Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
S Arul Selvam vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NO. 991 OF 2010
Friday, this the 30th day of September, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. S Arul Selvam, aged 56 years
S/o Singarayan.S, Chief Controller
Southern Railway, Divisional Office
Trivandrum - 14, Permanent address No. 15-65 D,
Jothi Nivas, Palace Road, Thuckalay
Kanyakumari District
2. S Sudhakaran Nair, aged 46 years
S/o P.Sukumara Pillai, Chief Controller
Southern Railway, Divisional Office
Thycaud, Trivandrum 14, residing at
Subha Vilasom, Mudiya Code,
Cherunniyoor P.O, Varkala, Trivandrum - Applicants
(By Advocate Mr.T.C Govinda Swamy)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by
The General Manager, Southern Railway
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O
Chennai - 3
2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O
Chennai - 3
3. The Divisional Personnel Officer
Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division
Trivandrum - 14
4. The Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi
Represented by its Secretary - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil)
The application having been heard on 21.09.2011, the Tribunal on
30-09-2011 delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The applicants in this Original Application have claimed stepping up of pay at par with one of their juniors Shri.M.P Gopalakrishnan Nair. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
(a) Both the applicants have joined the Railways as Goods Guard and had been promoted as Passenger Guard, Section Controller and Deputy Chief Controller. Applicant No.I has further been promoted as Chief Controller. Their promotions were effected prior to 01.01.2006 and as such the pay fixation was in accordance with the provisions of Revised Pay Rules of 1997. Shri.M.P Gopalakrishnan Nair also joined as Goods Guard and subsequently was promoted as Passenger Guard and later on as Mail Guard and on 29.09.2006, he was promoted as Section Controller. At the time of his promotion as Section Controller, his pay was fixed in accordance with the Revised Pay Rules of 1997, as by that time the Revised Pay Rules of 2008 did not come into existence. On coming into force of the Revised Pay Rules 2008, his pay was fixed taking into account 30% of the running allowance as a part of pay and his pay was so fixed, the same happens to be more than that of the applicant. Hence the applicants have preferred this Original Application claiming stepping up of pay at par with their junior with effect from 22.09.2006 and also claimed arrears of pay and allowances arising out of such stepping up of pay.
2. Respondents have contested the Original Application. According to them, the requirements to be fulfilled for claiming the stepping up of pay have not been complied with by the applicants in as much as the applicants did not hold such promotion posts which Shri.M.P Gopalakrishnan Nair held (Mail Guard) and further they cannot be considered to be in the same seniority unit.
3. The respondents have neatly brought out in a tabular column the details of the posts held by the two applicants as well as the said Shri.M.P Gopalakrishnan Nair and the same is extracted as hereunder:-
Date of Service details of Remakrs
effect M.P
Gopalakrishna
Ist applicant 2nd applicant n
1-4-77/ Initial
9-7-77 appointment in
Tiruchirappalli
Dn
27-1-83 Joined Came into the
Trivandrum Dn. common seniority unit
(Guard 'C') of Goods Guard,
Rs.330-530 Trivandrum Dn.
30-1-86/ Initial
16-5-86 appointment in
Tiruchirappalli
Dn.
30-1-86/ Initial
21-5-86 appointment in
Palghat Dn
05/09/86 Promotion as
Guard 'B'
Rs.330-560
16-8-87 Joined Came into the
Trivandrum Dn. common seniority unit
(Goods Guard) of Goods Guard,
Trivandrum Dn.
Rs.1200-2040
Date of Service details of Remakrs
effect M.P
Gopalakrishna
Ist applicant 2nd applicant n
8/10-5- Joined Came into the
89 Trivandrum common seniority unit
Dn. (Goods of Goods Guard,
Guard) Trivandrum Dn.
