AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Terdal, J
We have heard Mr.Yogesh Sharma, counsel for applicants and Mr.Lalta Prasad for Mr. Vijendra Singh, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.
In this OA, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned orders dated 12.6.2014 with covering letter dated 26.6.14 (Annex.A/2), declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicants w.e.f. 1.1.2006 by way of granting the Ist financial up-gradation to the next promotional hierarchy pay scale to the post of Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/ PB-II +GP 2400/-, 2nd financial up-gradation under ACP Scheme is to the post of charge man in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/ PB-II + GP 4200/- and third financial upgradation in Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- on completion of 30 years of service, as all the applicants completed 24 years of service as on 1.1.2006 with all the consequential benefits including re-fixation of retirement benefits of the applicants with arrears and interest.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
The relevant facts of the case are that the applicants were retired Jamadar Durwan or Subedar Durwan of Rifle Factory Ishapore under Ministry of Defence. They were initially appointed to the respective posts between 1940 to 1980 as per the details given below:-
Sl.No
Name
Date
of
appointment
Date of retirement with
posts.
1.
Dudh Nath Shaw
23.12.1976
31.1.2012
as
Jamadar
Durwan
2.
Mridul Kanti Chanda
11.8.1946
31.8.2006
as
Subedar
Durwan
3.
Sree Nath Choudhary
1.12.1975
31.3.2011
as
Subedar
Durwan
4.
Jugal Sardar
11.6.1979
17.4.2012
as
Jamadar
Durwan
5.
Raj Bali Ram
1.11.1948
31.10.2008
as
Subedar
Durwan
The promotional hierarchy with respect to the said posts are as per the table given below:
Table-A
Sl.
Name of
Governed by
Scale of pay (Pay
Mode of
Remarks
No.
the Post
SRO
Band & Grade Pay
induction as
in Rs.) as per 6th
per SRO
CPC
1.
Durwan
SRO-14(E) dated
PB-1 (5200-20200)
Initial Grade
04/05/1989
Grade Pay 1800/-
2.
Jamadar
SRO-14(E) dated
PB-1 (5200-20200)
Promotion
Promotional
Durwan
04/05/1989
post of
Grade Pay 1800/-
Durwan
3.
Subedar
SRO-14(E) dated
PB-1 (5200-20200)
Promotion
Promotional
Durwan
04/05/1989
post of
Grade Pay 1800/-
Jamadar
Durwan
4.
Supervisor
SRO-58 dated
PB-1 (5200-20200)
Promotion
Promotional
19/07/2012
post of
(NT)
Grade Pay 2400/-
Subedar
Durwan
Further promotional avenue of Supervisor (NT) is as follows:-
1.
Chargeman
SRO-13(E) dated
PB-2 (9300-34800)
Promotion
Promotional
(NT)
04/05/1989
post of
Gr.B (Non
Grade Pay 4200/-
Supervisor
Gazetted)
(NT)
2.
JWM(NT),
SRO-13(E) dated
PB-2 (9300-34800)
Promotion
Promotional
Gr-B
04/05/1989
post of
(Gazetted)
Grade Pay 4600/-
Chargeman
(NT)
The applicants state that the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme)/ Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP Scheme) which came into effect from 1.01.1996 and 01.09.2008 respectively to deal with the stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues were not implemented in their cases as per the provisions and that they were not given the benefit of introduction of merger of different earlier pay scales as per the recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission. At the time of hearing, both the counsels for the applicants and the respondents have brought to our notice that this Tribunal vide its order dated 27.10.2015 in OA No. 3626/2014, titled Om Prakash and Others Vs. UOI and Others, dealt with the identical issue and ultimately directed the respondents to consider the first and second financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme in the case of applicants in the hierarchy of posts. The operative portion of para 16 of the said order is extracted below:
"Therefore, we dispose of this OA with a direction to the respondents to consider the first and second financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme in the case of applicants in the hierarchy of posts. However, while doing so, they will follow the condition as laid down in para 6 of the ACP Scheme guidelines, which has already been cited above. The time frame for a final decision in this regard is fixed as three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
The parties have further brought to our notice that the said order dated 27.10.2015 is challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3367/2016 and the said Writ Petition is still pending and in another case OA 1195/2014, titled Bhanu Prasad and Others Vs Union of India and Ors, vide order dated 25.10.2017 another co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in identical facts situation allowed the OA subject to the final outcome of the above said Writ Petition (C) No. 3367/2016. The operative portion is extracted below:
"10. In the circumstances, the OA is allowed in terms of the orders in OA No. 3626/2014 dated 27.10.2015 (Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors), however, subject to the result of the WP(C) No. 3367/2016."
In respectful agreement with the reasoning given in the above said orders, the OA is allowed in terms of the orders in OA No. 3626/2014 dated 27.10.2015 (Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), however, subject to the result of the WP (C) No. 3367/2016. No order as to costs.