Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Indu Bala Sharma vs Union Of India Through on 29 November, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1998/2011
Reserved on : 25.11.2013.
Pronounced on : 29.11.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Parakcen, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Smt. Indu Bala Sharma,
D/o Sh. K.L. Sharma,
Junior Clerk,
Office of Senior Divl. Comml.
Manager, North Central Railway,
Agra Cantt. .. Applicant
(through Mrs. Meenu Mainee, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India through
1. The General Manager,
North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
North Central Railway,
Jhansi.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
North Central Railway,
Agra Cantt. .. Respondents
(through Sh. P.K. Yadav, 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 be graciously pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned orders.
(ii) That the Honble Tribunal may be further graciously pleased to direct the Respondents fix the pay of the Applicant which she had been drawing in Jhansi Division.
(iii) That the Honble Tribunal may be further graciously pleased to quash the action of the Respondents in so far as the arbitrary reduction of grade pay is concerned and direct the Respondents to restore the grade pay of the Applicant at Rs.2,800/- with consequential benefits.
(iv) That the Honble Tribunal may be further graciously pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the arrears of pay.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Jhansi Division of the Railways on 23.02.1988 on compassionate ground. In 1993 she got promoted as Senior Clerk. In 2006 due to her own domestic problems she requested for transfer to Agra Division. The contention of the applicant is that on 26.06.2006 she was transferred to Agra in the lower pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 instead of the pay scale of Senior Clerk on which she was working in Jhansi Division. Consequently she submitted various applications claiming that she had been wrongfully forced to work as Junior Clerk although she had been promoted as Senior Clerk as far back as in 1993. On 22.07.2010 she was granted the benefit of MACP Scheme but her grade pay was fixed at Rs.2000 in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 whereas she had been drawing Rs.2800 as grade pay. The applicant has claimed that the respondents have wrongfully reduced her grade pay from Rs.2800 to Rs.1900 and even after MACP given her grade pay was Rs.2000 only. Aggrieved by the same, she has filed this O.A. before us.
3. In reply the respondents have stated that the applicant was transferred to Agra Division on her own request and she had also accepted reversion from the post of Senior Clerk to Junior Clerk. The scale of Junior Clerk was Rs.3050-4590 and in accordance with the Instructions of DoP&T issued vide O.M. F.No. 16/6/2011 Estt. Pay I dated 14.02.2006 her basic pay was fixed at the maximum of that scale at Rs.4590. Subsequently, when the new pay scales were adopted after the 6th CPC report her pay was regulated in terms of DoP&T O.M.F.No. 13/9/2009-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 21.10.2009. The respondents have further stated that due to a clerical error the applicant was allowed to draw grade pay of Rs.2800 for some time. However, the grade pay of Junior Clerk is Rs.1900 and when this error was discovered her grade pay was reduced to Rs.1900. Further, on grant of MACP to her this grade pay was increased to Rs.2000. The respondents have stated that inadvertently the applicant had been allowed to draw extra amount as pay and that they are in the process of computing the excess amount drawn by her and will very soon be taking steps to recover the over payment made to her.
4. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record.
5. During the course of arguments the respondents counsel produced a set of documents, which have been placed on file, according to which the applicant had made a request for her transfer to Agra accepting not only bottom seniority but also reversion to the initial pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. This request was accepted and an order No. P/328/2/Comml./CA-Part-I dated 22.06.2006 was issued. The respondents have produced an attested copy of the same. This order clearly states that the applicant is being transferred on her own request after being reverted as Junior Clerk along with bottom seniority. Further, the respondents have produced photocopies of the notings of the relevant file in which the case of the applicant for transfer to Agra Division has been dealt with. In those notings also it is clear that the transfer was allowed only because the applicant had not only accepted bottom seniority but also reversion to the pay scale of Junior Clerk. After perusal of these documents, we are convinced that the contention of the applicant that she has been wrongfully forced to accept reversion as Junior Clerk is absolutely baseless and factually incorrect. She does not appear to have approached this Tribunal with clean hands as she has clearly hidden the fact that reversion to the scale of Junior Clerk was done only after she had consented to the same.
5.1 We find that the DoP&T instructions dated 14.02.2006 regarding computation of pay of those who have accepted reversion to lower grades lay down as follows:-
2. The demand of the Staff Side has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and it is clarified that on transfer to the lower post/scale under FR15(a), the pay of a Government servant holding a post on regular basis will be fixed at a stage equal to the pay drawn by him in the higher grade. If no such stage is available, the pay will be fixed at the stage next below the pay drawn by him in the higher post and the difference may be granted as personal pay to be absorbed in future increments. If the maximum of the pay scale of the lower post is less than the pay drawn by him in the higher post, his pay may be restricted to the maximum under FR 22(1)(a)(3). 5.2 The applicant at the time of transfer and reversion was working in the pay scale of Rs4500-5700. The pay scale of the Junior Clerk was Rs.3050-4590. Accordingly, in terms of DoP&T instructions her pay was fixed at the maximum of this scale at Rs.4590. Subsequently, when the 6th CPC scales were accepted by The Central Government, the pay of the employees was regulated in terms of DoP&T O.M. dated 21.10.2009. Thus, there appears to be no infirmity in fixation of her pay scale/pay band.
5.3 Regarding grade pay, it is not disputed that the grade pay of Junior Clerk is Rs.1900. The instructions clearly lay down that on reversion grade pay of lower scale only would be admissible. Hence, the respondents were right in saying that she should have got grade pay of Rs.1900 only and it was only due to a clerical error that she was allowed to draw Rs.2800. Further, MACP Scheme provides that on grant of benefit under that Scheme the next available grade pay is to be given. This may not necessarily be the grade pay of the next promotional post. In the case of the applicant her grade pay was Rs.1900 and she was rightfully granted the next grade pay of Rs.2000 under the MACP Scheme. Her claim of Rs.2800 is not tenable as that is the grade pay of next promotional post and not the next available grade pay as provided under the MACP Scheme.
6. From the above, we come to the conclusion that neither basic pay nor the pay scale, nor the grade pay of the applicant has been wrongly fixed. The applicants contention that she was forced to work in Junior Scale is absolutely baseless since she has willfully accepted her reversion as Junior Clerk. We do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents. The O.A. is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/