Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Shri Rajinder Prashad Sharma vs Mcd & Others Through on 19 October, 2010

      

  

  

 Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A.No.1131/2010

Tuesday, this the 19th day of October 2010

Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J)
Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A)

1.	Shri Rajinder Prashad Sharma
s/o Shri Bhola Ram
RZ 27, Phase II
Prem Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi

2.	Miss Asha Rani
d/o Shri Devinder Kumar
r/o S-53, Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi

3.	Shri Azad Krishan Jain
s/o late Shri T C Jain
r/o 137-A, Veer Nagar
Jain Colony, Gur Mandi
Delhi-7
..Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri M K Bhardwaj)

Versus

MCD & others through

1.	The Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi

2.	The Additional Commissioner (Estt.)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi

3.	The Director (Pers)
	Municipal Corporation of Delhi
	Town Hall, Delhi
..Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri R K Jain)







O R D E R (ORAL)

Shri Shanker Raju:

Applicant, through this OA, seeks difference in pay and allowances attached to the post of Accounts Officer, to which he has worked on current duty charge. The defence of the respondents is that as per FR 49 (v) no additional pay shall be admissible to a government servant who is appointed to hold current duty charge of the routine duties of another post.

2. The aforesaid controversy was set at rest by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Subhash Chandra Lather v. Union of India & another (OA-6/2009) decided on 16.7.2009 relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma & others, (1998) 5 SCC 87 as well as the decision in Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair & others, (1998) 4 SCC 291. The Tribunal in the said case has observed that the contentions now raised and similarly raised before the coordinate Bench were found by the Apex Court to be preposterous and it has been held that if a person has discharged the higher duties attached to a higher post, he is entitled to the wages.

3. In the above view of the matter, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly, OA is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to accord to the applicant the difference in wages of the post of Superintendent w.e.f. 18.5.2005 and AO/AA& C w.e.f. 31.8.2007, with all arrears, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

( Dr. Veena Chhotray )						( Shanker Raju )
  Member (A)							    Member (J)

/sunil/