Rs.1200-2040
16-1-91 Promotion as Seniority unit of
Passenger Passenger Guard,
Guard Trivandrum Dn. (other
Rs.1350-2200 than the seniority unit
of 2 & 3)
05/08/91 Posting as Came into a different
Section seniority unit of
Controller Section Controller of
Rs.2250 in Trivandrum Dn. i.e.,
Rs.1400-2600 other than the
(IV PC) seniority unit of 2 & 3
27-6-92 Promotion as Seniority unit of
Passenger Passenger Guard,
Guard Trivandrum Dn. i.e.,
(Rs.1350- other than the
2200) seniority unit of 3
01/03/93 Promoted as Seniority unit of
Sy.Chief Dy.Chief Controller,
Controller i.e., other than the
Rs.2375 in seniority unit of 2 & 3
Rs.2000-3200
(IV PC)
01/03/93 Promotion in
Grade
Rs.1350-2200
23-6-93 Promotion as Seniority unit of
Passenger Passenger Guard, i.e.,
Guard other than the
Rs.1350-2200 seniority unit of 1
28-3-96 Posting as Came into a different
Section seniority unit of
Controller Section Controller of
Rs.7475 in Trivandrum Dn. i.e.,
Rs.5500-9000 other than the
(V PC) seniority unit of 1 & 3
Date of Service details of Remakrs
effect M.P
Gopalakrishna
Ist applicant 2nd applicant n
05/05/98 Promoted as Came into a different
Dy.Chief seniority unit of
Controller Section Controller of
Rs.8100 in Trivandrum Dn. With
Rs.6500- 1 above but other
10500 (VPC) than the seniority unit
of 3
25-2-00 Promotion as Seniority unit of
Sr.Passenger Sr.Pass. Guards in
Guard Trivandrum Dn., i.e.,
Rs.5500-9000 other than the
seniority unit of 1 &2
26-1-01 Promotion as Seniority unit of Mail
Mail Guard Guards in Trivandrum
Rs.5500-9000 Dn. i.e., other than the
seniority unit of 1 & 2
05/05/03 Promotion as Seniority unit of Chief
Chief Controller Controller in
Rs.9475 Trivandrum Dn., i.e.,
Rs.7450-11500 other than the
(V PC) seniority unit of 2 & 3
16-11-04 Promotion as Seniority unit of Chief
Chief Controller in
Controller Trivandrum Dn., with
Rs.9925 1 above, but other
Rs.7450- than the seniority unit
11500 (V PC) of 3
Date of Service details of Remakrs
effect M.P
Gopalakrishna
Ist applicant 2nd applicant n
1-1-06 19300+4600 18880+4600 15730 + 4200 Pay of both applicants
9300-34800 9300-34800 9300-34800 was inclusive of 30%
pay element,
(Chief (Chief (Mail Guard) whereas, in the case
Controller) Controller) of 3 it is exclusive of
30% of pay element.
In other words, while
the applicants were
entitled for the
allowances on the pay
indicated, item 3 is
entitled for the
allowances on the pay
+ 30% of pay he being
a Traffic Running
Staff, i.e., on
Rs.21710 + Rs.4200.
Thus, he was
receiving the benefits
on a pay higher than
the applicants, even
as on 1-1-06. This is
on account of the
more number of
promotions he earned
in the cadre of Guards
than the applicants.
22-9-06 Posting as Seniority unit of
Section Section Controller of
Controller Trivandrum Dn., i.e.,
Rs.22490 + other than the
Rs.4200 GO in seniority units of 1 & 2
Rs.9300-34800
(VI PC)
01/09/08 3rd MACP on 3rd MACP on 2nd MACP on
Rs.22310 + Rs.21800 + Rs.24970 +
Rs.4800 GP Rs.4800 GP Rs.4600 GP
4. The applicants have filed rejoinder reiterating their contentions as contained in the Original Application. They have also added the seniority list (Annexure A-7) to confirm that both the applicants are senior to Shri.M.P Gopalakrishnan Nair in the grade of Goods Guard.
