, The pay scale of other similarly oclaced workers was also fixed lower than that of their jurdors because of grant of financial upgradation to their juniors. The present applicants filed earlier OA No.422/2042 but they withdrew ff later on 06.11.2012 and then they made 8 representation fo the respondent No.4 on 06.17.2012 to remove the anomaly by stepping up of their pay to bring if on par with the salary of their juniors. However. this request has been rejected by the impugned order dated 08.03.2013, Therefore, this OA has been filed.
7 OA No.677, 709, 710 of 2013OA 710/2013 --
2.8. Shri Somaya Palan joined as Sem/-Skilled Worker on 02.04.1980 and then was promoted as Skilled Worker on 04.72.7984 and Highly Skilled Worker on 31.12.1992 but his junior Shri M.S.Bhisht joined directly as Highly Skilled Worker on 24.06.1993. Restructuring of cadre of Artisan staff in Defence Establishments was carried out as per Ministry of Defence dated 20.05.2003 under which the post of Highly Skilled Grade | and Highly Skiiled Grade || were reclassified as Highly Skillea with effect from 01.01.1996 with pay scale of Rs.4,000- 6,000/- and promotions granted from the post of Highly Skilled Grade Hl to Highly Skilled Grade | from. 04.01.1996 to 20.05.2003 were treated as cancelled. 2.8. The applicant No.2 Le. Sornaya Palan and his junior Shri Bisht were in the same pay scale of Rs.4,000- 6,000/- but on completion of 12 years of service Shri Bisht was granted first financial upgradation under ACP Scheme from 24.05.2005 raising his pay scale fo Rs.5,000-8,000/. Thus, although junior fo Shr Palan, Shri Bisht started drawing higher pay. This pay scale Was further revised to Rs.9.300-34,800/- in PB Il with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- from 67.07.2006. The granting of financial upgradation to. juniors of the applicant resulted in the anomaly in the pay scale and, therefore, the applicants filed earller OA No.424/20492 for grant of pay scale which had been granted to their juniors. But it was withdrawn by them on 06.11.2019. Then on same date Le. on 06.11.2012 they submitted representation to the respondent No.4 which has been rejected by the impugned order of 08.03.2073. Therefore, this OA has been filed, All the three OAs have commen grievance of the applicants and identical sets of facts and pleadings. Therefore, they are being decided by this common order
3. Contentions of the parties :-
3A. Applicants --
in the OAs, rejoinders and curing arguments of their counsel, the applicants contend that ~
3.A(a}. the respondants hava wrongly rejected their representation for stepping uo of pay to bring it on par with the pay of their juniors wha came to be granted 9 OA No.677, 709, 710 of 2013 higher pay scale because of grant of first financial upgradation under ACP Scheme. When juniors of the applicants were given higher pay scale because of grant of first financial upgradation, the anomaly in the pay scales should have been removed by the respondents by stepping up of pay of the applicants and, their pay should have been brought on par with the pay of thelr juniors:
3.A(b). in guidelines prescribed under ACP Scheme notified by the DOPT OM dated 09.08.1999, condition No.8 provided that financial upgradation under ACP scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to the seniority position. As such, there is no additional financial upgradation for the senior employees on the ground that the junior employees in the grade have got higher pay scale under ACP Scheme. But there is no condition preseribed under the ACP Scheme which prohibits stepping up of salary of senicr employees if their juniors have been granted higher pay because of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme and stepping up of pay of salary is a common practice applicable fo all Government 10 OA No.677, 709, 710 of 2013 employees in whose cases there is anomaly in the pay structure:
3.A(c), in Supreme Court decision in case of Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and Others Vs. Ram Sarup Ganda and others reported in 2006 (12) Scale 440, it was held that if there is any anomaly io the effect that the senior Government servants are receiving lesser pay than their juniors, whe entered the service from a different source of recruitment, certainly such senior Government servants are entitled to stepping up of their pay in order to bring them on par with the salary which is being recelved by their juniors. The decision of PINT Dal Bench in OA No.2124/2011 dated 01.02.2012 directed the respondents therein to step up pay of the applicants on par with their juniors and that stepping up was to be only in pay and not in the pay scale: and
3.A(d). similarly in decision of Ghandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.156-JK-2009 dated 19.01.2070.
relying upon Supreme Court decision in Ram Sarup Savida, Puniab Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Gurnali COLE u OA No.677, 709, 71G of 2083 Singh (Civil Appeals No.2898/2008 with 2899/2008 dated 22.04.2008} and Harcharan Singh Sudan Vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A:96-CH-2007), it was held that seniors are entitled for stepping up of their pay as a general rule as and when their junior gets pay scale fixed higher to them because of grant of financial upgradation under ACP Scheme. The case of the applicants for stepping up of pay does not fall under FR 22 but it is based on the Supreme Court decision and decisions of Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal.
