Karnataka High Court
The Director, Isro Satellite Centre vs V S Uma Devi on 3 April, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.26424 OF 2012(S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. The Director
ISRO Satellite Centre
Department of Space,
Government of India,
Airport Road, Vimanapura Post,
Bangalore - 560 017.
2. The Deputy Secretary
Government of India
Department of Space,
ISRO, Antariksh Bhavan
New BEL Road,
Bangalore - 560 094.
2
3. The Union of India
Department of Space
Rep. by its Secretary cum Chairman
ISRO Antariksh Bhavan, New BEL Road,
Bangalore - 560 094. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri Unni Krishnan M., CGC)
AND:
V.S.Uma Devi
W/o late Dr.K.S.Shivaram
Aged about 60 years
Senior Administrative Officer (Retd.,)
O/o The ISRO Satellite Centre,
Airport Road, Vimanapura Post, Bangalore - 560 017
Resident of No.861, 9th 'B' Main, 17th Cross,
ISRO Layout, Bangalore - 560 078.
...RESPONDENT
(Served and unrepresented)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order dated 22.2.12 vide Annexure-A passed by the
CAT, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in OA.No.1/08.
This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day,
Ravi Malimath J., made the following:-
3
ORDER
The respondent was working as a Senior Administrative Officer in the office of the first respondent. She joined the organization as Office Clerk - 'A' w.e.f. 24.01.1977 and later promoted as Purchase Assistant 'B' w.e.f. 13.10.1988 and the pay was fixed as Rs.1650/- from the said date. It was upgraded w.e.f. 17.05.1995 to the scale of Rs.1640-2900/-, as she has already been promoted as Assistant Administration Officer w.e.f. 7.11.94, in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 and on the date of promotion her pay was fixed at Rs.2,060/-. On the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission, the scale of Rs.2000-3200 was revised to Rs.6500-10,500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and her pay was fixed as Rs.6,500/- as on 01.01.1996.
2. The petitioner having stepped up the pay of the respondent on par with her junior Smt.M.L.Vanniar and as a result, her date of increment was preponed to 4 01.08.1996 from 01.01.1997. After the said preponement, the respondent noticed that she was drawing less pay than one Smt.A.N.Parijatham, who was appointed as Office Clerk 'A' much later than the respondent. Therefore, the respondent made an application seeking stepping up of the pay with that of Smt.A.N.Parijatham. Since no reply was forthcoming, she filed an O.A.No.399/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed off on 14.11.2006 issuing directions to the respondents. Thereafter her claim was rejected.
3. She once again filed O.A. No.104/2007. As directed she submitted a reply dated 22.10.2007. The same was rejected. Hence, she filed the instant application seeking to set-aside the impugned communication and to direct the respondents therein to remove the disparity and anomaly in the matter of pay and allowance with that of Smt.A.N.Parijatham. The 5 Tribunal by the impugned order quashed the endorsement and directed the respondents to step up the pay of the applicant with that of Smt.A.N.Parijatham from the date on which Smt.A.N.Parijatham was paid higher scale. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents have filed this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. That the Tribunal failed to consider the various Rules that are applicable so far as stepping up of the pay is concerned. That it is only when both of them belong to the same cadre that the step up of pay can be ordered. In the instant case, the respondent is in the post of Purchase Assistant-A or an Assistant Administration Officer and it cannot be held that she is on par with Smt.A.N.Parijatham who is an Assistant Stores Officer. Therefore, stepping up of pay of the respondent is not appropriate. 6
5. The respondent is served and unrepresented.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted.
7. The contention of the petitioner was negated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on an Official Memorandum dated 04.09.1987, wherein it was held that the post of Grade-B and above in the different areas of administration form the common cadre for all ISRO / ODS Centres / Units. Therefore, it was held that since both them form common cadre, stepping up of pay is just and proper. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that for the purpose of stepping up of the pay, both of them should be in the same cadre. That the employees are to be considered within the same cadre and cannot be compared with other cadres, even though their pay-scales are similar. The official 7 memorandum dated 08.07.1987 clearly refers to the restitution in law.
8. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal that the respondent as well as Smt.A.N.Parijatham are from the very same cadre is erroneous. It is only when both of them are in the same cadre that stepping up of pay can be ordered. In the instant case, there is a factual error committed by the Tribunal. Since the respondent does not belong to the same cadre as that of Smt.A.N.Parijatham, she is not entitled for stepping up pay to that of Smt.A.N.Parijatham. Both of them cannot be equated. Even otherwise, the material would clearly show that the post of respondent as well as Smt.A.N.Parijatham are not interchangeable since they belong to different cadres. Therefore, they cannot belong to the same cadre.
8
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No.01/2008 is set-aside. The application of the respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JJ