Union Of India & Others vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3940 Ori

                                     W.P.(C) No.6545 of 2020




5     22.3.2021.
                   Present :     Shri S.K.Mishra, J
                                 Miss Savitri Ratho, J


                   Union of India & others           .......... Petitioners.
                                             -vrs-
                   Sri Rama Chandra Lenka ......... Opp. Parties
                   and another

                           For Petitioners      : Mr.Sudhir Ku.Patra
                                                  Standing Counsel (IA & AD)

                           For Opp.Party No.1: S.K.Ojha & S.K.Nayak.


                   1.      Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Patra, learned Standing Counsel
                   (IA & AD) appearing for the Union of India represented
                   through the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Mr.
                   S.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party
                   No.1.
                   2.      In this Writ Petition the Union of India assails the order
                   passed by the Division Bench of the Central Administrative
                   Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.558/2015 on
AKB
                   28.3.2019. The dispute is relating to the second stepping up pay
                   of the Opposite Party No.1 with respect to his junior.
                   3.      Facts of the case are not in dispute. The Opposite Party
 No.1 was once granted a stepping up of pay. After the
upgradation of pay according to the Scheme of 2006 which
made applicable on 01.1.2006, one of his junior again drew
higher salary than him. Therefore, he approached the Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed his application and directed for stepping
up his pays.
4.     In course of such          disposal of the case, the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack               took into
consideration      the     judgment     passed    by    the     Central
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No.435 of
1994   and      also     took   into   consideration   the    following
observations:
        "This is most unreasonable condition incorporation
        an arbitrary element into the OM. Secondly, the
        respondents themselves have admitted that there is
        no provision in the Government of India to circulate
        a seniority list along with pay scales drawn by
        them. If that is the situation, it is clear that there are
        limitations to the knowledge which would be
        available to any employee for making a
        representation. There is no doubt, that when the
        department itself does not take steps to promote a
        better knowledge of opportunity enjoyed by their
        colleagues working in other stations, an employee
        must take a chance of knowing about an anomaly
        from whatever source he can gather and in such a
        situation he should not be shut out merely on the
        ground that he came to know about the anomaly of
        stepping up with reference to which he should have
        been benefited more at a later date. From this point
        of view also the conditions imposed in this OM,
         dated 32.3.1984, are unreasonable. It is not
        contended that these conditions are part of FR 22-
        C. Therefore, the OM dated 31.3.1984, cannot be
        said to have a greater authority that FR 22-C. We
        are, therefore, of the view that so long as the
        applicant is able to show that he is fulfilling the
        conditions laid down in FR 22-C vis-à-vis an
        employee giving rise to an anomalous situation, he
        is entitled to have his pay stepped up for a second
        time irrespective of whatever is stated in OM, dated
        31.3.1984, so long as the three conditions set out in
        FR 22-C are fulfilled."

5.      Moreover, we see that the Tribunal has taken into
consideration the circular issued by the CAG on 22.3.2010,
copy of which was produced before the Tribunal. In that
circular, the CAG has directed for stepping up of pay of the
Seniors who are getting less pay only due to additional
increment eared by him prior to 1.1.2006 whereas the junior
was getting more pay on account of the additional increment
earned after 1.1.2006. Thus, in this case also the anomaly has
arisen because the junior was granted an additional increment
after 1.1.2006.
6.     Moreover, in this case, the anomaly in pay has arisen not
due to pay fixation on account of promotion under FR 22, but it
is due to revision in the rate of increment on account of sixth
pay commission recommendation for which different in pay has
arisen due to the incentive increment. Learned Tribunal was of
 the opinion that the instructions at Sl. No.20 after FR 22 do not
bar the cases like that of the applicant where the anomaly in pay
is due to grant of incentive increment after implementation of
the sixth pay commission recommendations for pay revision.
7.     We are in agreement with the Tribunal's findings and
find no infirmity in the same.     Hence, the Writ Petition is
dismissed being devoid of any merit.
       Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.




                                  .........................

S.K.Mishra, J

.......................... Savitri Ratho, J