5. In their additional reply statement the respondents have also added certain seniority lists.
6. Counsel for the applicant has argued that in the Railways, a part of the running allowance in respect of Loco Running Staff and Traffic Running Staff is treated as pay for the purpose of pay fixation on promotion/ posting against any Stationary Post. This is peculiar to these two classes of Railway Servants. The extent of running allowance varied at regular intervals and as such when a person is promoted and posted to a stationary post his pay is fixed taken into account 30% of the running allowance as a part of pay. A Junior promoted subsequently at a later point of time especially after the pay is revised under Revised Pay Rules, certainly the running allowance being more at that time, the junior promoted to the stationary post would be drawing higher pay. Such a situation arose prior to and posterior to the 5th Pay Commission Recommendations. With a view to remove the anomaly the Railways have issued an order dated 22.07.2004. Similarly in the wake of the acceptance of the 6th CPC Recommendations, when Revised Pay Rules 2008 were promulgated, certain provisions for stepping up of pay in general were incorporated under Note 10(2) Rule 7 of the Revised Pay Rules. In addition, by order dated 24.07.2009, the anomaly in fixation of pay of Loco Supervisory staff appointed prior to 01.01.2006 with reference to their juniors appointed after 01.01.2006 and drawing more pay then the Seniors was also issued vide Annexure A-10. The case of the applicants falls squarely under the aforesaid Railway Board's Order.
7. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand relied upon the decision in the case of Union of India Vs Shri O.P Saxena and contented that since the applicants where not holding the same post as the said Shri.M.P Gopalakrishnan Nair, they are not eligible for stepping up of pay. He has also reiterated that the applicants and the said Shri.M.P Gopalakrishnan Nair did not come within the same seniority unit.
8. Arguments were heard and documents perused. Facts relating to the service particulars of the applicants as also of Shri M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair are not in dispute. That the applicants are earlier entrants in the cadre of Goods driver and that on the date when the junior Shri Gopalakrishnan Nair was holding the post of Passenger Guard the applicants had been in a post higher than the said Gopalakrishnan Nair is not disputed. The following are the main contentions of the respondents in denying the stepping up of pay of the applicants:-
(a) That after coming to Trivandrum Division Shri M.P. Gopalkrishnan Nair earned more promotions and consequent fixations of pay. He also got the benefit of higher fitment percentage i.e. 2.118% in the VI P.C. Whereas the percentage fitment was 1.86% in the IV P.C. And V P.C.
(b) That the case is very much similar to the decision in the case of U.O.I. And Others vs O.P. Saxena where the Apex Couirt has held "whereas the respondents were promoted as Loco supervisors from Driver Grade C, Shri Kareer on the other hand was placed in the cadre of Loco Supervisor after being promoted from the post of Driver Grade A. When the feeder posts of Shri Kareer and that of the other respondents were different the applicability of the principle of stepping up cannot apply. The pay of Shri Kaeer had to be fixed with reference to what he was last drawing as Driver Grade A, a post which was never held by any of the respondents."
(c) The instructions contained in R.B.E, No. 236 of 2009 are not applicable to the applicants. The applicants are also not meeting the stipulated conditions of 3(a) of RBE No. 236/2009 i.e. both the junior and the senior Railway servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre and hence they are not eligible for stepping up of pay.
(d) The names of the applicants are not available in any of the grades of Guards, whereas the name of M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair is available in the seniority list of Passenger Guard in the scale of Rs 1350 - 2200. This is because the applicants had gone out of the entire Guards cadre as they had been posted as Section Controllers with effect from 05-08-1991 and 28-03-1996 respectively and accordingly had entered into a different seniority unit i.e. other than seniority unit to which M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair belonged to.
9. The question is whether the above contentions are legally tenable. Admittedly, initially all the individual joined the Railways as Goods Guards in the erstwhile pay scale of Rs 1200 - 2040. The hierarchy of guard cadre included passenger guard (Rs 1350 - 2200), Senior Passenger Goods Guard/ Mail Guard (Rs. 1400 - 2600), section controller (Rs 1400 - 2600), Dy. Chief Controller (Rs. 2000 - 3200)and Chief Controller (Rs 7450 -11500). The last three are stationary posts and element of running allowance which was available for the lower posts is not available. The first applicant got his first promotion as what is called Guard B (erstwhile scale of Rs 330 - 560) in 1986 and later on he was promoted as Passenger Guard in January 1991. . Comparison of the dates of promotion of the applicants as well as the said Gopalakrishnan Nair in various pay scales could be tabulated as hereunder:-
Sl Scale Applicant 1 Applicant 2 M.P. G. Nair Remarks No. Rs 330 - 530/1200- 1 2040 01/27/83 05/16/86 05/21/86 2 Rs 1350 - 2200 01/16/91 06/27/92 03/01/93 1400 - 2600/ 5500 -
3 9000 08/05/91 03/28/96 02/25/00
2000-3200/6500 -
4 10500 03/01/93 05/05/98
9300 - 34800 Pay
5 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 Revision
10. It could be possible that the said Gopalakrishnan Nair would have been posted as Mail Guard while the applicants would not have been. But the fact remains that the applicants and the said Nair did cross through the various pay scales as stated above and in respect of each pay scale the dates of entry into the respective pay scale by the applicants are anterior to that of the said Gopalakrishnan Nair.
