wp.2217.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO.2217/2002
* Murlidhar Singh s/o Jainath Singh
Aged about 60 years, occu: Senior Technical Assistant
Forest Survey of India,
Resident of 205, Friends Colony,
Katol Road, Nagpur. .. ..PETITIONER
versus
1) Union of India
Through the Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Environment and Forest
Paryawaran Bhavan, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2) Director
Forest Survey of India
Kaulagargh Road,
Dehradun (Uttaranchal). ..RESPONDENTS
...............................................................................................................................................
Mr.M.M. Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.J.S.Mokadam, Adv. for respondents
................................................................................................................................................
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 4th January, 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1. Heard Adv. Sudame for petitioner and Adv. Mokadam for respondents. Adv. Mokadam, because of personal ground, has been seeking adjournment. However as we have rejected it, as Officer of Court and without prejudice to that request, he has assisted the Court.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:30:16 :::
wp.2217.02 2
2. After hearing respective counsel, we find that Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has overlooked statutory nature of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. This Rules have been notified on 30th September, 1997 and name of employer of present petitioner, namely, Forest Survey, is appearing therein at Sr. No. IX. Under the Ministry of Environment and Forest Security, Union of India has placed Forest Survey of India. There, post of senior Technical Assistant then held by petitioner finds mention.
3. The petitioner has approached CAT in Original Application No. 2016/2001 with a grievance that he being a seniormost person falling within first seven senior Technical Assistants, needed to be given pay-scale of Rs. 6500
-200-10,500. CAT has rejected this simple demand by observing that when employer of petitioner has not accepted recommendation of Pay Commission, it could not have intervened in the matter. In short, it found that it was an internal administrative dispute and no legal right of petitioner was being violated.
4. Adv.Mokadam has taken us through the return filed before this Court and also through impugned order, to rebut submissions of Adv.Sudame, on above lines.
5. The defence of respondent-employer is that at the time of implementation of recommendations of V Pay Commission, V Pay commission though ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:30:16 ::: wp.2217.02 3 approved higher pay-scales, it imposed certain riders. Out of total 29 posts in cadre of STAs, 14 were to be upgraded and re-designated as Technical Officers. Out of these, 14 posts 50% posts i.e. 7 posts were to be filled in by direct recruitment and 7 posts by promotion. The remaining were to continue in the existing pay-scale revised to Rs. 5500-9000. This recommendation was accepted by Government but employer was insisting on upgrading all 29 posts of STAs. Because of this, petitioner did not get benefit of revised pay-scales mandated by 1997 revised pay Rules, mentioned supra, as 14 posts were/are not upgraded.
6. In addition, petitioner also pointed out a hostile and invidious discrimination in the matter by urging that under the guise of implementing of Assured Career Progression Scheme, though no such pay-scale is in existence, higher pay- scale of Rs.8000-13500 was extended to some juniors.
7. Petitioner, therefore, pointed out that as upgradation was not accepted, he received pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 after revision while his juniors got jumping upgradation to pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500. The petitioner claims pay-scale of Rs 6500-10500. Perusal of 1997 Rules do not show that pay-scale of Rs. 6500 -10500 is created for the post of Technical Officer, as envisaged in the report of Pay Commission (Paragraph 64.24). The Pay Commission recommended upgradation of 50% posts as Technical Officers and accordingly 14 posts were to be upgraded with further bifurcation as mentioned supra. 1997 Rules do not show creation of any such ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:30:16 ::: wp.2217.02 4 new posts by splitting sanctioned strength of cadre of Senior Technical Assistant only.
8. However, then grievance about the grant of jumping promotion to juniors in a still higher scale surfaces and needs redressal. A comment on this aspect also appeares in paragraph 7 of the judgment delivered by CAT. The CAT has found that employer has to rethink on said issue as benefit of upgradation has been wrongly given to individuals. The employer, therefore, was supposed to take necessary decision.
9. It is apparent that if upgradation effected was unjustified and petitioner was senior, the said benefit of upgradation should also be extended to petitioner. In this situation, we find the CAT has not properly evaluated status of above- mentioned 1997 Rules or then implication of recommendation of two pay-scales for same cadre therein. Not only this, a hostile and invidious treatment is extended to petitioner by not giving him upgraded pay-scale has also been ignored.
10. Respective counsel are not in a position to explain, developments after direction issued by CAT on 7.1.2002 while disposing of Original Application No. 2016/2001. This Court has issued rule in the matter on 22.2.2002 and expressly refused any interim relief.
11. Considering the fact that petitioner has superannuated long back and ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:30:16 ::: wp.2217.02 5 his grievance in relation to upgradation or ACP may have substantive impact on his last pay and therefore on pension, we quash and set aside the order dated 7.1.2002 and restore Original Application No.2016/2001 back to the file of CAT.
12. We direct parties to appear before CAT at Nagpur in its sitting to be held in the month of February 2018, on first day thereof.
13. Needless to mention that, we have kept all the rival contentions open. In the light of the observations supra, CAT shall attempt to decide the controversy afresh within four months.
14. With this, we partly allow the Writ Petition and dispose it of. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:30:16 :::