Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
All India Association Of Inspectors And ... vs Post Telangana Circle on 2 December, 2021
OA No.506/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/021/00506/2021
Date of CAV : 08.11.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2021
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Admn. Member
1.All India Association of Inspectors And Assistant,
Superintendents,Posts, CHQ New Delhi-110054,
Represented by Pitabasa Jena, General Secretary,
Aged 49 yrs, Asst Supdt of Posts (Printing), (Group-B),
O/o Postal Stores Depot, Bhubaneshwar-751007,
Cell No.9437630182, e-mail ID [email protected]
2.P.Varaprasad S/o P.Aagaiah, (Group-B),
Aged about 49 years, Occ : Assistant Supdt. of Post Offices,
O/o Superintendents of Post Offices, Hanmakonda Division,
Hanmakonda-506001. Cell No.9177434534, e-mail ID
[email protected]
3. C.Sri Nagesh, S/o Sitaramanjaneyulu (Group-B),
Age 49 years, Occ : Asst.Supdt of Post Offices,
O/o CEPT, Hyderabad, Telangana Circle - 500 001.
Cell No.9490156725, e-mail ID [email protected]
4.G.Narmada W/o Dasaram (Group-B),
Age 45 years, Occ : Assistant Supdt of Post,
R/o H.No.8-7-98/30, Plot No.30, DRDL Colony,
Hastinapuram Central, Hyderabad-500079.
Cell No.7981027956, e-mail ID [email protected]
...Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr.N.Vijay)
Vs.
1.The Union of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure, North Block,
New Delhi represented by its Secretary.
2.The Union of India, Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts, DAK Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi represented by its Secretary.
3.The Director General, Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
Page 1 of 11
OA No.506/2021
4.The Additional Secretary and Financial Advisor,
IFW, Postal Directorate, Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
5.The Chief Postmaster General, Talangana Circle,
Dak Sadan, Hyderabad-500 001. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mrs.Mega Rani Agarwal, Addl.CGSC)
---
Page 2 of 11
OA No.506/2021
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V.Sudhakar, Admin. Member) Through Video Conferencing:
2. The OA is filed challenging the denial of grade pay of Rs.5400/-
after rendering 4 years of service in the grade pay of Rs.4800/-.
3. Brief facts are that the first applicant is a recognized Association of Inspectors and Asst. Superintendents of Post Offices (ASP). Applicants 2 to 4 are working as ASPs and are members of 1st Applicant Association. Being aggrieved that the respondents denied the grade pay of Rs.5400/-, the OA is filed.
4. The contentions of the applicants are that there are various judicial pronouncements in favour of the applicants and that other departments have not refused the benefit even under 7th CPC. Surprisingly, Department of Expenditure (for short DOE) has turned down the proposal of the Postal Department to grant the relief sought by ignoring clause 1(x)(e) of Government of India Resolution dt. 29.08.2008. The denial decision of Dept. of Expenditure dt. 13.04.2021 is violative of CCS (Revised) Pay Rules, 2008. The enhancement of grade pay is dependent on the number of years served in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and not on the post. Respondents have granted similar relief to similarly situated individuals on being directed in OAs No. 296/2014, 1016 of 2020. 7th CPC recommended higher grade pay to Inspector posts of Rs.4600/-, ASP Rs.4800/- and to the Superintendent Rs.5400/-. While framing CCS (Revised) Pay Rules of Page 3 of 11 OA No.506/2021 2016, the relevant rules in CCS (RP) Rules 2008 applicable to the applicants were not repealed to the extent they were not in conflict with 2016 rules (For short 2016 Rules). Indeed, MOF has clarified vide letter dt. 10.04.2017 in consultation with DOE to continue to allow grade pay of Rs.5400/- after 4 years for Superintendent Central Excise/ Customs/ Appraisers of CBEF which was introduced in 6th CPC. The benefit stands implemented in Central Excise/ Customs Department. 7th CPC recommended the non-functional financial up-gradation from grade pay of Rs.4800/- to GP of Rs.5400/- at paras 11.12.139/11.12.140 for Accounts Officers/ Postal & Railway officers etc. Applicants are working in grade pay of Rs.4800/- since 01.01.2016 and hence eligible for GP of Rs.5400/- w.e.f 01.01.2020. Others ASPs who were similarly placed were granted the benefit prior to implementation of 7th CPC. Hence, applicants have been discriminated. Benefits extended in the previous Commissions are never withdrawn.
5. Respondents confirm that they have granted the relief sought to some cadres and continued it under 7th CPC. Besides, to some other officers, the benefit was extended under court orders. Requests of some applicants for grant of relief sought was rejected by 2nd respondent vide order dt. 28.07.2021 on the grounds that DOE has rejected grant of GP of Rs.5400/-.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record. 7(I) The dispute is in regard to grant of grade pay of Rs.5400/- after rendering 4 years' service in the grade pay of Rs.4800/-. The Dept. of Posts Page 4 of 11 OA No.506/2021 has admitted that to some officers, the relief sought was granted and when a proposal was sent to DOE for other similarly placed officers, it was rejected vide ID Note dt. 13.04.2021.