11. In so far as contentions at (a) and (c) above are concerned, RBE No. 236 of 2009 had to be issued only with a view to removing the difference in such emoluments. This situation arises only in the case of Loco Running and Traffic Running Staff. Thus, RBE No. 236 of 2009 subject to the fulfillment of the conditions enumerated therein read with the conditions contained in the note No.
10 below Rule 7 of the RS(RP) Rules, 2008 does apply to the case of the applicants.
12. In so far as the reliance placed by the respondents in the case of O.P. Saxena (supra) vide para (b) above, the finer distinction in that case is that at the time when Shri Kareer was promoted to the stationary post of Loco Supervisor, he was drawing more pay than the respondent Shri Saxena. The Apex Court has observed in this regard as under:-
Shri Kareer was drawing more salary as Driver Grade-A, just before his appointment as a Loco Supervisor, than the respondents. With the revision of pay scales with effect from 1-1-1986 Shri Kareer's pay was fixed at Rs 2360 as on 1-1-1986 while the salary of respondent O.P. Saxena on the stationary post which he was holding was Rs 2300. The sources of the recruitment to the post of Loco Supervisor in the case of Shri Kareer vis-`-vis the respondents being different the principle of stepping up of pay would not arise.
13. In the instant case, at no point of time, save on and from the date of promotion of the said Gopalakrishnan Nair as Section Controller in the grade of Rs 9300 - 34800 + Grade Pay of Rs 4600/- the said Nair was never drawing more pay than the applicants. The pay of Shri Nair in the promotional post of Section Supervisor has become more than his seniors, i.e. the applicants directly on account of fixation of pay on the date of promotion of the said Nair. As on 01- 01-2006, in the same pay scale, the pay of Shri Nair was only Rs 15730/- and the grade pay is Rs 4,200/- while that of the applicants admittedly more.
13. The difference arose on account of the merger of 30% of the traffic running allowance admissible to the running staff when they move to a stationary post for which running allowance is not admissible. A like situation did arise in 2004 and the Railway Board had issued the following order vide order dated 20-07-2004 and the same reads as under:-
" It has been decided that the anomaly be resolved by granting stepping up of pay to the seniors at par with the juniors in terms of Note 9 below Rule 7 of RSRP Rules, 1997. "
14. The benefit of stepping up of pay will be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The stepping up of pay will be allowed to running staff only appointed as loco supervisors in whose cases 30% of basic pay is taken as pay element in the running allowance. The stepping up of pay will not be admissible to non-running staff of Mechanical Deptt. Appointed as Loco running supervisors as in their cases the question of pay element in the running allowance does not arise.
(b) If even in the lower post, revised or pre-revised, the junior was drawing more pay than the senior by virtue of advance increments granted to him or otherwise, stepping up will not be permissible.
(c) Stepping up will be allowed only once, the pay so fixed after stepping up will remain unchanged.
(d) The next increment will be allowed, if due, on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of re-fixation of pay."
15. The above order with mutatis mutandis was repeated in the wake of introduction of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008 and the same is as under:-
" Sub: Anomaly in fixation of pay of Loco Supervisory staff appointed prior to 01.01.2006 with reference to their juniors appointed after 01.01.2006 and drawing more pay than the seniors.
It has come to the notice of the Board that staff appointed prior to 01.01.2006 as Loco Running Supervisors in the pre-revised pay scales, whose pay has been fixed in the replacement pay structure for Loco Running Supervisors under the RS(RP) Rules, 2008, are drawing less pay than their juniors appointed as Loco Running Supervisor after 1.1.2006. The anomaly has arisen due to the fact that the benefit of element of Running allowance granted at the time of promotion of running staff to a stationary post has been granted to the junior in the revised pay structure, whereas, the same benefit granted to the senior is of lesser value as the same has been calculated on pre- revised pay scale.