Therefore, based on the above cited decisions of the Supreme Court and Principal Bench as well as Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal, these OAs should be allowed,
3.B. Respondenis -~ In thelr reply, surrejoinder and during arguments of their counsels, the respondents contend as follows ¢
3.Bia}). applicants could not be granted financial upgradation under ACP Scheme because they had already received two or more promotions. As provided i2 OA No.677, 799, 7 of 2013 under FR 22(28), cases of stepping up of pay of seniors in & pay scale of juniors are generally considered if the following conditions are satisfied :
G) Both the junior and senior officers should belong fo ; game cadre and posts to which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical or in the same cadre,
(i) The scales of pay in the lower and higher posts in which juniors and seniors are entitled to draw the pay should be identical, Wii) The anomaly should be directly as a result of apolication of FR 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post, the junior officer draws from time to time higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increment | or an any other account, then the above provisions will not be invoked to step up pay of the senior officers.
3.B(b). As per the condition No.8 of ACP Scheme, financial upgradation under that scheme is purely personal to the employee and has no relevance in the seniorily position and because of it there shall be no LE 13 OA No.677, 709, TO of 2013 additional financial upgradation of senior employees on the ground that their junior in the grade have got higher pay seale under ACP Scheme. In the decision of Principal Bench in OA No.952/2015, Mahabir Singh Vs. Union of India and others, similar issue was considered with reference to Supreme Court decis about anomaly in pay scale of seniors and juniors. The only benefit to be given in stepping up of pay is stepping up of pay and not of the pay scale.
3.Bic). Shri Sethi applicant in OA No. 677/2013 joined as Unskilled Worker on 13.05.1991 with pay scale of Re, 196-232 but Shri B.N Haldar was appointed directly as Highly Skilled Grade Hl in pay scale of Rei 200. 1.800/ on 04.08.1995. Therefore, the case of the applicants does not fulfil the very basic condition as per FR 22(a) (b). Just because the applicant had entered the service prior to Shri Haidar, he cannot be treated as senior because he was nol appointed initially in the same pay scale and same grade in which Shr Haldar was appointed. As ser criteria of seniority mentioned in DCPT letter dated 04.17.7992, seniority of a Government Ly id OA No.677, 709, 710 of 2013 servant is based on order of merit at the time of inital appointment. Since Shri Sethi and Shri Haldar were not appointed initially on the same posts, grades and in Same pay scale, their seniority was diferent, Similarly, this is the position of all other juniors and seniors enclosed at Annex A-3 of the OA Because of the position explained above, applicant No.2 in O.A.877/2013 Shri Sethi is not an affected employee with grant of financial upgradation te Shri Haldar under the ACP Scheme. On promotion as Skilled Worker, pay scale of Shri Sethi was Rs.900-1,500/- whereas on promotion Shri Haldar as Highly Skilled Grade, his Pay Scale was Rs.1,320-2,040/-, The pay scale of Shri Sethi with implementation of V CPC pay scales as Highly Skilled Grade | was Rs.4,000-6,000/- which was revised to PB-1 Rs.5.200-20.200/- with Grace Pay of Rs.2.8004+ as per Vi CPC pay scales from September, 2008.
