Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Ors. vs Deena Nath And Anr. on 8 November, 2016
$~12.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10137/2015
Date of decision: 8th November, 2016
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Himanshu Kaushik, Advocate for
Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Advocate.
versus
DEENA NATH AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. A.K. Trivedi & Mr. Ashok K. Vij,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway,
impugns order dated 18th May, 2015 whereby OA No. 4225/2013 filed by
Deena Nath and Ram Garib, the respondents herein has been allowed by the
Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short)
and the orders dated 27th January, 2012 and 5th May, 2010 reducing the
salary of the respondents have been quashed. It has been also directed that
the amounts recovered from the respondents would be paid back to the
W.P. (C) 10137/2015 Page 1 of 7
respondents within one month without interest and thereafter with interest at
the rate applicable to General Provident Fund.
2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had joined Railways as casual staff on
12th June, 1981 and 2nd February, 1981 respectively. In 1983, they were
posted to work as Blacksmiths a group C post. Subsequently, they were
granted temporary status in the group C post in the pay scale of Rs.260-400
(revised to Rs.950-1500) in the PQRS department. In 1990-91, the
petitioner decided to close the PQRS unit where the two respondents were
employed. The respondents were re-deployed against group D posts on
regular basis. As this had entailed a reduction of salary, the two respondents
had filed OA No. 3074/1991, which was disposed of vide decision dated 9 th
September, 1993. The operative portion of the decision dated 9th September,
1993, reads :-
"That the applicants have appeared for the screening
test for group „D‟ post and have been regularised
against these posts in the open line cannot adversely
affect their position as group „C‟ workers in the PQRS
organization as.....
The application is, therefore, disposed of with a
direction to the respondents that irrespective of the
results of the Screening for Gangmen in the open line,
the temporary status already achieved by the applicants
in group „C‟ post in the PQRS organisation shall not be
disturbed. They shall be regularised against available
W.P. (C) 10137/2015 Page 2 of 7
vacancies of Group „C‟ also whenever their turn comes
in accordance with their seniority, after any
screening/test prescribed under the rules."
3. As the petitioners had failed to implement the aforesaid directions, the
two respondents had filed contempt petition No. 288/1996 in which notice
was issued. Consequent thereto, the petitioners on 21st June, 1997 passed an
order giving pay scale/grade of Rs.950-1500 under the revised pay scale.
The relevant portion of the order dated 21st June, 1997 passed by the
petitioners reads as under:-
"4. In compliance of the directives of the Hon‟ble
CAT/New Delhi, it has been decided to grant
temporary status already achieved by them in group
„C‟ post in PQRS organisation, as a provisional
measure, especially in view of the facts that the PQRS
organisation has been closed. Accordingly, they
should be utilized against the existing vacancies of
fitters, Grade Rs.950-1500 (RPS). They will be
regularised against available vacancies of Group „C‟
whenever their turn comes in accordance with their
seniority after holding the selection/trade test, as the
case may be, under rules. Their pay may be allowed to
continue which were drawing before joining Delhi
Division. The arrears of difference of pay they would
have drawn had they been continued in Grade of
Rs.950-1500 be paid to them immediately."
In view of the aforesaid order, the contempt proceedings were
dropped vide order dated 7th July, 1997.
W.P. (C) 10137/2015 Page 3 of 7
5. After the Fifth Pay Commission, the respondents pay scale was
revised to Rs.3050-4590 vide order dated 30th November, 2000.
6. After about fourteen years, the petitioners passed an order dated 5th
May, 2010 re-fixing the pay scale of the respondents with effect from 1st
January, 1996 in the scale of Rs.2550-3200. The said order also records that
the respondents were to refund the excess amount paid in the scale of
Rs.3050-4590 and the same would be recovered by the petitioners. The
respondents were also entitled to the benefit of financial upgradation under
the Modified Assured Career Progress (MACP) Scheme. The amount due
and payable on account of financial upgradation was to be adjusted towards
the arrears. The respondents thereafter had filed OA No. 3779/2011
challenging the order dated 5th May, 2010, but during the pendency of the
OA, the petitioners had passed another order dated 27th January, 2012 re-
fixing the pay of the respondents. OA No. 3779/2011 was withdrawn with
liberty to file a fresh OA against the order dated 27th January, 2012. This
order dated 27th January, 2012 was challenged and has been set aside by the
impugned order dated 18th May, 2015 passed in OA No. 4225/2013. It may
be noted here that the order dated 27th January, 2012 had partly addressed
the grievance of the respondents, to the extent that they were granted
W.P. (C) 10137/2015 Page 4 of 7
financial upgradation in the grade pay of Rs.1900 and 2000 respectively
under the MACP Scheme. However, the petitioners had not modified their
direction for reduction of pay scale of the respondents with effect from 7 th
March, 1996, etc.
7. Before the Tribunal and before us, the petitioners have relied upon
Circular No. RBE 160/1992 circulated vide letter dated 23rd September,
1992. We have examined the said circular, of which a typed copy (with
missing words) has been placed on record by the petitioners. The circular
states that surplus staff, re-deployed on lower posts, would be entitled to
benefit of pay protection and the pay would be fixed at the stage equivalent
to the pay drawn by the re-deployed staff before he was rendered surplus.
Further, if no such stage was available in the scale of new post, the pay scale
would be fixed at the stage next below and the difference would be treated
as personal pay to be absorbed in future increments. The pay so fixed shall
not exceed the maximum scale of the post in which the surplus staff had
been absorbed. The contention of the petitioners is that the pay protection
being personal and subject to absorption in the future increments, the
respondents had been wrongly given the benefit of future increments. This
had resulted in wrong pay fixation upon implementation of the fifth pay
W.P. (C) 10137/2015 Page 5 of 7
Commission. Ergo, the respondents had been paid extra or surplus amount
contrary to the aforesaid circular.
8. The Tribunal had examined the said contention, but rejected the same
for the reason that in the present case the respondents‟ pay was fixed
pursuant to the directions issued in the order dated 9 th September, 1993
passed in OA No. 3074/1991. We have already quoted the relevant portion
of the directions given in the order dated 9th September, 1993 in OA No.
3074/1991. We have also recorded that as the petitioners had initially failed
to pass an order in terms of the direction given, the respondents had filed
Contempt Petition No. 288/1996 and consequent thereto the petitioners had
passed the order dated 21st June, 1997 fixing the pay scale of the
respondents. We are inclined to accept the reasoning given by the Tribunal,
which clearly holds and states that in the present case the pay fixation was in
terms of the order dated 9th September, 1993 passed in OA No. 3074/1991.
In case the petitioners had any grievance against the said order or felt that it
was contrary to the Circular No RBE 160/1992, they should have challenged
and questioned the said order. Instead, the petitioners had accepted the
directions and passed the order dated 21st June, 1997 whereupon the
contempt proceedings were dropped vide order dated 7th July, 1997.
W.P. (C) 10137/2015 Page 6 of 7
9. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the
present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
NOVEMBER 08, 2016
VKR