II. To resolve the dispute, it would be beneficial to refer to the accepted recommendations of 6th CPC, wherein the benefit of higher grade pay of Rs.5400/- was considered and recommended. The clause 1(x)(e) of the 6th CPC is extracted hereunder:
"Group B officers of Departments of Posts, Revenue, etc will be granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 on non-functional basis after 4 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-
2."
The Govt. of India accepted the 6th CPC recommendations vide Resolution dated 29.08.2008. The recommendation is categorical in allowing the grade pay of Rs.5400/- to Group B officers of the Department of Posts on a non- functional basis after 4 years of regular service in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-. Based on the 6th CPC recommendations, CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 were framed. Rule 3 & 4 are relevant, wherein the Pay structure is defined as under:
Department of Posts Superintendent (Post) 7500-12000 PB-2 4800 7.15.17 8000-13500 PB-2 5400 (after 4 years) The pay structure defined clinches the issue in favour of the applicants.
III. In addition, the same issue was adjudicated in OA 296/2014 and relief was granted on 14.09.2015 by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Page 5 of 11 OA No.506/2021 High Court of Madras. The verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Civil) No. 23513 & 3189 of 2015, dt.10.10.2017. Therefore, the findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras have attained finality. DOE cannot therefore take a stand contrary to the judicial findings which attained finality. Thus, the basis of rejection of DOE, which is extracted hereunder, is void ab initio:
"This Department of Expenditure have now clarified that the 4 years period is to be counted w.e.f. the date on which the officer is placed in the pay scale of Rs.7500-1200 (pre-revised). Thus, if an officer has completed 4 years on 01.01.2006 or earlier, he will be given the non-functional upgradation w.e.f. 01.01.2006. If the officer completes 4 years on the date after 01.01.2006, he will be given non functional upgradation from such date on which he completes 4 years in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 (pre- revised)."
IV. Respondents challenged the findings of the Tribunal in OA 296/2014 in Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad vide WP No. 31576 / 2016 and the outcome was dismissal on 06.11.2018. Respondents thereafter implemented the orders of this Tribunal vide letter dt. 19.08.2019. Applicants claim that similar orders passed by the Hon'ble Chennai and Bangalore Benches of this Tribunal have been implemented and the same has not been refused by the respondents. A similar order granting relief sought in OA No. 1016/2020 dt. 22.01.2020 was implemented vide letter dt. 01.03.2021 of the respondents.
V. In respect of the 7th CPC, the accepted recommendations are as follows:
"Analysis and Recommendations:
11.8.21 The Commission has noted that the VI CPC placed Inspector (Posts) at par with Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC. Subsequently, the Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC were elevated to GP Rs.4600. The Commission has further noted that Inspector (Posts) and Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC are recruited through the same combined graduate level examination. The Commission, therefore, recommends that Inspector (Posts) who are Page 6 of 11 OA No.506/2021 presently in the GP Rs.4200 should be upgraded to GP Rs.4600/-. With this upgradation, Inspector (Posts) shall come to lie in an identical grade pay as that of their promotion posts of Assistant Superintendent of Posts (ASPOs).
A higher grade would thus need to be extended to ASPOs. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the promotional post of ASPOs be placed in the next higher GP 4800 and further, the post of Superintendent (Posts), which is presently in the GP Rs.4800, be moved up to GP Rs.5400 (PB-2). The recommendation was to increase the grade pay of Inspectors to Rs.4600/-, ASPs to Rs.4800/- and Superintendent of Posts to Rs.5400/-. Nowhere, has 7th CPC denied the grant of grade pay of Rs.5400/- for rendering 4 years' service in GP of Rs.4800/-, as per 6th CPC recommendations. Usually, Pay Commissions do not deny the benefits granted in the previous Commission.
VI. It is amusing to note that MOF has clarified vide letter dt. 10.04.2017 in consultation with DOE that relief sought can be granted, as under:
"The matter has been examined in consultation with Department of Expenditure. Implementation Cell, 7th CPC, Department of Expenditure has vide ID Note No. 30-1/17(v)/2016-IC (Pt.I) dated 08.03.2017 clarified that the 7th CPC in Para 11.18.63 recommended only normal replacement pay level for Superintendents of Central Excise/ Customs and Appraisers of CBEC. Accordingly, non-functional upgradation (after 4 years of regular service) of Superintendents of Central Excise/ Customs and Appraisers of CBEC introduced on the basis of 6th CPC recommendation will continue under the 7th CPC regime by replacing the pay structure of Pay Band and Grade Pays with the corresponding Pay Levels/ Cells in Pay Matrix."
Though the above order was issued with reference to the Superintendents of Central Excise/ Customs and Appraisers of CBEC, but the principle stipulated applies to all the departments of the Central Government where this issue has to be attended to.
