Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
D. D. Saini vs M/O Defence on 13 December, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
OA No.574/2012
Order Reserved on:02.12.2016
Pronounced on:13.12.2016.
Hon'ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Durga Dutt Saini,
Assistant Accounts Officer,
Group B (Gazetted)
O/o PAO (Ors.) RRRC
Delhi Cantt-110010 -Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. E.J.Verghese)
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Public Grievances and Pensions,
North Block, Govt. of India,
New Delhi-110011.
2. Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of Finance
South Block
Govt. of India
New Delhi-110011
3. Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of Defence (Finance)
South Block
Govt. of India
New Delhi-110011
4. The CGDA
West Block-V, West Block V,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. Respondents
2
(OA No.574/12)
(By Advocate: Mr. B.L. Wanchoo)
ORDER
Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A):
Through the medium of this Original Application (OA), filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant has prayed for the following specific reliefs:
"(a) Allow the Application of the Applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 with interest.
(b) Direct the respondents to grant the grade pay of Rs.5400/- to the applicant in PB-3 as approved by the Cabinet on 14/08/2008."
2. The brief facts of this case are as under:
2.1 The applicant joined Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA), which comes under the Ministry of Defence as an Auditor on 29.04.1986. He was promoted as Senior Auditor on 26.11.1992 and then as Section Officer on 06.08.2001 and finally as Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) on 01.04.2005. The 6th Central Pay Commission's (6th CPC) recommendations were implemented by the Government, with some modifications, in the year 2008 and a Gazette Notification to that effect was issued on 29.08.2008 (Annexure A-2 colly.).
Para (x) (b) of the notification reads as under:
"b) After 4 years of regular service in the Section Officer/Private Secretary/equivalent grade of Rs.4800 grade pay in PB-2, officers of Central Secretariat Service, Central Secretariat Stenographers Service and other similarly placed HQ services will also be granted the non-functional grade of Rs.5400 in PB-3 and not in PB-2."3
(OA No.574/12) 2.2 The applicant contends that pursuant to the approval of the Union Cabinet for the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC, the Central Government issued Annexure A-4 Press Release dated 14.08.2008, in which inter alia, in para-11 (v) it has been stated as under:
"(v) Government has continued the present position of granting Group A scale to Group B officers after 4 years of service and these officers would be placed in PB-3 instead of PB-2 recommended by the Sixth CPC. This would benefit Group B officers of the Railways, Accounts Services, CSS, CSSS and DANICS & DANIPS."
2.3 By virtue of the said Press Release, the applicant claims that he, at that point of time, was in Group 'B' and after having put in more than four years of regular service as Group 'B' officer, he was entitled for granting Group 'A' pay scale in PB-3 instead of PB-2 and as such, his pay should be fixed in PB-3 with the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. As the same has not been considered by the respondents, the applicant has filed the instant OA, praying for the reliefs as indicated in para-1 supra.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, wherein they have vehemently denied that the applicant was entitled for the grant of the reliefs which he has prayed for. It is stated that the proposal for the grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to the AAOs of Department of Defence (DoD) on completion of four years service in the grade was submitted to the Ministry of Finance, who vide their 4 (OA No.574/12) Annexure R-3 UO Note dated 30.06.2011 have furnished the requisite clarification as under:
"M/o Defence may please refer to their notes on pre-pages regarding grant of the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to Assistant Account Officer of Defence Accounts Department on completion of 4 years of service in the grade.
2. The matter has been examined in this Department and it is observed that the Cabinet Note dated 13.8.2008 inter-alia included as under:
"5.3 (f) Modifications for Group B Cadres in the Central Government:-
i) Placement of Section Officers in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS)/Central Secretariat Stenographer Service (CSSS)/Railway Board Secretariat Services (RBSS)/Armed Forces Hqrs. Civil Services (AFHQCS)/Indian Foreign Service 'B' and officers of Delhi & Nicobar Island Police Service (DANIPS) who were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.8000-
13500 in PB-3 on non-functional basis after 4 years of services in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 instead of PB-2 recommended by the 6th CPC.
ii) Placement of Sr. Accounts Services in Indian Audit & Accounts Department & other Organised Accounts Service in PB-3 instead of PB-2 recommended by the 6th CPC. Placement of Accounts Officers in PB-2 with GP of Rs.5400/- instead of GP of Rs.4800/- recommended by the CPC; and
iii) Grant of GP of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 to Group B Supervisors in Deptt. of Posts & Revenue etc. on non- functional basis after 4 years of Service in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to ensure parity with their administrative counterparts."
