Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar Roy vs Union Of India & Ors. Through on 14 May, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi OA No.1785 of 2015 MA No.1610 of 2015 This the 14th day of May, 2015 Honble Mr. G.George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) 1. Anil Kumar Roy, SFA (M) Ex. S/o late Shri Mantu Ram Roy Age 63 yrs. Village Ponditer Bari, P.O. Prasanna Nagar, Distt. Jalpaiguri, West Bengal-735133. 2. Himangsu Kumar Das, SFA (M) Ex. S/o late Shri Dhaneswar Das, Age 63 yrs. R/o Village Bhatibari, P.O. Bhatibari, Distt. Jalpaiguri, West Bengal-736121 BTAD (Assam) 3. Bijan Lodha, (SFA) (M) Ex. S/o Sh. Late Manmatha Lodha Age 57 yrs. R/o Village Ashutosh Pally, P.O. Falakata, Distt. Jalpaiguri, West Bengal-735211. 4. Parimal Ch. Malakar (SFA) (V) Ex. S/o Sh. Lt Narayan Ch. Malakar, Age 62 yrs. Village Callage Para, P.O. Eatakata, Distt. Jalpaiguri, West Bengal-735211. Applicants (By Advocate: Ramesh Rawat) Versus 1. Union of India & Ors. through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 3. The Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal, East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. Respondents ORDER (ORAL) SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) :
MA No.1610 of 2015 This MA has been filed by the applicants under Rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking joining together in a single Original Application. For the reasons stated therein, this MA is allowed.
OA No.1785 of 2015The applicants have filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) The Honble Tribunal may, on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Lal Berry (supra) and other decisions cited in para 5 and also endorsing the recommendations of the fifth Pay Commission as contained in para 126.5 thereof (extracted in para 5 above) be pleased to declare that the decision in the case of OA No.1046 of 2012 and OA No.2219 of 2012 (Annexure A-2) and other O.A.s referred to hereinabove shall equally apply to all those FAs, SFA and AFO/Accountants who are similarly situated as the applicants therein and it be also held that in the case of applicants who are functioning as FAs, but who have already been afforded the ACP/MACP benefits, their Grade pay should be afforded the Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-. Similarly, it be also declared that those of the SFAs who have been afforded the financial benefits under the MACP Scheme bringing their Grade pay to that of AFO should be afforded the grade pay of Rs.2,800/-. Similarly AFO who have been granted the benefits of ACP should be afforded the Grade pay of Rs.4200/-.
This Honble Tribunal may further be pleased to hold that while revising the grade pay, and afford the same to the applicants herein, the respondents shall take into account the Fitment Table for such fixation and work out the pay due to the applicants accordingly.
It be further declared that the applicants are entitled to arrears of pay and allowances arising out of such revision of Grade Pay with effect from 01-01-2006 and the same be paid with interest at a rate prevalent as interest rate on Fixed Deposits in any of the Nationaised Banks.
Time for execution of the order of the Tribunal be also calendared.
