Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Molay Kumar Chatterjee vs Post Jharkhand Circle on 4 February, 2025
1
O.A. No. 051/00341/2021
21
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT RANCHI
O.A. No. 051/00341
341/2021
Order reserved on
on:-16.12.2024.
Order pronounced on:
on:- 04.02.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [[A]
HON'BLE MR RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER [J]
Molay Kumar Chatterjee @ Moloy Kumar Chatterjee, aged about
60 years, Son of Hari Prasad Chartarjee, Resident of Gurudham,
Jorapathak Road, P.O.-Dhanbad,
P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar, Dist.
Dist.- Dhanbad at
Patna
Bench
present residing at Flat no. 54103, Sobha Dream Acres, Bengaluru,
Panathur Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka
Karnataka- 560087.
.........Applicant
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Director General of Post,
Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. & P.S. -
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.110001.
2. The Secretary Department of Post, Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg,
P.O. & P.S.-
P.S. Sansad Marg New Delhi
Delhi-110001.
3. The Director, Account Postal, Office at Rameshwaram Colony,
Near Radhe Krishna Garden, Bariatu, P.O.+ P.S. - Bariatu,.
Dist
District- Ranchi.
4. The Senior Accounts Officer (Pension), Office of General
Manger (P.A. & F), Karnataka Circle Third floor, GPO Building,
P.O. & P.S.-
P.S. Karnataka Circle, Karnataka 560001.
5. The Accounts Officer, Pension Office of the Director of
Accounts Postal
Postal Office. at Rameshwaram Colony, Near Radhe
Krishna Garden Bariatu, P.O.+ P.S. Bariatu, District
District-Ranchi.
........Respondents
For Applicant:-
Applicant: Shri M.M. Sharma
Sharma, Advocate
2
O.A. No. 051/00341/2021
21
For Respondents:-
Respondents: Smt. Amit Sinha
Sinha, ASC
ORDER
PER:-RAJVEER RAJVEER SINGH VERMA VERMA, MEMBER [J]
1. The applicants filed the OA for following relief: -
"(A) (A) Applicant who is superannuated from service on 28.02.2021 as a Senior Accountant from the office of Director of Accounts Postal, Ranchi, prays for direction to the respondents for fixation of the pension pension of the applicant in the pay pay-scale of Level-8, 8, the scale on which applicant was superannuated.
Patna And Bench Further prays for quashing of the Memo no no--
DAPJH/AdminII/PF/MKC/2021 21 dated 16 DAPJH/AdminII/PF/MKC/2021-21 16-07-2021 2021 issued under the signature of Accounts Officer Admin Admin-II, by which h amount of Rs.
6,11,981/ has been recovered from the pension account of the 6,11,981/-
Applicant in lieu of overpaid salary, leave encashment, provisional DCRG etc, which is apparent from the chart furnished by the Respondent.
And For direction to the respondents to to pay the difference of amount pension along with arrears till the date of actual payment of the amount after re-fixation re fixation of the pension of the applicant on the basis of fixing the applicant's pension in the pay scale of Level Level- 8.
And For direction to the respondent to refix the pension of the applicant after fixing the pension of the applicant in the pay scale of Level Level-8 8 and pay the arrears of difference of retirement benefits by virtue of fixation of his and pension interest. with gratuity statutory And/O And/Or 3 O.A. No. 051/00341/2021 21 Pass such other orders and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
proper."
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant was initially appointed as LDC on 16.04.1981 in the office of Director General of Post, Patna, thereafter passed the departmental examination in year 1983 and accordingly promoted to the post of Jr. Accountant Cadre. Subsequently in year 1986, applicant's post was upgraded to Sr. Accountant in pay scale of 1400-2600 2600 and in year 1993, applicant was granted benefits of ACP/ MACP and his pay was fixed fi on 9300-34800 34800 (GP 4600/ 4600/-). Applicant's Patna Bench service was upgraded to AAO in year 2013 and his scale was re re-fixed.
3. Thereafter, applicant was transferred from Patna to Ranchi in the month of September, 2015 and on 28.02.2021, he superannuated from service.
4. Vide de OA No. 050/440/2014 and MA/050/94/2015 dated 11.05.2015, applicant was extended similar benefits of the order passed in OA No. 2124 of 2011 by way of stepping up of his pay at par with the same cadre and applicant's pay scale was fixed in the pay scale of Level-8 8 and at the time of superannuation, applicant was drawing the pay scale of Level-88 but his pension was not fixed at his last pay drawn.
5. Thereafter, applicant represented before the competent authority for fixation of his pension and on 23.04.202 23.04.2021, 1, applicant's pension was provisionally fixed @ Rs. 78,800/ 78,800/- instead of Rs. 86,100/-- (last pay drawn). Applicant again represented before the competent 4 O.A. No. 051/00341/2021 21 authority and submitted relevant documents on 15.09.2021. Applicant has not been paid two months dues pension pension i.e. from March, 2021 to April, 2021 and respondents have issued one Memo No. DAPJH/Admin II/PF/MKC/2021 21 dated 16.04.2021 by which amount of Rs. 6,11,981/ II/PF/MKC/2021-21 6,11,981/-- has been recovered from the pension account of the applicant in lieu of overpaid salary, leave leave encashment, provisional DCRG etc. Applicant was again informed under RTI act that, his pension has been re re-fixed fixed @ Rs.