3.B(d). However, after merger of Highly Skilled Grace | and Highly Skilled Grade [| from 04.01.1996. Shri Naldar was given financial upgradation in pay scale of RS. 5, 006-8 OG0/- from O4.03 2007 and on LOT wee tft OA No.677, 708, 710 of 20 implementation of Vi CPC pay scales, he came to be placed in Pay Band-2 of Rs.9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/ fram 01.07.2006. Since Sethi had already got three promotions, he was not entitled to financial upgradation under the AGP Scheme. His representation dated 06.11.2012 had been examined and there was no merit in it, therefore, the impugned letter has been issued to them,
3.B{e}). The representation of the applicant was also made after seven years of his retirement. The reply of the respondents had been given fo the applicanis on 08.03.2013. In the decision of Principal Bench in OA No.2227/2014, Vipal Raj & Others Vs. Union of india and others, the contention of the applicants therein for stepping up of thelr pay with thelr juniors was rejected. in its decision dated 04.09.2019, the Principal Bench hac also considered its decision in case of Mahabir Singh Vs. Union of India and others.
3.80). [in these three OAs, the applicants are not entitied to additional financial upgradation just because they are seniors in service as they were not in the same 16 OA Na.677, 709, Tid of 2013 pay scale as that of Shri Haldar. As per Note 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (Revised) Pay Rules, 2008 relating to stepping up of pay, the same conditions of FR 22 (26) have been provided. Since the applicants in these OAs did not satisfy these conditions of FR 22(26) and Note 10 under Rule 7 of CCS (Revised) Pay Rules, 2008, their request for stepping up of pay cannot be accepted and therefore, these OA deserve to be dismissed.
4, Analysis and conclusions :-
We have considered the submissions of the applicants in the OAs, rejoinder and during arguments of their counsels as weil as submissions of the rescondents in reply, sur-rejoinder and during arguments of their counsels, 4.4. The issue involved in these OAs Is difference in pay of the applicants vis-a-vis their juniors ie. Shri Haldar in OA 6877/2013, Shi S.M.Wadkar in OA FOQ/2073 and Shri M.S.Bisht in OA 7710/2013. The é applicants No.2 in these three OAs had joined service earlier than Shri Haldar, Sh Wadkar and Shri Bisht respectively. The applicants had joined service at lower vi OA No 677, 708, TQ af S013 rank and in lower pay scales. Shri Haldar, Shri Wadkar and Shri Bisht directly joined thelr service later but in higher rank and pay scales. The applicants gol promotions from their lower ranks to the level of Highly Ski led Workers and, therefore, they were not eligible for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. But Shn Haldar, Shri Wadkar and Shri Bisht were eligible for grant af ACP benefits and, therefore, they came to be granted benefit under the ACP Scheme. When pay scales of the applicants and Shri Haldar, Shri Wadkar and Shri Bisht were revised on implementation of accepted recommendations of Vi CPC. pay of the apopiicanis became iower than those of Shri Haldar, Shri Wackar and Shri Bisht. The provisions of relevant applicable rulas for stepping up of pay, the relevant rules and conditions under the ACP Scheme are as follows u). FR 22(21) deals with Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of oromation or apsointment of the junior officer 18 OA No.677, 709, 710 of 20) subact ta these conditions ;
(a). both the junlor and senior officers should belong to the same cadre and the pasts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre:
(b). the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical and (c}. the anomaly should be directly as a result of the application ef FR 22-0, For example, f even in the lower post the junior officer has drawn from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments or on any other sount, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer, (1). As a result of FR 22()\ay(1) application in the revised scales of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the stepping up of pay should be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions :
(a). both the junior and senior Government Séfvanis should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the Same cadre:
(hb). the pre-revised scale of cay and the revised pay of the lower and higher posts in ab i 19 OANG OTF, 709, 710 of 2013 which they are entitled to draw pay, should be identical:
{c}, the senior Government servants at the time of promotion have' been drawing equal or more pay than the junior:
{ad}. the anomaly should be directly as a result af the application of provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure. [f even in the lower posi, the junior officer was drawing more pay in the pre-revised scale than the senior by virtue of any advance increments granted to him, provisions of this Note need not be invoked to step up the pay af the senior officer.
(ij. FR 22028) deals with instances which do not constitute an anomaly for stepping up of pay with reference to juniors with the fc allowing: canditions :
{a}. both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre:
(o}. ihe scales of pay of the lower and higher nosis in which the junior and senior officer are entitled to draw pay should be identical: and {cs}. the anomaly should be cirectly as a resull of the application of FR 22-0. For example, f even in the lower past the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate 20 QA No.G7?, 709, 71S of 2013 of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer.
