Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
M.V.Mohanan Nair vs Union Of India Representd By The on 29 January, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
OA No.816/12
Tuesday, this the 29th day of January 2013.
CORAM
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms. K.NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
M.V.Mohanan Nair, 45 years
S/o M.R.Vishwanathan Nair,
Photocopier
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Ernakulam Bench
Sastha Temple Road,
Kaloor, Cochin-17
Residing at Lakshmi Geeth,
Maravanthuruthu P.O.
Vaikom, Kottayam District Applicant
(Advocate Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy)
Versus
1. Union of India representd by the
Secretary to the Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Department of Poersonel & Training
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The principal Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, 61/35, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Deputy Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench
Sastha Temple Road
Kaloor, Cochin-17. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Varghese P.Thomas,ACGSC)
This application having been heard on 29th January 2013, this
Tribunal on the same day delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE DR.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a covered matter. The applicant entered the services under the Respondent (C.A.T) as a photocopier (a Group-C post), vide Recruitment Rule notified in GSR 161 (E) in the pay scale of Rs 950 - 1500 (Revised to Rs. 3050 - 4590) on 17-12-1988. Under the ACP Scheme, introduced effective from 09-08-1999, he was afforded the first financial upgradation on 17-12-2000 in the scale of Rs 3,200 - 4,900/-, vide annexure A-2. This pay scale was substituted by the pay scale of Rs 4,000 - 6000, vide Annexure A-3. (This was so granted as a part of implementation of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 7356 of 2005, as spelt out in the said Annexure A-
3). This pay scale, in the wake of the acceptance of the recommendations of the VI Pay Commission was replaced by the pay band of Rs 5200 - 20400 with Grade Pay of Rs 2,800/- (Annexure A-5 refers). In so far as the next financial upgradation is concerned, the same is to be guided by the Scheme of M.A.C.P. which came into effect from 01-09-2008 and the applicant became entitled to the same w.e.f. 17-12-2008 on completion of twenty years of service. When in an identical case in respect of one Shri Raj Pal, the second financial upgradation was granted by placing the said individual in the pay scale of PB-1 with GP of Rs 2,400/- the said individual moved the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1038/CH/2010 and claimed that his upgradation should be in the PB2 i.e. Rs 9,300 -34,800/- with grade pay of Rs 4,600. This OA was allowed by order dated 31-05-2011 vide Annexure A-8. Writ petition preferred by the Respondent (CAT) had been dismissed and the decision of the Chandigarh Bench upheld vide Annexure A-9 and the same has been implemented, vide Annexure A-10 dated 02-01-2012. The applicant thus, penned a representation dated 16-01-2012 seeking the same extent of upgradation, vide Annexure A-11. This has, however, been not acceded to vide Annexure A-1 stating that the financial upgradation granted to the said Raj Pal is only on provisional basis subject to the outcome of the SLP pending in the Hon'ble Apex Court. Meanwhile, in yet another similar case, the Principal Bench vide order dated 28-08-2012 (Ved Prakash vs Union of India and Another, in OA No. 624 of 2012) followed the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the aforesaid case and directed the respondents as under:-
"5. Accordingly this OA is disposed of on consensual basis with directions to the respondents to extend the benefit as has been given to Shri Raj Pal who is admittedly junior to the applicant in all India seniority list also. This, however, would be provisional basis and subject to outcome of the SLP pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above, the earlier order dated 17.11.2009 is quashed hereby to the extent the applicant had been granted financial upgradation under MACP Scheme in Grade Pay of Rs.2800. All the consequential benefits would be given except the prayer for interest which is not found to be acceptable. Our directions are to be complied with within a period of two monthsf from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The applicant seeks an identical relief as hereunder:-
(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A1 and quash the same;
(ii) Direct the respondents to extend to the applicant the benefit of the order in OA 1038/CH/2010 dated 31.5.2011 rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal (Annexure A8), affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in its judgment in CWP No.19387/2011 dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure A9) and direct further to grant the consequential benefits thereof.
(iii) Award costs of and idental to this application
(iv) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Respondents have contested the OA. In their reply, they have admitted all the facts of the case as narrated in the OA but have justified grant of 2nd MACP in the case of Ved Prakash (applicant in OA No. 624 of 2012) of the Principal Bench stating that he was senior to Rajpal and hence, he was also granted the upgradation but on provisional basis, whereas, the applicant being junior to Rajpal, he cannot be granted the said benefit even on provisional basis.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the SLP was filed on 24- 12-2011 vide Diary No. 41242 of 2011 and the same was rendered defective and the said defect has not at all been cured. In so far as the merit of the case is concerned, that as in the case of Ved Prakash of the Principal Bench, the applicant be also extended the same benefits with the attendant condition as contained in the said order of the Tribunal.
4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the reply filed is comprehensive and the reason for resistance has been explained.
5. Arguments were heard and documents perused. It may be a fact that Shri Ved Prakash is senior to Rajpal. But, in so far as pay parity is concerned, provisions of ACP/MACP are clear that seniority has no role to play. In this regard, para 10 of the Scheme vide order dated 19-05- 2009, which reads as under, refers:-
No stepping up of pay in the pay band or grade pay would be admissible with regard to junior getting more pay than the senior on account of pay fixation under MACP Scheme.
Nowhere, in fact, in the order of the Principal Bench, the fact of Ved Prakash being senior to the applicant before the Chandigarh Bench has been referred to. The decision in the case of Ved Prakash was arrived at on consensual basis as spelt out in para 5 of the said order, extracted above. Grant of higher pay scale in the case of Ved Prakash is purely on the basis of his having completed the requisite years of service under the MACP Scheme. Thus, the contention of the respondents that since the applicant is not senior to the said Raj Pal, unlike Ved Prakash, he is not entitled to the financial upgradation as given to the other two cannot at all be accepted. The applicant is entitled to identical treatment as in the other two cases. The decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal i.e. Chandigarh Bench as also of the Principal Bench as referred to above is to be duly respected and as held in the case of Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, (2000) 1 SCC 644, and, we respectfully endorse the decision of the Principal Bench in the case of Ved Prakash.
6. In view of the above, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to make available the same benefits of financial upgradation as granted to the aforesaid Ved Prakash. The applicant shall be considered for second MACP with effect from the date he became eligible for the same as per the Scheme and his pay scale, on being otherwise found fit, shall be Rs 9,300 - 34800 with grade pay of Rs 4,600/- as in the case of Ved Prakash (applicant in OA No. 624/2012 of the Principal Bench). The upgradation, if so desired, be qualified as provisional if the SLP filed by the respondents is processed further. This order shall be complied with, within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
No cost.
K.NOORJEHAN Dr K.B.S.RAJAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER aa.