Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Akashwani Doordarsan Administrative ... vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 17 May, 2023
1
Item No. 22 (C-5)
O.A. No. 4126/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4126/2015
This the 17th day of May, 2023
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Akashwani & Doordarsan Administrative Staff Association
(Recognized)(National Council)
through its General Secretary
Sh. R.S.Chouhan, Aged- 43 Years,
Room no.716,DDK.Mandi House, Copernicus Marg.
New Delhi-110011
2. Rajbir Singh Mann, Aged-58 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Chandrup,
Working as UDC,
in All India Radio, New Delhi.
R/o H.No.140, Vill. & PO Halambi Khurd,
Delhi-82.
...Applicants
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Yogesh Sharma and Ms. Sonika Gill)
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. The Chief Executive Officer Prasar Bharti,
1st floor,PTI building
Parliament Street, New Delhi
3. Director General,
All India Radio,
Akashwani Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi
2
Item No. 22 (C-5)
O.A. No. 4126/2015
4. The Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
5. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate(s): Ms. Vertika Sharma and Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J):-
In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought the following relief(s):-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not considering and not finalizing the cases of the applicants for extending the benefit of new grade of UDC (NFSG) to the applicants is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to grant the new grade of UDC (NFSG) to the applicants by way of extending the benefit of OM dated 22.06.2011 in the grade pay of Rs.4200 in PB-II w.e.f. 22.06.2011 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances with interest.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."
2. The applicants, who, are Upper Division Clerk (UDC), are aggrieved by the non grant of Non Functional Selection 3 Item No. 22 (C-5) O.A. No. 4126/2015 Grade (NFSG) to them on completion of five years of service as has been extended to their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service (CSCS) and to the stenographer Grade D in Central Secretariat Stenographer Services (CSSS) cadre by extending the benefits of the DoP&T O.M. dated 22.06.2011.
3. Brief facts as stated by the learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicants have been enjoying historical pay parity with the UDCs under the CSCS and CSSS cadre. The Government of India issued an O.M. dated 22.06.2011 whereby on completion of five years of service NFSG was accorded to the UDCs in CSCS and CSSS cadre while ignoring the present applicants.
4. The applicants had preferred a representation dated 29.07.2015 seeking pay parity followed by a reminder dated 07.08.2015. However, the respondents have chosen not to respondent to the same.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants draws strength from the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 400/2013 decided on 21.07.2015 which was a similar case and the Bench had extended the benefit of NFSG to the 4 Item No. 22 (C-5) O.A. No. 4126/2015 applicants therein even though they were not a part of the CSCS or CSSS cadre.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the O.A. and submits that the case of the applicants was duly referred to the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, (clarification annexed at page 11 of the counter reply). However, the Department of Expenditure vide a clarification dated 28.12.2010 gave an opinion against the case of the applicants. The relevant extract of the same reads as under
:-
"This dispensation has been extended to Assistant/Stenographers working in CSS/CSSS, AFHQS, IFS(B) & RBSS. However, the post of Assistant/PA in Akashwani & Doordarshan does not belong to such secretariat services/Headquarter. Therefore, the GP of Rs. 4600/- cannot be extended to the Assistant/PA in Akashwani & Doordarshan."
She further argues that in a similar case in O.A. No. 824/2012 decided by the Madras Bench of this Tribunal on 28.11.2014, the Tribunal had not interfered in the case of the applicants. This order was assailed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the 5 Item No. 22 (C-5) O.A. No. 4126/2015 order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim of the applicants.
7. In rejoinder to this, learned counsel for the applicants refutes the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the aforesaid judgments and the Department of Expenditure O.M. referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents do not relate to the present case. He goes on to argue that the applicants herein are seeking NFSG while the applicants in the previously mentioned case were seeking higher pay scales. Thus, this aforementioned judgment does not come to their rescue.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants states that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicants by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in a time bound manner after considering the O.Ms. referred to by him therein.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings on record.
10. As the applicants preferred the representation in the year 2015 and eight years have already passed since then, 6 Item No. 22 (C-5) O.A. No. 4126/2015 certain new developments may have taken place to which parties are not aware.
11. Accordingly, in the fitness of things let the applicants make a self contained representation espousing their grievance in detail with supporting documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further, on receipt of the same, the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to dispose of the same by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking order after supplying a copy thereof to the applicants.
12. It is made clear that while disposing of the O.A., we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
13. The O.A. is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dd/