Or In the alternative, the respondents be directed to consider the pending representations (Annexure A-1) in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Lal Berry vs. CCE (1975) 4 SCC 714 and other cases referred to in para 1126.5 of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission within a time frame as may be calendared by the Tribunal and further to act on the basis of the decision so arrived at. Should the representations be rejected for any plausible reason, the respondents be directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within the aforesaid time frame.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that this case is squarely covered by earlier decision of this Tribunal dated 17.5.2013 in OA No.1046/2012 and connected case (Ratan Lal and others vs Union of India and others). The relevant part of the said Order reads as under:-
3. The case of the applicants briefly stated is that since beginning they were treated alike with their counterparts in Aviation Research Centre (ARC), Special Frontier Force (SFF) and Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and were given similar pay scales. Initially, the SSB as well as ARC, SFF and RAW were under the administrative control of Cabinet Secretariat. However, in the year 2001, the SSB was brought under the administrative control of Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 15.01.2001, but the fact remains that there was no change in their duties and responsibilities and they continued to draw the same pay and allowances w.e.f. 2001 till 29.08.2008 before the Revised Pay Rules, 2008 came into force. It is submitted that on account of parity, the applicants are entitled to be given the same pay scale which their counterparts working in ARC, SFF and RAW are getting. It is further submitted that the controversy regarding the pay scales of Field Assistant, Senior Field Assistant and Assistant Field Officer was concluded by the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the matter of Mr. Atma Prakash Dixit and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Others (OA No.2866/2012 decided on 13.05.2013). In the said case, the applicants were Senior Field Assistant and Assistant Field Officer and were claiming the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- respectively w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as have been given to their counterparts serving in various organizations under the control of Cabinet Secretariat. This Tribunal having considered the stand taken by the parties in Para 13 of the order, held as under:-
13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Respondents have acted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in granting lesser grade pay to the SFA, AFO, FO etc. of SSB from SFA, AFO, FO etc. serving in ARC, RAW and SFF without justification. When there is no change in the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Applicants after shifting of administrative control of SSB from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs, the Respondents should have maintained the same grade pay to them also at par with the grade of the corresponding posts in all the organizations still under Cabinet Secretariat. The FOs under the SSB, as already stated, have already obtained an order for granting them the grade pay of Rs.4800/- at par with the FOs of ARC, SFF, RAW etc. with effect from 1.1.2006 vide order of this Tribunal in OA No. 1011/2011 (supra) and the Respondents have already implemented the order. The Tribunal, therefore, for the reasons stated in the judgment, allowed the OA by passing the following orders:-
4. We in the above facts and circumstances of the case, allow this OA. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2011. We further direct the respondents to grant higher Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- to the Applicants SFAs(M) and AFOs(M) respectively with effect from 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. We also direct that the aforesaid direction shall be complied within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the controversy being similar and having now been resolved by the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the matter of Mr. Atma Prakash Dixits case (supra), which has also been given effect to and the same is not under challenge before the High Court or the Honble Apex Court, this OA may be disposed of on similar terms.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents though opposed the prayer, but could not distinguish the facts and the grievance of the applicants in the instant Application with that of OA No.2866/2012. He could also not dispute that the controversy involved in this Application is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment which had attained finality.
7. Having considered the submissions made on both sides and having gone through the order of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2013 passed in OA No.2866/2012, we are also of the view that the controversy and the grievance in the instant two Applications is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and there appears no reason to take a contrary view.
8. In view of the discussions made above and also in view of the order of this Tribunal in Mr. Atma Prakash Dixits case (supra), both the aforesaid Applications succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 1.12.2011 and 29.11.2011 to the extent that the applicants have been denied the Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- for Field Assistant (FA), Rs.2400/- for Senior Field Assistant (SFA) and Rs.2800/- for Assistant Field Officer (AFO) respectively are quashed and the respondents shall take steps to grant higher Grade Pay in the Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- to the applicants w.e.f. 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that thereafter another OA No.1106/2015 Nirupam Roy and others vs. Union of India and others was decided by this Tribunal on 25.3.2015. The operative part of the said Order reads as under:-
2. It is seen that this case is covered by the earlier order of this Tribunal in OA No.2866/2012 - Atma Prakash Dixit and ors Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block and ors. decided on 13.05.2013. The operative part of the said order is as under:-
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicants, Shri M.K.Bhardwaj and the learned counsel for the Respondents, Shri Ashish Nischal. In our considered view the respondents have failed to consider the claims of the Applicants in this OA in the right perspective. The undisputed fact that there has been historical parity for the purpose of pay scales in respect of the posts of SFA, AFO, DFO, FO etc. in SSB with their counter parts in other three organizations, namely, RAW, SFF and ARC. The said parity could not have been disturbed merely due to shifting the administrative control of SSB from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs. This issue was considered by this Tribunal at least twice earlier in OA No.1011/2011 (supra) and OA No.1816/2011 (supra). The Honble High Court of Delhi has also considered the same issue in WP (C) 7526/2010 (supra). It is not disputed that the SSB itself has taken up the disparity in the pay scales of their staff with their counter parts with the Anomaly Committee of the MHA. They have in turn taken up the matter with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). The only objection for the Ministry of Finance is that there was specific recommendation by the 6th CPC with regard to the corresponding posts in SSB. Therefore, the pay scale and grade pay recommended and accepted for the corresponding posts in IB cannot be extended to the officers in IB. The said aspect has been considered by this Tribunal in OA 1011/2011 (supra) FOs in SSB. This Tribunal clearly held that the Applicants therein were at par for all purposes, with the FOs of RAW, SFF and ARC. They were also getting the same pay scales as per the recommendations of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Pay Commissions. The disparity has arisen only after the implementation of the 6th CPC due to shift in the administrative control of all those organizations. But the undisputed fact that remains is that when the SSB was shifted to Ministry of Home Affairs w.e.f. 2001, others remained under the Cabinet Secretariat. While doing so the duties and responsibilities of the officers of the four organizations remained same. Therefore, the same reasons for granting the revised pay and grade pay to the organizations under the Cabinet Secretariat will apply to SSB now under the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, for strange reason, in the case of SFAs in the SSB they remained under the lesser pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 during the period of the 5th CPC though they were maintaining parity throughout till that period. By the 6th CPC also they were granted the same pay scale at par with others but lesser grade pay.
