Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 30 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH OA No. 827/HP/2010.
Chandigarh: this 30th day of August, 2011. HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J). HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A). S.K. Chauhan, Trained Graduate Teacher (Work Experience Teacher) Kendriya Vidyalaya Dalhousie at Banikhet-176303, District Chamba (H.P) now retired) And resident of Sourabh House, Sat Dhara Road Dalhousie-176304, District Chamba (H.P). ..Applicant.
(By: Shri Rohit Seth , Advocate) Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg New Delhi-110016 through its Chairman.
2. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Regional Office), Govt. Hospital Road, Gandhi Nagar Jammu.
3. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dalhousie At Banikhet-176303, District Chamba (H.P). .Respondents.
(By: Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate) O R D E R (By: Honble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member (A) The applicant has filed this OA praying for the following reliefs:-
a)Quash the order dated 30.11.2005 (A-1) and office order dated 3.1.2006 (A-2) vide which the pay of the applicant has wrongly been fixed in violation of FR 22( c) (1) (a) inasmuchas he was drawing pay at the stage of Rs. 7250/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 and his pay was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500 at the stage of Rs. 7300/- whereas he was to be given benefit of at least one increment on promotion, of Rs. 175/- in lower pay-scale and by adding this increment, his pay would have reached at the stage of Rs. 7425/- and since there is no such stage in pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500, his pay was to be fixed at the next stage of Rs. 7500/- as on 18.10.1993 and by giving one increment on 1.1.2006, he would have started getting Rs. 7700/- whereas in this case his pay was fixed only at the stage of Rs. 7300/- by not giving him any benefit of increment in violation of Fundamental Rules relating to fixation of pay and secondly his date of next increment was also changed from 1.1.2006 to 1.10.2006.
b)Quash the orders /letter dated 11.5.2006 (A/3); orders/letter dated 27.6.2006 (A/4); orders/letter dated 19.2.2007 (A/5); orders/letter dated 3.4.2008 (A/6); orders/letter dated 30.4.2008/2.5.2008 (A/7); orders/letter dated 14/21.7.2008 (A/8); orders/letter dated 26.3.2009 (A-8/A) vide which the various representations made by the applicant for fixation of his pay correctly and stepping up of his pay at par with his junior have been rejected.
c)Issue direction to the respondents to fix his pay as per FR 22( c) (1)(a) inasmuch as he was drawing pay at the stage of Rs. 7250/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000, his pay be fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500 by giving benefit of at least one increment on promotion, of Rs. 175/- in lower pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and by adding this increment, his pay would reach at the stage of Rs. 7425/- and since there is no such stage in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500, his pay be fixed at the next stage of Rs. 7500/- as on 18.10.2005 and by giving one increment on 1.1.2006, he would start getting Rs. 7700/-, his date of next increment be also kept as 1.1.2006 or alternatively step up his pay at par with his juniors, with arrears thereon including revision of retiral dues/pension, with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date the amount became due to the actual date of payment.
2. The facts of the case as projected by the applicant are that after his appointment as TGT (Work Experience Teacher) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), he joined his duties on 18.10.1993 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 whereas one Shri Vishnu Dutta, WET joined his duties on 3.1.1994. After revision of pay-scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996, Shri Vishu Dutta started drawing pay at the stage of Rs. 5675/- with increment of Rs. 175/-, whereas the applicant reached this stage on 1.10.1996 because his date of next increment was 1.10.1996. Since the applicant was drawing less pay than his junior, he made a representation and the respondents stepped up his pay at par with his junior vide order dated 28.10.2003 at the stage of Rs. 5675/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The applicant has stated that he was granted senior scale of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f 18.10.2005 and his pay was fixed in this scale at the stage of Rs. 7300/- whereas after giving benefit of one increment of Rs. 175/- on promotion, his pay would have reached the stage of Rs. 7425/- and was to be fixed at the next stage of Rs. 7500/- and by giving one increment on 1.1.2006, he would have started getting Rs. 7700/-. His date of next increment was also changed from 1.1.2006 to 1.10.2006. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 29.11.2005 for grant of one increment after giving him senior scale under FR 22(1)(a)(i) and for fixing his pay at the correct stage. Respondent no. 2, vide letter dated 11.5.2006, intimated to Respondent no. 3 that the pay of the applicant had been fixed correctly after granting him senior scale and the person junior to him was getting higher pay due to the option given by him for fixation of pay on the grant of senior scale, whereas the applicant has not exercised such option within the stipulated time as per rules. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a representation dated 26.5.2006 for fixation of his pay at par with his junior. Respondent no. 2 informed Respondent no. 3, vide letter dated 27.6.2006, that the pay of the applicant was fixed on 3.1.2006 on the basis of the option dated 29.11.2005 exercised by him, wherein he had opted for fixation of his pay in October, 2005 and no other option was exercised by the applicant. The applicant submitted various representations for fixation of his pay. Respondent no. 2 once again vide letter dated 14/21.7.2008, addressed to Respondent no. 3, rejected the case of the applicant stating that his pay had been correctly fixed.
