Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Union Of India And Ors. vs Mahendra Pal Singh And Anr. on 26 July, 2013

Author: V. Kameswar Rao

Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, V.Kameswar Rao

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                       Date of decision: July 26, 2013
+       W.P.(C) 2445/2012

        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                     ..... Petitioners

                     Represented by:   Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate with
                                       Mr.R.N.Singh, Advocate
                     versus

        MAHENDRA PAL SINGH AND ANR.                   ..... Respondents

                     Represented by:   None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO

V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)

1. The question which arises for our consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondent No.1 is entitled to step up of pay at par with his junior Mr.Subhash Chand with effect from January 01, 2006.

2. The petitioners herein are Union of India and its functionaries who have challenged the order dated January 09, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.4203/2010 whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to step up the pay of the respondent No.1 at par with his junior Mr.Subhash Chand with effect from January 01, 2006 and fix his pay accordingly.

3. Notice was issued to the respondents and they have been served as well. There is no representation on their behalf on all the dates when this W. P.(C) 2445/2012 Page 1 of 5 writ petition was listed. Today also they are unrepresented. Hence we proceed to hear the matter and decide the same.

4. Some of the relevant facts are, the respondent No.1 was appointed as a 'Welder' skilled grade with effect from April 26, 1983 in the scale of `207-400. Thereafter he was appointed as Mechanic with effect from November 04, 1983 which post was also in the same scale.

5. Pursuant to the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission the respondent No.1 was given the revised pay scale of `950-1500 and his pay was fixed at `1010/-.

6. With effect from January 30, 1996, respondent No.1 was promoted as Mechanist (highly skilled) in the pre-revised scale of `1200-1800 and his pay was fixed at `1230/-. It may be relevant to note here that on his option, the pay of the respondent No.1, pursuant to the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission in the pay scale of `4000-6000 was postponed from January 01, 1996 to April 26, 1996 in the integrated merged pay scale of `4000-6000.

7. On October 01, 2003 respondent No.1 was elevated as MCM with effect from October 01, 2003 in the pay scale of `4500-7000 and his pay was fixed at `5000/- with effect from April 01, 2004.

8. That in so far as his junior Mr.Subhash Chand is concerned he was promoted as Mechanist in the scale of `4000-6000 with effect from January 30, 1996 and he has opted for the same scale of pay from the same date and accordingly his pay was fixed at `4000/- from that date.

9. Because of the fact that the pay of Mr.Subhash Chand was fixed with effect from January 30, 1996 at `4000, he continued to draw more pay than the respondent No.1. The representations of respondent No.1 seeking the W. P.(C) 2445/2012 Page 2 of 5 fixation of pay at `4000 with effect from January 01, 1996 went unheeded. The petitioners had fixed the pay of the respondent No.1 as on January 30, 1996 at `3800 and that of his junior Mr.Subhash Chand's at `4000 from the same date.

10. The case of the petitioners is in so far as fixation of pay of the respondent No.1 is that once an individual has exercised an option the same will be treated as final. According to them the pay fixation would not depend upon the seniority alone and the difference which has arisen is because of the option. In their reply before the Tribunal the petitioners have given a comparative statement showing the fixation of pay and increments granted to the respondent No.1 and his junior. The same is reproduced as under:

Shri M.P.Singh                         Shri Subhash Chand
30 Jan. 1996 `3800/- Mach HS           01 Jan. 1996 `4000/- Mach HS
26 Apr. 1996 `4000/- Mach HS           30 Jan. 1996 `4000/- Mach HS
01 Apr. 1997 `4100/-                   01 Jan 1997 `4100/-
01 Apr. 1998 `4200/-                   01 Jan 1998 `4200/-
01 Apr. 1999 `4300/-                   01 Jan 1999 `4300/-
01 Apr. 2000 `4400/-                   01 Jan 2000 `4400/-
01 Apr. 2001 `4500/-                   01 Jan 2001 `4500/-
01 Apr. 2002 `4600/-                   01 Jan 2002 `4600/-
01 Apr. 2003 `4700/-                   01 Jan 2003 `4700/-
Elevated MCM w.e.f.01 Oct. 03          Elevated MCM w.e.f.01 Oct. 03

01 Apr. 2004 `4800/-                   01 Jan 2004 `4800/-
01 Apr. 2004 `5000/-                   01 Jan 2004 `5000/-




W. P.(C) 2445/2012                                             Page 3 of 5
 01 Apr. 2005 `5125/-                    01 Jan 2004 `5125/-
`9540+4200 RPR-2008
01 Jan. 2006 `13740/-                   01 Jan 2006 `13970/- on grant of A/I
                                        Pay raised to `5250/- w.e.f. 01 Jan.
                                        2006

01 Jul. 2006 `14160/-
01 Jul. 2007 `14590/-
01 Jul. 2008 `15030/-
01 Jul. 2009 `15490/-
01 Jul. 2010 `15960/-

11. It is noted that, the respondent No.1, in his original application has inter-alia prayed for stepping up of his pay by re-fixing at par with his junior Mr.Subhash Chand. In other words he is claiming step up of pay with effect from January 01, 1996.

12. It is an accepted position that the difference in pay between respondent No.1 and his junior has primarily arisen because of his option to get his pay fixed pursuant to the recommendations of the 5 th Central Pay Commission (in revised scale) with effect from April 26, 1996 i.e. the date of increment. In other words his pay was not fixed in the revised pay scale of `4000-6000 as on January 01, 1996. He got promotion as Mechanist (highly skilled) with effect from January 30, 1996 when his pay was fixed at `1230/- which was later revised to `3800/-, whereas the junior Mr.Subhash Chand's pay was fixed at `4000 on January 01, 1996 itself. A perusal of the comparative chart would reveal that the difference has arisen on January 01, 1996.

13. The Tribunal agreed with the stand of the petitioners in so far as, the difference of pay, of both as on January 01, 1996. There is no challenge to the said conclusion of the Tribunal by the respondent No.1. Regrettably it erred by holding that the option given by the respondent No.1 has lost its relevance with introduction of revised pay scale with effect from January 01, 2006. The Tribunal has overlooked a very important aspect that any difference which has arisen because of fixation under the 5th Central Pay Commission would get transposed under the 6th Central Pay Commission, as well. In fact the pay as fixed of the respondent No.1 and the junior Mr.Subhash Chand would show that respondent No.1's pay on January 01, 2006 is fixed at `13740 whereas that of the respondent at ` 13970/-. To that extent the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. We do so. We allow the writ petition and hold that the pay fixation of the respondent No.1 has been done correctly with effect from January 01, 1996. He is not entitled to stepping up of pay with effect from January 01, 2006.

14. Consequently we dismiss the Original Application No.4203/2010 filed by respondent No.1.

14. No costs.

Dismissed as infructuous.

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JULY 26, 2013 Km W. P.(C) 2445/2012 Page 5 of 5