13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Respondents have acted in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India in granting lesser grade pay to the SFA, AFO, FO etc. of SSB from SFA, AFO, FO etc. serving in ARC, RAW and SFF without justification. When there is no change in the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Applicants after shifting of administrative control of SSB from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs, the Respondents should have maintained the same grade pay to them also at part with the grade of the corresponding posts in all the organizations still under Cabinet Secretariat. The FOs under the SSB, as already stated; have already obtained an order for granting them the grade pay of Rs.4800/- at par with the FOs of ARC, SFF, RAW etc. with effect from 1.1.2006 vide order of this Tribunal in OA No.1011/2011 (supra) and the Respondents have already implemented the order.
14. We in the above facts and circumstances of the case, allow this OA. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2011. We further direct the respondents to grant higher Grade pay of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- to the Applicants SFAs(M) and AFOs(M) respectively with effect from 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. We also direct that the aforesaid direction shall be complied within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3. Further, it is seen that another identical case OA No.1396/2014- Shri Yogendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, came up before this Tribunal and the same was also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order in OA No.2866/2012. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
3. We, therefore, as agreed to by learned counsel for the applicants as well as respondents, dispose of this matter by this order. It appears that in respect of grant of aforesaid grade pay, the controversy has finally been adjudicated by another Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Mr. Atma Prakash Dixit & Others versus Union of India & Others [OA No.2866/2012 decided on 13.05.2013] whereby respondents were directed to grant higher Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- to the applicants SFAs (M) and AFSO (M) respectively in the same department. Therefore, there appears no reason to deny the benefit of the aforesaid judgment to the present applicants even though they were not the applicants in the aforesaid OA.
4. On the other hand, Shri Rajinder Nischal, learned counsel for the respondent spointed out that admittedly the applicants have already moved the representation before the respondents dated 17.02.2014 annexed as Annexure A-5 and, therefore, this Applicant cannot be entertained at this stage as the period of six months is yet to be expired. He, however, fairly submitted before us that the aforesaid representation of the applicants would be examined and disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously.
5. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the and also looking to the submissions before us and keeping in view the aforesaid judgments of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we dispose of this matter at this stage with direction to the respondents to examine the grievance of the applicants and dispose the aforesaid representation by a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. However, in the event the respondents come to the conclusion that benefits of the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to the applicants, they will pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the applicants within the aforesaid period. Similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in OA No.1789 of 2014 Ram Narayan Soni and others vs. Union of India and others decided on 22.5.2014. The operative part of the said Order reads as under:-
2. In the aforesaid two Applications, the applicants are working as Field Assistant (FA), Senior Field Assistant (SFA) and Assistant Field Officer (AFO) in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB for short) under the administrative control of Ministry of Home Affairs. The applicants of OA No.1046/2012 are FAs, SFAs and AFOs, whereas applicants of OA No.2219/2012 are SFAs and AFOs. They are aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment in the matter of fixation of pay scales after 6th Central Pay Commission Report, hence they have sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Quash and set aside the Orders in the form of Fax Message dated 1.12.2011 and Order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure A-1 Colly) to the extent the applicants have not been granted the grade pay of Rs.2000 for FAs, Rs.2400 for SFAs and Rs.2800 for AFOs at par with similarly situated employees of SFF, ARC and RAW.
