Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Sugan Yadav vs Union Of India Through on 29 October, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2673/2012
MA-2206/2012
Reserved on : 07.10.2013.
Pronounced on :29.10.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Smt. Sugan Yadav,
W/o Sh. Mahinder Singh,
R/o H.No. 1575, Sector-4,
Model Town, Rewari,
(Haryana). .. Applicant
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
The General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. Divl. Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Delhi Division,
State Entry Road, New Delhi.
3. Divl. Personnel Officer,
Northern Railway, Delhi Division,
DRMs Office, State Entry Road,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Rajender Khatter, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Following relief has been sought in this O.A:-
(i) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not fixing the pay of the applicant from the date of initial appointment in the revised pay scale after granting the sixteen advance increments is illegal, arbitrary and against the terms and conditions of the appointment and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicant w.e.f. 05.06.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 at the stage of Rs.6375 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances with interest.
(ii) That the Honble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the pay fix by the respondents vide letter dated 04.12.2000 is not a correct fixation of pay and consequently same is liable to be quashed and pass an order directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicant w.e.f. 05.06.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 at the stage of Rs.6375 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances with interest.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant joined Railways against the Sports Quota on 05.06.1997 directly on the post of Senior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. According to the applicant she was allowed 16 increments as per the Railway Boards Policy of giving incentives to sports person and her pay was fixed at Rs.1680 at the time of initial recruitment vide order dated 05.06.1997 (page-11 of the paper-book).
3. The grievance of the applicant is that once Vth CPC report was accepted w.e.f. 01.01.1996 i.e. from a date prior to her joining the Railways, her pay as on 05.06.1997 should have been fixed in the revised scale of Rs.4500-7000 at the stage of Rs.5125. On the contrary the respondents have given her 16 increments in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1200-2040 and after that given replacement of the same in the new pay scale as per the table of fixation. The applicant has also filed an application for condonation of delay stating that when the pay of the applicant was wrongly fixed vide letter dated 04.12.2000 she was in the Sports Camp at Patiala and remained always out of station due to various sport competitions/camps. Thereafter, she remained on maternity leave upto October, 2005. She has further stated that it was in the year 2011 when the applicant came to know that similarly situated persons were given advance increments in the revised scale while fixing their pay, after which she submitted a detailed representation on 19.07.2011. However, no reply to the same was forthcoming. The applicant then filed RTI application in response to which she was informed in February, 2012 that her pay has been fixed correctly. Aggrieved by the same she has filed this O.A. before us. Arguing for condonation of delay, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Gupta Vs. UOI & Ors., 1995(2) SC 567 in which it has been held that where the fixation of pay was not in accordance with Rules, it is a continuing wrong against the concerned employee giving rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid salary. Thus, a fresh cause of action arises every month.
4. The respondents have filed their reply in which while they have not disputed the facts regarding appointment of the applicant under the Sports quota, they have contended that the pay of the applicant has been correctly fixed. They have further stated that at the time of initial recruitment, there was no mention of grant of 16 increments to the applicant and her pay was fixed at Rs.1680/-. Thereafter, when the Vth CPC recommendations were accepted, her pay was fixed at Rs.5125/- w.e.f. 05.04.1997. The respondents have also contended that they never received the representation of the applicant dated 19.07.2011. Further, they have opposed the applicants case on the ground of delay. In this regard, while opposing her application for condonation of delay they have relied on a plethora of judgments of various Courts including the Apex Court.
5. We have considered the submissions of both sides. In our opinion, this case is not ripe for judicial review because the respondents have yet to take a decision on the representation dated 19.07.2011 made by the applicant. This representation is available at page-9 of the paper-book. In this representation the applicant has quoted the case of one Smt. Seema Yadav, who the applicant claims is similarly placed and who like the applicant was also appointed in Sports quota. The applicant has claimed that Smt. Seema Yadav was allowed 11 increments in the revised scale after VIth CPC report was accepted and her pay was fixed at Rs.10760/-.
5.1 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this O.A. by directing the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant. Even if a copy of the same is not available in the office of the respondents, the applicant will make another copy of the same available to them. The representation will be decided by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by means of a reasoned and speaking order. In case the applicant is still aggrieved, she will be at liberty, if she so desires, to approach this Tribunal by means of appropriate judicial proceedings. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vinita/