3. On the perusal of the above as well as the minutes of the Cabinet meeting dated 14.8.2008, it is observed that no reference to such dispensation has been made therein. Further, the Resolution was also issued on the basis of actual Cabinet Note and its decision of the Cabinet. As per Cabinet's approval, the Sr. Accounts Officer of Organised Accounts Cadre have already been placed in GP of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 and Audit Accounts Officer in PB-2 with GP of Rs.5400/- instead of Rs.4800/- recommended by the 6th CPC. In view of the position brought out, it is not possible to agree to the proposal of MoD."
3.1 The respondents have further stated in the reply that based on the clarifications issued by the Ministry of Finance, the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, Chandigarh vide 5 (OA No.574/12) Annexure A-1 (colly.) Order dated 30.09.2011 has informed the applicant that the benefit of grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 is not extendable to him. The respondents also filed a short reply to the amended OA.
4. With the completion of the pleadings, the case was taken up for hearing the arguments of the parties on 02.12.2016. Shri E.J. Verghese, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.L. Wanchoo, learned counsel for the respondents argued the case.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings and documents annexed thereto. We find that in the Annexure A-2 (colly.) Gazette notification dated 29.08.2008, the Central Government has clearly indicated that the Accounts Officers will be placed in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 and Senior Accounts Officer will be placed in PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. In this connection para-x (c) of the Gazette notification is extracted below:
"(c) In the IA&AD and all organized accounts cadre, posts of Section Officers and Assistant Audit/Accounts Officers will be merged and placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4800 as recommended by the Commission. In modification of Sixth CPC's recommendations, Audit/Accounts Officers (AOs) will be placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.5400 and Senior AOs will be placed in PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-."6
(OA No.574/12) 5.1 Further, para-x (b) pertaining to the Section Officers/Private Secretaries, reads as under:
"b) After 4 years of regular service in the Section Officer/Private Secretary/equivalent grade of Rs.4800 grade pay in PB-2, officers of Central Secretariat Service, Central Secretariat Stenographers Service and other similarly placed HQ services will also be granted the non-functional grade of Rs.5400 in PB-3 and not in PB-2;"
6. The claim of the applicant is that prior to the implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations, he was slightly better placed than the Section Officers in the DoD. But after the Annexure A-2 (colly.) Gazette notification, the Section Officers in the DoD have been placed in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 whereas he has been placed in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, which has caused gross injustice to him. He has laid a lot of emphasis on the Press Release for espousal of his cause.
7. No doubt, para-11 (v) of the Press Release gives an impression that the Group 'B' officers of Accounts services who have put in more than four years of service in that grade shall be granted Group 'A' scale in PB-3. This matter has been examined by the Ministry of Finance (MoF), on a reference from the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The MoF vide Annexure A-3 clarification dated 30.06.2011 have clarified that only Senior Accounts Officers of Organized Cadre are to be placed in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 and Audit Accounts Officers are 7 (OA No.574/12) to be put in PB-2 in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- instead of Rs.4800/-. This clarification has been issued by the MoF after perusing the decision of the Cabinet and the Cabinet Note concerning with it. Admittedly, the applicant does not belong to any Organized Accounts Cadre. His contention that he should be granted parity with the Section Officers of the Ministry of Defence is not acceptable for the simple reason that his cadre is entirely different. Grant of pay scales, Grade Pay to various Services and Grades within those Services, comes entirely within the domain of the Executive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. V. P.V. Hariharan & Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has has held as under:
"Before parting with appeal, we feel impelled to make a few observations. Over the past few weeks, we have come across several matters decided by Administrative Tribunals on the question of pay scales. We have noticed that quite often the Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a pay Commission. Change of Pay scale of a category has cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above the below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realises that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is all being misunderstood and misapplied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunals will exercise due restraint in the matter. Unless a clear case of hostile discrimination is made out, there would be no justification for interfering with the fixation of pay scales."8
(OA No.574/12)
8. The Central Government has taken a conscious Policy Decision that the Assistant Accounts Officers will continue in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and that only Senior Accounts Officers would be placed in PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- and Audit Accounts Officers in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that such a decision cannot be subjected to judicial review as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V. Hariharan (supra).
9. In the conspectus of the discussions in the foregoing paras, we do not find any merit in the OA, which is accordingly dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
(K.N. Shrivastava) (Raj Vir Sharma) Member (A) Member (J) 'San.'