VII. Delving a little deeper into the subject, it would be evident that paras 11.12.139 & 11.12.140, as reproduced hereunder are more specific in granting the relief in question to the Postal and Accounts Officers. Page 7 of 11 OA No.506/2021
Para 11.12.139 "The Commission notes that non-functional upgradation from GP 4800 to GP 5400 (PB-3, on completion of four years of service, has been accorded to a number of posts by the Government in 2008 viz., Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service, Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Islands Police Service, Officers of the Central Secretariat Service and those of Central Secretariat Stenographers Service as well as other similarly placed Headquarters Services. This has also been extended to Group B Officers of the Departments of Posts and Revenue. While extending this benefit, officers in GP 4800, both in Headquarters and in the field formations of these two organizations have been covered. In 2015, this benefit was also extended to Sections Officers in the Indian Coast Guard." Para 11.12.140 "The Commission is therefore of the view that there is no justification for excluding officers in the organized accounting Departments who are at GP 4800 from this dispensation. It therefore recommends that all officers in organized accounts cadres (in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Defence Accounts Department, Indian Civil Accounts Organization, Railways, Post and Telecommunications) who are in GP 4800 should be upgraded, on completion of four years to GP 5400 (PB-2) viz., Pay Level 9, in the pay matrix."
Applying the judicial pronouncements and CPC recommendations cited, the applicants 1 to 3 who worked in the grade pay of Rs.4800/- from 01.01.2016 are eligible for grade pay of Rs.5400 from 01.01.2020 onwards. There can be no iota of doubt in this regard.
VIII. It is also not out of place to state that respondents have granted the relief to similarly placed personnel before implementing 7th CPC recommendations. As brought out supra, there is no observation of the 7th CPC negating the grant of grade pay of Rs.5400/- after being in grade pay of Rs.4800/-, as recommended by 6th CPC and accepted by Government of India. In fact, a quick glance of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 would reveal that there is no rule repealing the clause of grant of higher grade pay of Rs.5400/- as provided for in CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. In the absence of such repealing provision, DOE has no jurisdiction under the rules to reject the relief sought.
Page 8 of 11 OA No.506/2021 IX. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases, rules are to be followed as under:
In T.Kannan and ors vs S.K. Nayyar (1991) 1 SCC 544 where in it was held that "Action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by rules". Again in Seighal's case (1992) (1) supp 1 SCC 304 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that "Wanton or deliberate deviation in implementation of rules should be curbed and snubbed." In another judgment reported in (2007) 7 SCJ 353 the Hon'ble Apex court held " the court cannot de hors rules"
DOE, therefore could not go back on the stand taken by it, as circulated by MOF vide letter dated 10.04.2017, since it would be infringement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observations as at above. Further, when the recommendations of 6th CPC have been accepted through a cabinet resolution, the DOE cannot supersede the accepted recommendation by an executive ID note dated 13.04.2021. Therefore, the order dated 13.04.2021 lacks jurisdiction and hence, is per se illegal.
XI. Moreover, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of cases, that benefit granted to employees have to be extended to similarly situated individuals without forcing them to approach the courts as under:
Amrit Lal Berry vs Collector Of Central Excise, (1975) 4 SCC 714: "We may, however, observe that when a citizen aggrieved by the action of a Government Department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law is his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the Department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievances to Court."
Inder Pal Yadav Vs. Union of India, 1985 (2) SCC 648:
"...those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly Page 9 of 11 OA No.506/2021 situated, they are entitled to similar treatment if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court."
V CPC report, para 126.5 - Extending judicial decision in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed employees:
We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgment is only extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors, (OA 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the entire class of employees who are similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other judgments like G.C. Ghosh V. UOI [(1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC)], dt. 20.07.1998; K.I. Shepherd V. UOI [(JT 1987 (3) SC 600)]; Abid Hussain V. UOI [(JT 1987 (1) SC 147], etc. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Government should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing other employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of general nature applicable to a group or category of Government employees is concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an individual employee."
In a latter case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn (Direct Recruit) Vs. State of UP (2006) 10 SCC 346, the Apex Court has referred to the decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha, 2006 (2) SCC 747, as under:
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently."
XII. It is interesting to note that some employees in the respondents organization have been granted the relief in consultation with DOE, as admitted by the respondents, in their letter dt. 08.06.2021. Further, the Central Excise Department has for similarly placed employees granted the relief. Further, the orders of the superior judicial fora granting similar relief have been implemented as expounded in the paras supra. Denying the same to the applicants is discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational and illegal. It is a clear infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. Page 10 of 11 OA No.506/2021 XIII. Therefore, in view of the orders of the superior judicial fora, as well as the 6th/7th CPC recommendations/ rules being in favour of the applicants, the ID note of DOE dated 13.04.2021 lacks legal sanctity. Therefore, the same along with consequential letter of DOP dt. 08.06.2021 are quashed and set aside. Consequently, respondents are directed to grant the grade pay of Rs.5400 to the applicants from the date they are eligible with consequential benefits thereof. We also make it clear that the judgment is rendered in rem so that other similarly placed employees are not compelled to knock the doors of the Tribunal. Time calendared to implement the verdict is three months from the date of receipt of this order. XIV. With the above direction, the OA is allowed with no order as to costs.
(B.V.SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
evr
Page 11 of 11