Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India vs Arindam Mazundar on 6 June, 2023
5
06.06.2023
Court No. 8
D.Hira
WP.CT 45 of 2023
Union of India
Vs.
Arindam Mazundar
Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya,
Mr. L. Vishal Kumar.
... for the petitioner
Mr. S.K. Datta,
Mr. Barun Chatterjee.
... for the respondent
The respondent herein is the applicant before
the tribunal in O.A. no. 387 of 2021. According to
the respondent, he is senior to one Shri Arshad
Reza. The respondent is the Income Tax Inspector.
As per the rules, the Income Tax Inspectors as well
as Income Tax Officers are entitled to two advance
increments on passing the Departmental
Examination. The respondent passed the
departmental examination in the year of 2002, that
is before implementation of 6th Central Pay
Commission on 1.1.2006. He was granted Rs.640/-
being two advance increments of Rs.320/-. The
junior to the respondent Arshad Reza passed the
Departmental Examination in the year 2006 after the
implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission and
he was granted Rs.800/- as advance increment of
Rs.400/- each. Thus, the pay anomaly arisen and
the respondent is drawing less salary than his
junior. The respondent gave representation to rectify
the said pay anomaly to the petitioner.
The petitioner relying on the CBDT circular
dated 3.3.2021 did not accept the claim of the
respondent for stepping up of the pay on par with
his junior.
The respondent filed O.A. No. 387 of 2021
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta
Branch. Before the Tribunal the respondent relied
on judgment Karnataka High Court confirming the
order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
stepping up the pay and rectify the pay the anomaly
for similarly placed persons.
The petitioner before the Central
Administrative Tribunal relying on the CBDT
Circular dated 3.3.2021 and contended that the
respondent is not entitled to for stepping up the
above pay.
The Tribunal applied the ratio in the High
Court of Karnataka judgment dated 23.2.2021 made
in Writ Petition No. 49498 of 2019 (S-CAT) (Union
of India & Anr. vs. Gautam Kumar & Ors) wherein
the High Court of Karnataka granted the relief
rectifying the pay anomaly. Similarly the Tribunal
relied on the judgment of State of Orissa & Anr. vs.
Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court granted relief
rectifying the defects ignoring the executive
instructions.
In view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court
at Karnataka the Tribunal disposed of the O.A.
directing the petitioners to remove the anomaly
stepping up the pay of the respondent on par with
his junior from the date the said anomaly arose
notionally, and on actual basis from the date of
giving representation with a request of removal of
anomaly. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner
has come up with the present writ petition.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the
petitioner reiterated the submissions made before
the Central Administrative Tribunal and submitted
that as per CBDT circular dated 3.3.2021 and also
the judgment in Paragraph 14 and 17 Union of
India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers
Association & Anr. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
129, the respondent is not entitled to stepping up of
pay and Tribunal has not properly appreciated the
scope of circular. The doctrine for equal pay for
equal work, is not applicable to the case of the
respondent and prayed for allowing the writ
petitions.
Per contra, Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the
respondent reiterated the submissions made before
the Administrative Tribunal and submitted that the
Tribunal has passed the well-considered order taking
into consideration of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in State of Orissa & Anr. vs.
Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436
and High Court of Karnataka wherein similar
persons were granted relief and prayed for dismissal
of the writ petitions.
Heard Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as Mr. Datta, learned counsel
for the respondent.
From the above materials, it is clear that the
reliance of petitioners on the CBDT circular dated
3.3.2021 is not acceptable in view of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of Orissa &
Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty.
Further similar issue of two advance
increments of Rs.640/- to senior and Rs.800/- for
juniors to the Income Tax Inspectors was considered
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
and order of Central Administrative Tribunal
ordering stepping up of salary was confirmed by
High Court at Karnataka.
The relevant portion of the High Court at
Karnataka judgment reads as paragraph 6 and 7 as
follows:-
"6. In the present case, advance increments
have been granted to all the respondents as
they qualified in the departmental
examination of Inspector of Income Tax while
serving as Tax Assistants. The anomaly in
matter of pay fixation in the present case is
only because, in the year 2010, respondent
Nos. 1 to 11 have passed the departmental
examination. The rate of increment was less
than the rate of increment which was fixed for
the year 2011 and two advance increments at
the rate of Rs.640/- were granted to
respondent Nos. 1 to 11 who were seniors
respondent No.12, whereas in case of a junior,
two advance increments were granted at the
rate of Rs.800/-. In the present case,
respondent No.12 who is junior and
admittedly, who could not qualify in the
departmental examination in time and who
qualified in the examination later in the year
2011, is receiving higher pay than that of his
seniors, who qualified in the departmental
examination earlier to their junior.
7. Therefore, if the arguments canvassed
by the learned counsel for Union of
India are accepted, it will result in
awarding a person who was not able to
prove his worth in the first round of
examination and will also result in
penalizing the seniors who qualified in
the examination in the year 2010."
It is not the case of the petitioners that the
order of High Court of Karnataka was challenged
before the Apex Court. The judgment relied on by
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner
is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
In view of the above facts, the respondent is
entitled to stepping up of pay of salary on par with
his junior and there is no reason to interfere with the
well-considered order of the Tribunal.
The writ petition fails and dismissed.
Certified website copies of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to
compliance with all the requisite formalities.
(Ms. V.M. Velumani, J.)
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