(b) Direct the respondents to grant the applicants the Grade Pay of Rs.2000/s.2400/Rs.2800 to FAs/SFAs/AFOs respectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006 or they were promoted to that post, whichever is later.
(c) Direct the respondents to grant the applicants arrears of pay and interest thereon as applicable.
(d) Any other direction which this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to pass under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the applicants briefly stated is that since beginning they were treated alike with their counterparts in Aviation Research Centre (ARC), Special Frontier Force (SFF) and Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and were given similar pay scales. Initially, the SSB as well as ARC, SFF and RAW were under the administrative control of Cabinet Secretariat. However, in the year 2001, the SSB was brought under the administrative control of Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 15.01.2001, but the fact remains that there was no change in their duties and responsibilities and they continued to draw the same pay and allowances w.e.f. 2001 till 29.08.2008 before the Revised Pay Rules, 2008 came into force. It is submitted that on account of parity, the applicants are entitled to be given the same pay scale which their counterparts working in ARC, SFF and RAW are getting. It is further submitted that the controversy regarding the pay scales of Field Assistant, Senior Field Assistant and Assistant Field Officer was concluded by the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the matter of Mr. Atma Prakash Dixit and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Others (OA No.2866/2012 decided on 13.05.2013). In the said case, the applicants were Senior Field Assistant and Assistant Field Officer and were claiming the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- respectively w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as have been given to their counterparts serving in various organizations under the control of Cabinet Secretariat. This Tribunal having considered the stand taken by the parties in Para 13 of the order, held as under:-
13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Respondents have acted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in granting lesser grade pay to the SFA, AFO, FO etc. of SSB from SFA, AFO, FO etc. serving in ARC, RAW and SFF without justification. When there is no change in the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Applicants after shifting of administrative control of SSB from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs, the Respondents should have maintained the same grade pay to them also at par with the grade of the corresponding posts in all the organizations still under Cabinet Secretariat. The FOs under the SSB, as already stated, have already obtained an order for granting them the grade pay of Rs.4800/- at par with the FOs of ARC, SFF, RAW etc. with effect from 1.1.2006 vide order of this Tribunal in OA No. 1011/2011 (supra) and the Respondents have already implemented the order. The Tribunal, therefore, for the reasons stated in the judgment, allowed the OA by passing the following orders:-
14. We in the above facts and circumstances of the case, allow this OA. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2011. We further direct the respondents to grant higher Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- to the Applicants SFAs(M) and AFOs(M) respectively with effect from 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. We also direct that the aforesaid direction shall be complied within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the controversy being similar and having now been resolved by the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the matter of Mr. Atma Prakash Dixits case (supra), which has also been given effect to and the same is not under challenge before the High Court or the Honble Apex Court, this OA may be disposed of on similar terms.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents though opposed the prayer, but could not distinguish the facts and the grievance of the applicants in the instant Application with that of OA No.2866/2012. He could also not dispute that the controversy involved in this Application is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment which had attained finality.
7. Having considered the submissions made on both sides and having gone through the order of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2013 passed in OA No.2866/2012, we are also of the view that the controversy and the grievance in the instant two Applications is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and there appears no reason to take a contrary view.