(V) DOPT OM dated 98.08.1999 notifying _ Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government Civilian Employees among conditions for grant of benefits under ACP scheme listed in Annex | to the OM, Condition No.8 provides that "the financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be Purely personal fo fhe employee and shall have no relevance to his semority position As such, fhere shall be noe additional financial upgradation for the senior employee on fhe oround thet fhe junior emplovee in ihe grade has got higher pa ¥escale under the ACP scheme".
4.2. Fram the above provisions in the Fundamental Rules, COA (Revised Pay) Rules and Conditions for financial upgradation under ACP Scheme, it is clear that lust because an employee happened to be senior he cannot be granted financial upgradation under the ACP bey Scheme because his junior has been given financial has pas OA No.677, 709, 710 of 2013 Upgradation under that scheme. stepping of pay can be Gone only as per the provisions under FR 24 and 22. the CCS Pay Rules and conditions of ACP Scheme. This contention of the respondents is correct and the action taken by them for not granting financial upgradation to the applicants is also justited. The applicants in these OAS obviously do no fulfil the conditi IONS specified under Fundamental Rufes 22(21), 22(26) and CCS Revised Pay Rules, 2008 and condition 8 under the ACP Scheme. 4,3. The claim of the applicants that pravisions under Fundamental Rules 22 and conditions of ACP Scheme do not apply to them is false. They have relied on following decisions of Principal Bench, Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal and Supreme Court decision and contend that without considering the provisions of relevant Fundamental Rules, and conditions of ACP Scheme and conditions r elating to stepping up of pay under pay rules, on the basis of the case law relied upon by them, they should be granted financial upgradation under ACP Scheme to bring their pay on par with the pay of thelr juniors.
22 OA No.677, 708, 710 af 2013in Principal Bench decision dated O1.02. 2013 in 0.A.2124/2011, the O.A. was allowed for stepping up of pay of the applicants therein relying upon decision in Para 9 of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal dated 19.01.2010 in 0.4.156-JK-2009 (Ashok Kumar Vs, Union of India & Others) in which the Supreme Court decision in Ram Sarup Ganda and Gurmail Singh as well as Harcharan Singh Sudan were referred to holding that they were entitled to stepoing up of their pay as a general rule as and when any junior gets fixed in a pay scale higher to them on account of grant of ACP Scalia. However, it was clarified that the pay scale of the applicants therein would remain the Same as of date but the pay would be fixed in appropriate stage and if there is no stage to match the pay drawn by the junior, the difference shall be treated as one of personal pay. The pay parity would be compared annually and parity would be maintained in future.
The applicants therein had argued that Clause-8 of ACP Scheme providing for financial Upgradation under the Scherne js burely Sersonal to the t iF Lor CHA No. 677, 709, 7G oF BOIS employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority position and as such no additional financial upgradation will be given to a senior employee on the ground that the juntor employee has got higher pay scale under the ACP Scheme. The respondents in that O.A. had argued that there was no infirmity in the Clause-8 of the Scheme and relied on Supreme Court decisions in case of Unian of india and Anr Vs. VR. Swarninathan, JT 1997(8) SC 61 and State of UP. & Ors. Vs. J.P Cahurasia and Ors., JT 1988 (4) SC 53. They had also relied upon a judgment of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. 3717/2008 (AN. Pant & Ors. Vs. Union of india & Others) dated D1.08.2012 in which the claim of the applicants for placement in higher pay scale on the ground that junior employee had got thet grade on account of ACP Scheme was rejecied. In the above decision the Clause-8 of the AGP Scheme was not declared ultra vires and only stepping up of pay (not pay scale} was allowed. In that decision, provisions of FR-22 and CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 were not considered.