3. The applicant again submitted a representation dated 19.6.2009 followed by another representation dated 20.11.2009, for stepping up of his pay at par with his junior Shri Vishnu Dutta and also mentioned that another person junior to him, namely Shri Jag Mohan Chaudhary, WET, was also drawing more pay than him. He also stated that after the Sixth Pay Commission Report, his pay was fixed at Rs. 13580+ Rs. 4800, whereas the pay of his junior, J.M. Chaudhary was fixed at Rs. 13490 + Rs. 4600 before grant of senior scale. He further stated that the applicant got his senior scale in October, 2005, whereas J.M. Chaudhary, who is junior to him, got this scale on 1.9.2007. According to the applicant, the anomaly in his pay arose on 1.1.2008, when his pay was fixed at Rs. 15300 + Rs. 4800 and that of J.M. Chaudhary was fixed at the stage of Rs. 15780 + Rs. 4800. Therefore, he had requested that his pay may be stepped up at par with his junior. He has stated that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are illegal, arbitrary, harsh and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has further stated that he has retired from service on 31.5.2010 and is suffering recurring financial loss every month while drawing his pension and due to this, his retiral benefits and pension also have been fixed at a lower level. Hence this OA.
4. The applicant has filed MA no. 731/2010 for condonation of delay in filing the O.A.
5. The respondents have stated in their reply that in terms of order dated 21.11.2005, the Teachers who were granted senior scale could give their option for fixation of pay within one month from the date of grant of senior scale or after getting increment in the basic scale. Accordingly, the applicant submitted an application dated 29.11.2005 wherein he had given option for fixation of his pay in October, 2005 with DNI on 1.10.2006 which was forwarded by the Principal to the office of Respondent no. 2. On the basis of this proposal and option, the pay of the applicant was fixed vide letter dated 3.1.2006. Thereafter, no option was given by the applicant. Therefore, consequent upon grant of senior scale, the pay of the applicant was fixed by KVS (JR) Jammu vide letter dated 3.1.2006 in terms of FR 22(1) (a) (2) of FR SR Part 1-General Rules as follows:-
Date Pay drawn in the scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 Pay fixed in the scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 17.10.05 7250 18.10.05 Rs. 7300/- with DNI on 1.10.2006 if otherwise admissible.
6. According to the respondents, the plea of the applicant for fixing his pay after giving one increment is not justified in view of the above position. So far as the contention of the applicant that his juniors are getting more pay than him is concerned, the respondents have stated that the juniors of the applicant are getting higher pay due to exercise of option by them at the time of fixation of their pay on grant of senior scale, whereas the applicant has not exercised such option within the stipulated time as per rules. Thus, they have stated that there is no infirmity in the fixation of pay of the applicant and this fact has already been intimated to him by them. They have also stated that the representations of the applicant already stand disposed of vide orders dated 11.5.2006, 27.6.2006 and 19.2.2007. According to the respondents, there is no fresh rejection in the letter dated 26.3.2009 as it simply states that the case of pay anomaly has already been disposed of vide order dated 21.7.2008. They have further stated that the applicant is not suffering any financial loss as his pay has been fixed rightly by them as per rules.
7. The applicant has filed a rejoinder generally reiterating the averments made in the OA.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.
9. The issue involved in the present OA is a very limited one. The date of grant of pay-scale was to be determined by the option to be given by the employee and in the present case, the applicants pay was fixed as per his option. The persons with whom he is comparing his case had given an option to that effect, and were therefore, given one increment in the lower pay-scale before their pay was fixed in the higher pay-scale. The applicant only gave a representation after his pay had been fixed in the higher pay-scale with DNI on 1.10.2006, whereas he should have given this option before this as the others had done. Now that he has missed the bus by not exercising this option in time, he cannot claim the benefit of two different pay-scales at the same time. He is now in the higher pay-scale and cannot claim benefit of the increment which was due to him in the lower pay-scale. Therefore, his prayer has been found to be devoid of merit and the same is rejected.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that this matter is covered by order dated 12.1.2011 of this Tribunal in the case of Sohan Singh Vs. Union of India (OA no. 57/HR/2009). However, we find that the said case is distinguishable on facts, since in Sohan Singhs case no clear option had been exercised by the applicant, whereas in the present case the applicant has given a clear option and the action was taken as per the option given by him.
11. However, the fact remains that his pay has now been fixed at a point which is lower than his juniors on account of their having exercised an option which the applicant failed to do. Therefore, the applicant is free to make a representation to the respondents regarding stepping up of his pay at par with his immediate juniors, as per law and rules. Therefore, if the applicant so desires, he may represent to the respondents for stepping up of his pay at par with his immediate junior within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if he so desires and on receipt thereof, the respondents are directed to consider his representation along with other representations already pending with them vide Annexures A-17 to A-19 as per law and rules and pass a reasoned and detailed speaking order on the same within three months thereafter, after giving a personal hearing to the applicant. Order so passed be duly communicated to the applicant.
12. Consequently, this OA is dismissed and disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 30.8.2011.
ms
1
OA No. 827/HP/2010.