8. In view of the discussions made above and also in view of the order of this Tribunal in Mr. Atma Prakash Dixits case (supra), both the aforesaid Applications succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 1.12.2011 and 29.11.2011 to the extent that the applicants have been denied the Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- for Field Assistant (FA), Rs.2400/- for Senior Field Assistant (SFA) and Rs.2800/- for Assistant Field Officer (AFO) respectively are quashed and the respondents shall take steps to grant higher Grade Pay in the Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- to the applicants w.e.f. 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
3. Again this Tribunal vide Order dated 1.5.2014 passed in OA No.1483 of 2014 - Shri Satyendra Singh Kandari and others vs. Union of India and others decided on 1.5.2014 have passed the following Orders:
2. It is seen that this case is covered by the earlier order of this Tribunal in OA No.2866/2012 - Atma Prakash Dixit and ors Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block and ors. decided on 13.05.2013. The operative part of the said order is as under:-
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicants, Shri M.K.Bhardwaj and the learned counsel for the Respondents, Shri Ashish Nischal. In our considered view the respondents have failed to consider the claims of the Applicants in this OA in the right perspective. The undisputed fact that there has been historical parity for the purpose of pay scales in respect of the posts of SFA, AFO, DFO, FO etc. in SSB with their counter parts in other three organizations, namely, RAW, SFF and ARC. The said parity could not have been disturbed merely due to shifting the administrative control of SSB from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs. This issue was considered by this Tribunal at least twice earlier in OA No.1011/2011 (supra) and OA No.1816/2011 (supra). The Honble High Court of Delhi has also considered the same issue in WP (C) 7526/2010 (supra). It is not disputed that the SSB itself has taken up the disparity in the pay scales of their staff with their counter parts with the Anomaly Committee of the MHA. They have in turn taken up the matter with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). The only objection for the Ministry of Finance is that there was specific recommendation by the 6th CPC with regard to the corresponding posts in SSB. Therefore, the pay scale and grade pay recommended and accepted for the corresponding posts in IB cannot be extended to the officers in IB. The said aspect has been considered by this Tribunal in OA 1011/2011 (supra) FOs in SSB. This Tribunal clearly held that the Applicants therein were at par for all purposes, with the FOs of RAW, SFF and ARC. They were also getting the same pay scales as per the recommendations of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Pay Commissions. The disparity has arisen only after the implementation of the 6th CPC due to shift in the administrative control of all those organizations. But the undisputed fact that remains is that when the SSB was shifted to Ministry of Home Affairs w.e.f.2001, others remained under the Cabinet Secretariat. While doing so the duties and responsibilities of the officers of the four organizations remained same. Therefore, the same reasons for granting the revised pay and grade pay to the organizations under the Cabinet Secretariat will apply to SSB now under the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, for strange reason, in the case of SFAs in the SSB they remained under the lesser pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 during the period of the 5th CPC though they were maintaining parity throughout till that period. By the 6th CPC also they were granted the same pay scale at par with others but lesser grade pay.
13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Respondents have acted in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India in granting lesser grade pay to the SFA, AFO, FO etc. of SSB from SFA, AFO, FO etc. serving in ARC, RAW and SFF without justification. When there is no change in the nature of duties and responsibilies of the Applicants after shifting of administrative control of SSB from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of Home Affairs, the Respondents should have maintained the same grade pay to them also at part with the grade of the corresponding posts in all the organizations still under Cabinet Secretariat. The FOs under the SSB, as already stated; have already obtained an order for granting them the grade pay of Rs.4800/- at par with the FOs of ARC, SFF, RAW etc. with effect from 1.1.2006 vide order of this Tribunal in OA No.1011/2011 (supra) and the Respondents have already implemented the order.
14. We in the above facts and circumstances of the case, allow this OA. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2011. We further direct the respondents to grant higher Grade pay of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- to the Applicants SFAs(M) and AFOs(M) respectively with effect from 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. We also direct that the aforesaid direction shall be complied within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3. Further, it is seen that another identical case OA No.1396/2014- Shri Yogendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi came up before this Tribunal and the same was also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order in OA No.2866/2012. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
3. We, therefore, as agreed to by learned counsel for the applicants as well as respondents, dispose of this matter by this order. It appears that in respect of grant of aforesaid grade pay, the controversy has finally been adjudicated by another Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Mr. Atma Prakash Dixit & Others versus Union of India & Others [OA No.2866/2012 decided on 13.05.2013] whereby respondents were directed to grant higher Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- to the applicants SFAs (M) and AFSO (M) respectively in the same department. Therefore, there appears no reason to deny the benefit of the aforesaid judgment to the present applicants even though they were not the applicants in the aforesaid OA.
