JUDGEMENT ON STEPPING UP OF PAY
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2124/2011
MA-1617/2011
Reserved
on : 28.01.2013.
Pronounced
on : 01.02.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
1. All India Postal Accounts Employees
Association represented by S. Santosh Kumar,
President, R/o 13-B, DDA Flats, Type-IV,
New Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi-18.
2. E. Kanagraj, Senior Accountant
in O/o General Manager, Postal Accounts &
Finance, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai-8. . Applicants
(through Sh. B.K. Berera, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Department of Posts (Postal & Accounts Wing)
Ministry of Communication & Information
Technology, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-1.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Public Grievances & Pensions,
North Block, New Delhi-1. .
Respondents
(through Sh. S.M. Zulfiqar Alam, Advocate)
O
R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
The applicants have sought the
following relief:-
(a) Direction from this Honble
Tribunal to Respondents for grant of stepping up pay of all
Senior Accountants on par with
Senior Accountants who are junior to the former in the cadre of
Sr. Accountant.
(b) Direction to the Respondents
to pay compound interest on the arrears, compounded every
months, as the respondents caused
serious prejudice to the Applicants every months when the
Applicants were not granted the
financial upgradations by stepping up their pay.
(c) Direction from Honble
Tribunal to declare the CLAUSE 8 of the condition for grant of
BENEFIT UNDER THE ACP SCHEME
being uptra vires beyond the statute which provide The
financial upgradation under the
ACP Scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall
have no relevance to his
seniority position. As such, there, shall be no additional financial
upgradation for the senior
employee on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got
higher pay scale under the ACP
Scheme.
(d) Direction to the respondents
to pay cost of litigation to the Applicants as the Applicants
have been dragged to the Tribunal
by the respondents.
(e) Any other order as this
Honble Tribunal may deem fit under the present facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. Briefly undisputed facts of
the case are that the applicants joined the Department of Posts
as LDCs and were promoted as
Junior Accountant. Subsequently, on restructuring of the
Accounts Cadre, 80% of the
Accountants were designated as Senior Accountants and were
placed in the pay scale of
Rs.1400-2600 (revised Pay Scale Rs.5500-9000) w.e.f. 01.04.1987.
Government of India promulgated
an Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme for Central
Government Civilian Employees
vide their O.M. No. 35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 09.08.1999
which provided for two financial
upgradations to employees who had completed 12 and 24 years
of service but had not found
regular promotion in their department. Financial upgradation under
the Scheme was to be given to the
next higher grade in accordance with the existing hierarchy in
a cadre. Clause-8 of the Scheme
by which the applicants are aggrieved reads as follows:-
The financial upgradation under
the ACP Scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and
shall have no relevance to his seniority
position. As such, there shall be no additional financial
upgradation for the senior
employee on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got
higher pay-scale under the ACP
Scheme.
3. The grievance of the
applicants is that they have been denied benefits under this Scheme
on the grounds that they had
joined as LDC and had already found two promotions in their cadre,
namely, to the post of Junior
Accountant and then as Senior Accountant whereas those who had
joined the department as direct
recruits to the post of Junior Accountant and had found only one
promotion to the level of Senior
Accountant were given benefit of the ACP Scheme and placed
in higher grade. The applicants
have contended that due to denial of benefit of ACP Scheme to
them many of the direct recruits
who are junior to them in the cadre have started drawing more
salary than their seniors. The
applicants have further stated that all Senior Accountants
regardless of the fact whether
they are promotees or direct recruits are placed in a single
gradation list and their
seniority is determined on the basis of their date of appointment as Senior
Accountants. The applicants had
represented before the respondents but their representations
had been rejected. Aggrieved by
this, they have approached this Tribunal. Their main prayer is
that Clause-8 of the ACP Scheme
be declared ultra vires beyond the statute and their pay be
stepped up to bring it at par
with their juniors.
4. The respondents have in their
reply stated that the ACP Scheme was enforced to deal
with the problem of stagnation in
certain cadres. It provides for at least two financial
upgradations in service career of
an employee even if he is not able to find regular promotions
due to unavailability of
vacancies. According to them Clause-8 of the Scheme clearly states that
the financial upgradation under
the Scheme is purely personal to the employee and shall have no
relevance to his seniority
position and as such no additional financial upgradation will be given
to a senior employee on the
ground that the junior employee has got higher pay scale under the
ACP Scheme. The respondents
argued that there is no infirmity in the Clause-8 of the Scheme
placing reliance on the decisions
of Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI and Anr. Vs. V.R.