81,200/- instead of Rs. 86,100/-.
86,100/ Patna Bench 6. The respondents have filed the written statement and stated that the OA is not maintainable and lliable iable to be dismissed. The respondents stated that applicant was promoted in the cadre of AAO w.e.f. 06.09.2013 on officiating basis on officiating basis as local arrangement for not more than 180 days and he was reverted in his substantive grade that is Level evel 7 on 28.02.2018 and he was retired in the same pay level 7 on 28.02.2021.
7. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble Principle CAT, New Delhi in OA-2124/2011 OA 2124/2011 & MA 1617/2011 dated 01.02.2013 01.02.2013, it is mentioned at para 10 of the said order that ""the facts of this case are covered by the decision in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan as well as Madan Gopal Sharma and others (supra) (supra), this Original Application is allowed to the extent that Annexure-A/2 Annexure A/2 relating to rejection of claim of applicant is quashed and set aside." 5
O.A. No. 051/00341/2021 21
8. The para 14 of the decision in the case of Haricharan Singh Sudan (supra) is reproduced in para 9 of the order dt. 01.02.2013 of CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The same is as under:
"However one aspect is to be seen. In the case decided by tthe he Apex Court, the State Government was the Applicant and the challenge was against the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, which held that the higher pay scale be given to the respondents at par with their juniors whose pay scale become higher on account of the Patna Bench benefits of ACP afforded to them. The appeal was not dismissed but partly allowed and it was declared that the respondents were entitled to stepping up of pay. In other words, there shall only be the stepping up of pay and not the pay scale. The pay scale in respect of the applicants would remain the same as of date but the pay would be fixed in appropriate stage, and if there is no stage to match the pay drawn by the junior, the difference shall be treated as one of personal pay. The pay parity woul would d be compared annually and partly would be maintained in future."
9. In Para 11 of the said order dt. 01.02.2013, it is mentioned that:: "The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicant at par with his junior aforesaid and in terms of the dire directions ctions contained in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan (Supra). It is made clear that the applicant shall be given stepping up of pay only and not the Pay Scale Scale,, as explained above......"
above.....
6
O.A. No. 051/00341/2021 21
10. It is stated by the respondents that the pension of applicant was fixed as per rule and as per decision of Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2124/2011 & MA No. 1617/2011 dt. 01.02.2013 and PPO No. (Sealed Authority) Postal/JH/6835/957(1) dt. 28.06.2021.
11. The two months pension i.e. from 03/2021 & 04/2021 has already been released. Total amount recovered Rs. 6,11,981/ 6,11,981/- was already released vide Office Sanction memo No. DAPJH/Admn DAPJH/Admn-II/PF/2020-2021 2021 Patna Bench dt. 16.07.20241. Further the pay of applicant wa was earlier fixed @ 74300/--
w.e.f. 01.01.2016 (due to implementation of 7th CPC) which was later revised to maintain pay parity with Syed Sahanwaz and fixed @ 73,400/ 73,400/--
(as per order dt. 01.02.2013 of CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2124/2011). As a result the total amount Rs. 71,480/ 71,480/- was recovered as overdrawn pay allowance from the applicant.
12. The pay of the official was fixed as per the decision of the Hon'ble Principle CAT, New Delhi in OA OA-2124/2011 2124/2011 & MA 1617/2011 dated 01.02.2013 as below with taking taking pay parity with Syed Sahnawaz:
Period Pay drawn by Syed Actual pay drawn Due Pay of Shri Moloy Sahnawaz by Shri Moloy Kumar Chatterjee as per Kumar Chatterjee Pay parity with Syed Sahnawaz 01.01.2016 73,400/- (L-9) 74300/ 74300/- (L-8 as 73,500/- (L-8) local officiating in the post of AAO on temporary basis, and reverted to substantive level i.e. L L-7) 7 O.A. No. 051/00341/2021 21 01.07.2016 75,600/- 76,500/ 76,500/- 75,500/-
01.07.2017 77,900/- 78,800/
78,800/-, 77,900/-
01.07.2018 80,200/- 81,200/
81,200/-, 80,200/-,
01.07.2019 82,600/- 83,600/
83,600/-, 82,600/-,
01.07.2020 to 85,100/- 86,100/
86,100/- 85,100/-
28.02.2021
Accordingly the pay of the official was corrected and fixed as 85,100/ for the purpose of taking pay parity with Syed Sahnawaz.
85,100/-
Patna Bench
(b) As per the decision of the Hon'ble Principle CAT, New Delh Delhii in OA--2124/2011 2124/2011 & MA 1617/2011 dated 01.02.2013, "the pay scale in respect of the applicants would remain the same as of date but the pay would be fixed in appropriate stage, and if there is no stage to match the pay drawn by the junior, the difference sshall hall be treated as one of personal pay."