4. On the other hand, Shri Rajinder Nischal, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that admittedly the applicants have already moved the representation before the respondents dated 17.02.2014 annexed as Annexure A-5 and, therefore, this Applicant cannot be entertained at this stage as the period of six months is yet to be expired. He, however, fairly submitted before us that the aforesaid representation of the applicants would be examined and disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously.
5. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the and also looking to the submissions before us and keeping in view the aforesaid judgments of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we dispose of this matter at this stage with direction to the respondents to examine the grievance of the applicants and dispose the aforesaid representation by a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. However, in the event the respondents come to the conclusion that benefits of the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to the applicants, they will pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the applicants within the aforesaid period.
4. In view of the aforesaid position, we dispose of this Original Application at the admission stage with the direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid orders of this Tribunal in the case of Atma Prakash Dixit & Ors.(supra) and Shri Yogendra Singh & Ors.(supra) and if their cases are covered by those orders, they shall also be given the same benefits by passing appropriate orders. In case the respondents consider that the applicants case is not covered by the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal, they shall pass reasoned and speaking orders under intimation to the applicants individually. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the decision of the respondents is not in favour of the applicants, they are at liberty to challenge the same through appropriate original proceedings before this Tribunal, if so advised.
5. There shall be no order as to costs. Again in the Order of the Tribunal in OA No.2323/2014 - Smt. Bivabati Paul and others vs. Union of India and others decided on 14.7.2014, this Tribunal has held as under:-
..In later in the case of State of Karnataka vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, the Apex Court has held as under:-
29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.
5. Further according to the learned counsel, even the Vth Central Pay Commission in its report has also recommended to the Government that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Government should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. The relevant paragraph of the said report reads as under:-
126.5 Extending judicial decisions in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed employees. We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgment is only extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed and others v. UOI & others (O.A. Nos. 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the entire class of employees who are similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other judgments like G.C. Ghosh v. UOI, [ (1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC) ], dated 20-7-1998; K.I. Shepherd v. UOI [(JT 1987 (3) SC 600)]; Abid Hussain v. UOI [(JT 1987 (1) SC 147], etc. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Government should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of general nature applicable to a group or category of Government employees is concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an individual employee.
6. In view of the above position, we dispose of this Original Application at the admission stage itself with direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in the light of the common Order of this Tribunal in OA No.1046/2012 and OA No.2219/2012 decided on 17.5.2013. If their cases are covered by the said order, they shall also be extended the same benefits. The respondents shall also pass appropriate orders in compliance of the aforesaid directions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Again in the Order of the Tribunal in OA No.115/2015 Ramakant Manuri and others vs. Union of India and others decided on 12.1.2015, this Tribunal has held as under:-
4. In view of the aforesaid position, we dispose of this Original Application at the admission stage with the direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid orders of this Tribunal in the case of Atma Prakash Dixit & Ors.(supra) and Shri Yogendra Singh & Ors.(supra) and if their cases are covered by those orders, they shall also be given the same benefits by passing appropriate orders. In case the respondents consider that the applicants case is not covered by the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal, they shall pass reasoned and speaking orders under intimation to the applicants individually. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the decision of the respondents is not in favour of the applicants, they are at liberty to challenge the same through appropriate original proceedings before this Tribunal, if so advised.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. In view of the aforesaid position, we dispose of this Original Application at the admission stage with the direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid orders of this Tribunal in the case of Atma Prakash Dixit & Ors.(supra), Shri Yogendra Singh & Ors.(supra) etc. and if their cases are covered by those orders, they shall also be given the same benefits by passing appropriate orders. In case the respondents consider that the applicants case is not covered by the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal, they shall pass reasoned and speaking orders under intimation to the applicants individually. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the decision of the respondents is not in favour of the applicants, they are at liberty to challenge the same through appropriate original proceedings before this Tribunal, if so advised.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
4. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid two Orders of this Tribunal and take appropriate decision in the matter. If their cases are covered by those orders, they shall also be given the same benefits by passing appropriate orders. In case the respondents consider that the applicants case is not covered by the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal, they shall pass reasoned and speaking orders under intimation to them individually. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the decision of the respondents is not in favour of the applicants, they are at liberty to challenge the same through appropriate original proceedings before this Tribunal, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ravi/