Swaminathan, JT 1997(8) SC 61 and
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Ors., JT 1988
(4) SC 53.
5. We have heard the learned
counsel for both sides and perused the material placed on
record.
6. During the course of
arguments, the respondents made available judgment of Bombay
Bench at Nagpur of CAT in
OA-2117/2005 (A.N. Pant & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.) dated
01.08.2012 between the same
parties. By the aforesaid judgment, the claim of the applicants for
placement in higher pay scale on
the ground that junior employee had got that grade on account
of ACP Scheme was rejected.
However, learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that the
prayer of the applicants in the
instant case was different. According to him, in the case decided
by the Bombay Bench at Nagpur,
the prayer of the applicants was for grant of higher pay scale
whereas in the instant case the
prayer is only for stepping up of pay.
7. We have seen the judgment of
the Honble Supreme Court on which reliance has been
placed by the respondents and we
find that the facts and circumstances of the two cases are
different. Thus, in the case of
V.R. Swaminathan (supra) senior employees were demanding
stepping up of pay on account of
the fact that juniors had got the benefit of higher pay because
they had officiated on higher
post based on local/circle seniority. Further, in the other case of
J.P. Chaurasia (supra) two scales
had been created in the cadre of Bench Secretaries of
Allahabad High Court that promotions
from lower to higher scale taking place based on
seniority-cum-fitness. None of
these two cases appears to be relevant.
8. On the other hand, the
applicants have placed reliance on the judgment of Chandigarh
Bench of this Tribunal dated
19.01.2010 in OA-156-JK-2009(Ashok Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.).
Relevant porition of this
judgments reads as under:-
9. The issue raised in this case
as to whether a senior person, though having received two
promotions, is entitled to
stepping up of his pay at par with his junior, who has been granted
benefit under ACP Scheme and by
virtue of this, is receiving higher pay than his senior, stands
clinched by various decisions of
this Tribunal including in O.A. No. 842-JK-2007 decided on
17.11.2009 titled Madan Gopal
Sharma & Others Vs. Union of India & Others. In that case
reliance was placed on decisions
of Apex Court in the case of Ram Sarup Ganda (supra) and
(Gurmail Singh). Reliance was
also placed on decision in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan
(supra). It was held that seniors
are entitled to step up their pay as a general rule as and when
any junior gets fixed in a pay
scale higher to them on account of grant of ACP Scale. Para 14 of
the decision in the case of
Harcharan Singh Sudan (supra) in Para 14 is reproduced as under:-
14. However, one aspect is to be
seen. In the case decided by the Apex Court, the State
Government was the appellant and
the challenge was against the High Court judgment, which
held that the higher pay scale be
given to the respondents at par with their juniors whose pay
scale became higher on account of
the benefit of ACP afforded to them. The appeal was not
dismissed but partly allowed and
it was declared that the respondents were entitled to stepping
up of pay. In other words, there
shall only be the stepping up of pay and not the pay scale. The
pay scale in respect of the
applicants would remain the same as of date but the pay would be
fixed in appropriate stage, and
if there is no stage to match the pay drawn by the junior, the
difference shall be treated as
one of personal pay. The pay parity would be compared annually
and partly would be maintained in
future
10. Finding that the facts of
this case are covered by the decision in the case of Harcharan Singh
Sudans case as well as Madan
Gopal Sharma and Others (supra), this Original Application is
allowed to the extent that
annexure A-2 relating to rejection of claim of applicant is quashed and
set aside.
11. With this O.A. stands
disposed of and the respondents are directed to step up the pay of the
applicant at par with his junior
aforesaid and in terms of the directions contained in the case of
Harcharan Singh Sudan (supra). It
is made clear that the applicant shall be given stepping up of
pay only and not the pay scale,
as explained above. The pay may be fixed accordingly and
arrears be also paid to him
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. However, in the given
facts and circumstances of the case, applicant is not entitled to
interest. Parties to bear their
own costs.
9. In our opinion, the case of
the applicants is covered by the aforesaid order of the
Tribunal, hence they are also
entitled to the same benefits. Accordingly, the present O.A. is
allowed. Respondents are directed
that the pay of the applicants be stepped up in terms of Para-9
of the aforesaid judgment. This
shall be done within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal)
(G. George Paracken)
Member (A) ( Member)
