Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Though the 5th Central Pay Commission was constituted more than 10 years ago and its recommendations accepted in the year 1997, with effect from 1.1.1996, and the Government has already constituted 6th Central Pay Commission, which is likely to submit its report in near future, the ghost of the 5th Pay Commission still lingers on, insofar as disputes arising there from are concerned. It is a matter of common knowledge that every pay revision, based on these Pay Commissions, paves way for enormous litigation. Such disputes may be for variety of reasons and under variety of circumstances. Present case, which relates to the petitioners who are all serving on Electronic Data Processing (EDP) post in the Data Processing Division of National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) under the Ministry of Statistics, Government of India, also relates to the same category. These petitioners who are/were holding the post of Data Processing Assistant Grade-III as on 1.1.1996 and were enjoying the pay- scale of Rs. 1600-2660 were granted revising scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 as per the recommendations contained in para 55.71 of the 5th Pay Commission. However, the Government decided to upgrade the scale of the petitioners from Rs. 5000-150-8000 to Rs. 5500-175-9000 and orders dated 18.9.2001 were passed to this effect upgrading the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 with effect from 1.1.1996. However, peculiar circumstances followed. As a result of pay fixation in an upgraded pay-scale, the actual pay which the petitioners were drawing got reduced. The respondent No.3, namely, the Deputy Director General, Data Processing Division, NSSO, accordingly instructed all the concerned Data Processing Centres under its administrative control vide letter dated 31.12.2001 to recover the excess pay drawn, if any, due to fixation of pay in the normal pay-scales through arrears bills/future salary. The petitioners objected to this action by submitting representation dated 18.1.2002, which was rejected on 4.3.2002. This rejection led the petitioners to file OA No. 982/2002 on 11.3.2002. This OA was disposed of by the Tribunal on 11.4.2002 directing the respondents to pass an additional and more detailed order giving its reasons as to why the pay was not to be fixed under FR 22 of the FRCS Rules and if that rule was not applicable then to indicate the rule under which pay fixation was done. Pending compliance of this direction, the respondents were restrained from making any further recovery of the alleged excess payment.