Bombay High Court
Murlidhar Singh S/O. Jainath ... vs Union Of India & Another on 4 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
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.
wp.2217.02
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
wp.2217.02
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
wp.2217.02
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
wp.2217.02
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