24 OA Nob? FOO, FIG of OES g roan'
(ii) In Chandigarh Bench decision in O.A.1083/2015 in Bishamhar Dass and others as well as in O.A.901/2015 in HC Sanjay Kumar and others and in O.A.304/2012, Ashok Kumar and others Vs. Union of india & others, the OAs were allowed relying upon the decisions In Gurcharan Singh Grewal Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 3 SCC o4) and the respondents were directed to take action to refix the pay of the applicants therein to bring Hon par with their ju- niors. The facts of those cases were different and the res- pondents were directed to extend henefit of parity in pay and to ensure that the anomaly due to difference in incremental benefits was removed. However, in thet case also Stipulations under FR 22 and ccs (Revised Pay) Rules. 2008 and contentions under ACP Scheme were not dealt with,
(iii) in Civil Appeals No.65-87/2009 Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (2009) 3 SCC 94, the reasoning given by the High Court was not accepted and it was directed that the applicant was entitled to the same benefits of pay parily with sehr Short, 25 OA No. 677, 709, 710 of 2013 4.4, However, tt has to be noted that in the above decisions of Chandigarh Bench, Principal Sench and Supreme Court, the view taken Was as a general rule that senior employees should not get less pay than their j Junto But the provisions under FR-22, and CCS (Revi sed Pay} Rules, 2008 did not come up for consideration which are the basic rules governing fixation of pay of Central Gov- ermment employees. The plea of the anolicants in these OAs ig that under ACP Scheme there was no prohibition for Stepping up of pay of seniors fo bring it on par with juniors. However, for stepping up of pay, the relevant provisions under FR-22(21) dealing for removing anomaly by stepping up of pay of senior on promotion drawing less pay than Mis junior, and as mentioned in Para 44 abave, the conditians mentioned under FR-22(21) on the subject have been mentioned. These conditions of FR-22(21) were also provided under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. F R-22(26) deals with instances which do not constitute an anomaly for stepping up of pay with reference to juniors and the canditions mentioned there.
26 OA No.O77, 709. 710 of 201345, in the case of the present applicants, they did not fulfil the conditions provided under FR-22(21) and 22(26), The applicants and their juniors were not in the same cadre when they joined the Service and the posts in which they were Promoted were also not identical. The scale of pay of the lower and higher posts in which the applicants and their juniors were entitled to draw bay were not identical. in fact in their cases drawal of higher pay by juniors to the applicants Was because of grant of benefit under ACP Scheme for which the applicants were not sligible because of already having received two or More promotions. Therefore, the higher pay drawn by their juniors on SCCOUNTE Of grant of ACP benefit did not constitute an anomaly as provided under FR.
e2(26 for Stepping up of their Pay a8 provided under FR-
bh PB (1) 88 well as in CCS (Revised Pay} Rules, 2008 and aise under Clause-8 of the Rg CP Scheme, Therefore, reisction of the cases of the applicants by the respondents through letter dated 08.05.2073 addressed to Genera! Secretary, Naval Employees Union, Mumbai by Staff Officer (Civitan Personnel) ff for Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief Head-
a OA No.677, 708, 710 6f 2013 quarters, Western Naval Command, Mumbai was justified and correct.
4.6, This issue has also. been recently dealt with by us in O.A.Nos. 45 1/2014, 452/2014 and 547/2014 in which provi- sions of FR-22, CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 as well as follawing 'Supreme Coun caselaw were considered and request for stepping up of pay was rejected.
(} The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Paul & Ors., JT 7998(3) SC 580 observed that -
"it is held by the Tribunal that the respondents and Mishra belonged to the same cadre and. thelr pay scales were also the same in the lower - pasis and, therefore, they are entitled to the bene- fit of stepping up. But what the Tribunal has failed to fake info consideration is the Circular dated 4.74.1993 issued by the Government of [n- dia, Department of Personnel & Training which clearly provides that the anomaly for granting benefit of stepping up of pay should be directly as a result of the applicati on of fundamental rule 22- c and that if a junior officer draws a higher pay in lower post either because of advance increments or on any other account then the provision of stepping up would not apply | in such @ case, Moreover in paragraph 2 (co) of the circular # i further provided that if a ser or joins the higher pest later than the junior. for whatsoever reason, whereby he draws less pay than the junior, in 28 OA Na.O??, 709, FLO af 2013 such @ case senior cannot claim stepping up of pay at par with the junior."
47. Based on the foregoing analysis of facts and provisions of FR (22), CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and Clause-8 under the ACP Scheme, we are convinced that the applicants in these OAs have not been able to make out a case for stepping up of their pay. Their cases did not constitute anomaly in the pay. Hence those OAs have no merits and deserve sismissal.
cn a oh $3, Q o ae OAG??, 708 and 7710/2013 are dismissed.
(Dr. BhayWah Sahai) (Justice M.G.Sewlikar) Member (A) | Member (J) amg"