Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(The Order of the Court was made by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla,J) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 23.11.2001 passed in O.A.No.320 of 1999.

2. The second and third respondents herein (the applicants before the Tribunal) joined the services of the petitioners as Junior Machine Operators on 24.12.1981 and 11.1.1982 respectively. They claimed that as on 11.9.1989, they were performing the duties and responsibilities as Data Processing staff. By relying upon the Office Memorandum of the Government of India dated 11.9.1989, introducing the pay scale for Electronic Data Processing Posts, the second and third respondents claimed that they were entitled to be re-designated as Data Processing Assistants Grade-B in the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 11.9.1989 with all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay, etc. They also prayed for setting aside the orders issued by the petitioners herein dated 23.12.1998 and 13.1.1999 respectively, in and by which the claim of the respondents 2 and 3 for the above relief was rejected by the petitioners.

3. Before the Tribunal, a reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners herein, wherein the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 by the Government of India was admitted. It was contended that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the respondents 2 and 3 were different from the duties and responsibilities prescribed for the post of Electronic Data Processing Section. It was therefore contended that the claim of the respondents 2 and 3 for the relief of re-designation as Data Processing Assistants Grade-B and the applicability of scale of pay of Rs.2200-3200 with effect from 11.9.1989 was not maintainable.

6. It was on the above basis, the Tribunal ultimately passed orders declaring that the respondents 2 and 3 herein, were working as Data Processing Assistants Grade-B and that they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.2200-3200 with effect from 11.9.1989. After granting such a declaration, the petitioners herein were directed to grant the consequential benefits such as re-fixation of pay, etc. and also the arrears from 11.9.1989.

7. While assailing the said order of the Tribunal in this Writ Petition, the petitioners have confined their challenge only in respect of the direction for consequential payment in difference in pay for the period from 11.9.1989 to 31.3.1997. The said challenge is made on the footing that the Office Memorandum of the Government of India dated 11.9.1989 by itself would not apply to the petitioners herein and that as far as the petitioners herein were concerned, they decided to give effect to the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 only from 1.4.1997 and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the payment of arrears with effect from the earlier date, namely 11.9.1989.

8. When we consider the above said submission made on behalf of the petitioners, we are not able to countenance the same for more than one reason. In the first place, we find that in the above referred to extracted paragraph of the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal, after the receipt of the report of the NIC dated 12.10.2001, the result of the report, namely that the respondents 2 and 3 herein were really performing their duties as Data Processing Assistants Grade-B from 11.9.1989, was tacitly admitted on behalf of the petitioners. When once such an admission on behalf of the petitioners was made with their eyes wide open before the Tribunal, it is too late in the day for the petitioners to now turn around and state that irrespective of such categoric admission, they can still contend that the relief should be restricted from a subsequent date and not from the date when the Government of India issued the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989.