Bombay High Court
Union Of India & Another vs Yellapragada Venkatesha Thalpa ... on 9 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp2829.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2829 OF 2002
1) Union of India, through Secretary,
Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry
of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-01.
2) Director General, National Academy of
Direct Taxes, Chhindwara Road,
Nagpur-29. ... Petitioners
- Versus -
Yellapragada Venkatesha Thalpa Sai s/o
Y.L. Narasimha Rao, aged about 32 years,
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Avantica-II, N.A.D.T. Quarters, Nagpur-29. ... Respondent
-----------------
Shri S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri T.R. Darda, Advocate for respondent.
----------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 9, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Heard Adv. Chaudhari for petitioners and Adv. Darda for
respondent.
2 wp2829.02
2) After hearing respective Counsel for the parties yesterday,
matter came to be adjourned to today.
3) Facts show that respondent is Scientific Officer (D) working
earlier with Centre for Advanced Technology, Indore. Upon selection, he
reported at establishment of petitioner no.2. Thus, he joined Indian
Revenue Service.
4) The employer claimed that employee Shri Yellapragada should
be given minimum of pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- as direct recruit. His
earlier employer, namely, Department of Atomic Energy had fixed him at
Rs.3125/- on 1/8/1992 in pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/-.
5) The employee contended that as petitioner was holding lien
on the post of Scientific Officer (D), as per provisions of Rule 22-B of the
Fundamental Rules, he ought to have been fixed by accepting his present
pay at appropriate stage even in his new pay scale after his recruitment in
Indian Revenue Service. The employer submitted that his pay could not
have been protected.
6) In this backdrop, Central Administrative Tribunal has
evaluated controversy, looked into Rule 22-B of the Fundamental Rules
and found that the employee needed to be fixed at Rs.3625/- as on
2/9/1993 in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/-.
3 wp2829.02
7) Effort of Adv. Chaudhari for petitioners is to demonstrate that
the Central Administrative Tribunal has relied upon alleged protection
given to one Shamboo Nath by present petitioners. He submits that later
on it was withdrawn and hence, it did not constitute a precedent.
8) Adv. Darda on behalf of respondent employee submits that
the treatment accorded to Shri Shamboo Nath in the matter of pay
fixation is not the sole reason given by Central Administrative Tribunal.
He relies upon Rule 22-B(1)(a) of the Fundamental Rules. He further
submits that the provision is very clear and as pay of petitioner on the post
on which he had a lien was more, direction to fix him accordingly is legal.
9) We have perused records. Fundamental Rule 22-B(1)
considers the cases in which a Government servant is appointed as
probationer in another service or cadre and is confirmed subsequently in
that service or cadre. It stipulates that during probation period, he has to
draw pay at the minimum of the time scale of pay of the post on which
he has been recruited. However, there is a proviso, which stipulates that
if pay of permanent post on which such Government servant holds lien or
would hold lien, is greater than the pay fixed under above provision, then
the greater amount should be paid to him. This amount, which is more
than the minimum of pay scale of a probationer, is mentioned as
presumptive pay of the permanent post.
4 wp2829.02
10) Here facts are not in dispute. Presumptive pay of the post of
petitioner as Scientific Officer (D) as on 2/9/1993 was Rs.3625/-. We,
therefore, do not find anything wrong in application of mind by Central
Administrative Tribunal. No case is made out for interference. The writ
petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