2. It has been decided that the anomaly may be resolved by granting stepping up of pay in pay band to the seniors at par with the juniors in terms of Note 10 below Rule 7 of RS(RP) Rules, 2008.
3. The benefit of stepping up of pay in pay in pay band will be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) Both the junior and the senior Railway servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre and other conditions enumerated in Note 10 below Rule 7 of RS(RP) Rules, 2008 should also be fulfilled.
(b) The stepping up of pay will be allowed to running staff only appointed as Loco Supervisors in whose cases 30% of basic pay is taken as pay element in the running allowance. The stepping up of pay will not be admissible to the non-running staff of Mechanical Deptt. Appointed as Loco Running Supervisors as in their cases the question of pay element in the running allowance does not arise;
(c) If even in the lower post, revised or pre-
revised, the junior was drawing more pay than the senior by virtue of advance increments granted to him or otherwise, stepping up will not be permissible;
(d) Stepping up will be allowed only once, the pay so fixed after stepping up will remain unchanged;
(e) The next increment will be allowed on the following 1st July, if due, on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of refixation of pay, as per the provisions of Rule 10 of RS(RP) Rules, 2008. "
16. Conditions enumerated in Note 10 below Rule 7 of the RS(RP) Rules, 2008 read as under:-
" In cases where a senior Government servant promoted to a higher post before the 1st day of January, 2006 draws less pay in the revised pay structure than his junior who is promoted to the higher post on or after the 1st day of January, 2006, the pay in the pay band of the senior Government servant should be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay in the pay band as fixed for his junior in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions, namely:-
(a) both the junior and senior Government servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre.
(b) the pre-revised scale of pay and the revised grade pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical.
(c) the senior Government servants at the time of promotion should have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior.
(d) the anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised pay structure. If even in the lower post, the junior officer was drawing more pay in the pre-revised scale than the senior by virtue of any advance increments granted to him, provision of this Note need not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer. "
17. The above conditions are all fulfilled by the applicants and as such, there is no reason as to why the applicants be not considered for stepping up of pay at par with their juniors.
18. And, in so far as contention at para (d) above is concerned, it is to be stated that the respondents themselves have furnished the details of the seniority list in the pay band 2 Rs 9300 - 34800 vide Annexure R-5 in which the names of the applicants figure in the grade of Dy. Chief Controller a post higher than that held by Shri Gopalakrishnan Nair who is holding the post of Section Controller, which is one post lower than that of the applicants. That contention that the applicants do not belong to the same seniority unit is totally untenable.
19. It is appropriate to have a look at the decisions of the Apex Court/this Bench as relied upon by the applicants and the same are as under:-
(a) Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 3 SCC 94, :
.... a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to Appellant 1 and the scale given to Shri Shori, such anomaly should not have been allowed to continue and ought to have been rectified so that the pay of Appellant 1 was also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of Appellant 2.
(b) Union of India vs P. Jagdish (1997) 3 SCC 176 Under the provisions of Fundamental Rules to remove the anomaly of a government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post earlier drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to the higher post, the principle of stepping up of the pay is applied. In such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post is required to be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up is required to be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer. On refixation of the pay of the senior officer by applying the principle of stepping up, the next increment of the said officer would be drawn on completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from the date of the refixation of pay. This principle becomes applicable when the junior officer and the senior officer belong to the same category and the post from which they have been promoted and in the promoted cadre the junior officer on being promoted later than the senior officer gets a higher pay.
) Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and Others vs Ram Sarup Ganda & Ors 92006) 12 scale 440 " 13. Rule 9 quoted above only says that the senior Government servants, who are direct recruits, are not entitled to get any stepping up in case any anomaly arises regarding the receipt of lesser pay by them. However, the same is not applicable to the respondents herein who joined the service as Group "D" employees and later got promotion to Group "C" post by selection. If there is any anomaly to the effect that the senior Government servants are receiving lesser pay than their juniors, who 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 received by their juniors. There is no clause in the scheme which prohibits such stepping up of salary which is a common practice applicable to all Government employees in case there is anomaly in the pay structure of the employees.
14. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that the respondents are entitled to get the ACP scales that are applicable to Group "C" post, but the Rules, as such, do not provide for that. The Rules say that if there are already two upgradations, then the concerned employees are not entitled to the benefit of ACP scales at the starting point. The date of giving such ACP scales is the date of entry into the service and though these respondents are entitled to get ACP scales as applicable to Group D employees and in case there are anomalies to the effect that they receive lesser pay than their juniors working in the same cadre/post, such senior Government servants are entitled to step up of their salary to get it on par with the saalry which is being received by their juniors.
15. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The appellants shall revise the pay scales of the respondents. In case of any anomaly, if the employees who, on fixation of ACP scales, are in receipt of lesser salary than their juniors in the same cadre/post, then their salary shall be stepped up accordingly. Revised orders shall be passed within a period of two months of the receipt of the copy of this Order by the Government. However, if upon revision of the pay-scales, any employee is liable to refund any amount, the Government shall not insist on refund of such amount. If any employee is entitled to get any amount by way of pay revision, the said amount shall be made available to him within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the Government. "
(d) WP No. 35910, 35911 of 2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras decided on 21-10-2008 which has not been disturbed by the Apex Court vide order dated 16-04-2010 in CC No. 19108 - 19109 of 2009 by which special leave petition filed by the Union of India against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits.
(e) Order dated 03-11-2010 in OA Nos. 623/2009 and connected matters, the finding whereof and the operative portion of which are as under:-
" 15. The juniors of the applicants were given IDA pay scale and then promoted whereas the pay of the applicants were fixed in the replacement IDA pay scale which was after their promotion at the minimum of the replacement IDA scale of pay. This resulted in the anomaly of seniors drawing less pay than the juniors, The respondents had resorted to stepping to remove the anomaly although the applicants were not provided with formal orders to that effect. But the rectification of erroneous fixation of pay now without following the principles of natural justice unsettled the position which was settled for a long time. This was done while the representations of the applicants which were furnished to the committee constituted for taking decision for settlement of anomalies arising out of implementation of IDA scales with effect from 01.10.2000 were pending. Even after 10 years since the introduction of IDA pay scales, anomalies arising out of the implementation of IDA scales are pending. The applicants were promoted as regular Mazdoors well before 01.10.2000. Instead of addressing the issue of non parity of pay with their juniors the respondents put the legitimate grievance of the applicants in the limbo by referring it to the Anomaly Committee. The consideration of that Committee appears to be endless. Instead of expediting it, the respondents with utter insensitivity and scant regard for fairness and justice illegally effected recovery hurting the applicants further. The impugned orders of recovery are illegal as they violate the principles of natural justice. The submission of the respondents that they are ready to issue notice to the officials regarding proposed recovery of overpayment and hear them in the matter amounts an admission that the reduction in pay and consequent orders for recovery of overpayment were made without following the principles of natural justice.
xxxxxxxxxxx
18. The impugned orders in these O.As to the extent they relate to the applicants are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicants on par with their juniors who were promoted as Telecom Mechanics later than the applicants with effect from 01.10.2000 with all consequential benefits and to reimburse the amounts already recovered from them within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Anomaly Committee deciding the representations of the applicants referred to it. "
20. The ratio in the above said judgments/orders fully applies to the case of the applicants herein.
21. In view of the above, the OA succeeds. It is declared that the applicants are entitled to have their pay stepped up on par with their junior Shri M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair w.e.f. 22-09-2006. They are also entitled to the consequential benefits of fixation of pay, arrears of pay and allowance arising therefrom.
22. Respondents are directed to pass suitable orders stepping up the pay of the applicants at par with that of the said Gopalakrishnan Nair w.e.f. 22-09-2006 and work out the arrears of pay and allowances due to the applicants and pay the same. This drill shall be performed within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. No costs.
(Dated, this the 30th day of September, 2011.) K. NOORJEHAN DR.K.B.S RAJAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER sv