The basic Pay of the official was fixed as on 22.09.2007 with basic Rs. 16,930/-
16,930/ and GP 4200/- for taking parity of gross pay with Syed Sahnawaz. The basic enhanced from Rs. 15,610/ 15,610/- to Rs. 16,930/- by taking personal personal pay for the purpose of pay parity as per CAT order. Further as per CCS Pension Rule-33 Rule 33 Para -2, 2, it is mentioned that personal pay does not include any emolument for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Hence his pension was fixed at the basic pay Rs. 81,200/-.
81,200/ 8 O.A. No. 051/00341/2021 21
13. That with regard to the statement m made ade in Para 5.1 of the instant O.A., it is stated and submitted by the respondents that the pay fixed in Level-7 Level 7 is as per rule and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Principle CAT, New Delhi in OA-2124/2011 OA 2124/2011 & MA 1617/2011 dated 01.02.2013, as stated:
"The appeal was not dismissed but partly allowed and it was declared that the respondents were entitled to stepping up of pay. In other words, there shall only be the stepping up of pay and not the Patna Bench pay scale."
14. Applicant filed rejoinder/ reply to the written statement of the respondents wherein he reiterated his claim as mentioned in the OA.
15. We have heard the ld. counsels of both the parties and perused the relevant papers.
16. This Tribunal vide its order dt. 11.05.2015 allowed the OA No. 440/2014 & MA No. 94/2015 and directed the respondents to extend the similar benefit of the order passed in OA No. 2124/2011decided by the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide its order dt. 01.02.2013 which was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi it its order dt. 27.11.2013 and subsequently by the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of dismissing the SLP filed by Union of India vide order dt. 26.03.2014 to the applicants of this OA.
17. Para 5 of order dt. 11.05.2015 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 440/2014 & MA No. 94/2015 is as under: - 9
O.A. No. 051/00341/2021 21 "5 5 We have heard the parties and perused the record. It is noted that main contention of the applicants is to get extension of benefit of the order passe passed d by CAT, Principal Bench in OA 2124/2011 as they are similarly circumstanced. It is also noted that the applicants are similarly situated viz. a viz. a viz.
applicants of OA 2124/2011 because wherein it has been held that ::-
"para "para-11. With this OA stands disposed of and the respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicant at par with his junior aforesaid and in terms of the directions contained in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan (supra). It is made clear that the applicant shall be given step stepping ping up of pay only and not the pay scale, as explained above. The pay may be fixed accordingly and arrears be also paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the given facts and circumstances Patna of the case, applicant is not entitled to interest. Parties to bear their own Bench costs."
18. Para 14 of the decision in the he case of Harcharan Singh Sudan was reproduced by the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in para 9 of its order dt. 01.02.2013 which is reproduced reproduced below:
below:-
"9.
9. The issue raised in this case as to whether a senior person, though having received two promotions, is entitled to stepping up of his pay at par with his junior, who has been granted benefit under ACP Scheme and by virtue of this, is receiving receiving higher pay than his senior, stands clinched by various decisions of this Tribunal including in O.A. No. 842-JK 842 JK-2007 2007 decided on 17.11.2009 titled Madan Gopal Sharma & Others Vs. Union of India & Others. In that case reliance was placed on decisions of Apex Apex Court in the case of Ram Sarup Ganda (supra) and (Gurmail Singh). Reliance was also placed on decision in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan (supra). It was held that seniors are entitled to step up their pay as a general rule as and when any junior get getss fixed in a pay scale higher to them on account of grant of ACP Scale. Para 14 of the decision in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan (supra) in Para 14 is reproduced as under:-
under:
14.
4. However, one aspect is to be seen. In the case decided by the Apex Court, the he State Government was the appellant and the challenge was against the High Court judgment, which held that the higher pay scale be given to the respondents at par with their juniors whose pay scale became higher on 10 O.A. No. 051/00341/2021 21 account of the benefit of ACP afforded to them. The appeal was not dismissed but partly allowed and it was declared that the respondents were entitled to stepping up of pay. In other words, there shall only be the stepping up of pay and not the pay scale. The pay scale in respect of the applica applicants nts would remain the same as of date but the pay would be fixed in appropriate stage, and if there is no stage to match the pay drawn by the junior, the difference shall be treated as one of personal pay. The pay parity would be compared annually and partly partly would be maintained in future."
19. From the above, it is understood that stepping up of pay of the applicant was granted and not the pay scale. Thus applicant remained in the same pay scale in Level 7 and not in Level 8. Patna Bench 20. Thus pay of the applicant was rightly refixed in Level Level-7 7 and the same is as per the order dt. 01.02.2013 passed by the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2124/2011.
21. As per CCS Pension Rule 33, Para 2, it is stated that personal pay does not include any emolument for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It is understood that pension of applicant was rightly fixed by the respondents.
22. In view of above, OA is devoid of merit and as a result thereof is dismissed.
23. No order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
Member (J) Member (A)
du/-