Sucha Singh vs Union Of India And Others

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

By way of present OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) Call for the records based on which the Respondent No. 1 has taken a decision not to issue amendment in the policy dated 11.12.2013 in the light

of judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 10.12.2014 in OA 113 of 2014 and judgment dated 05.10.2017 in OA 1092 of 2017 by extending the benefit

of pay fixation from the date of promotion instead of 01.01.2006 by applying Para 14 of 1/S/2008 thereby denying the Applicant his rightful claim of

equal pay for equal work for want of exercise of option by the Applicant and thereafter quash the same.

(b) Direct the Respondents to accept the option of the Applicant with further direction to fix the pay of the Applicant in the 6th CPC from the date of

his promotion to the rank of Nb Sub i.e., 21.07.2007 and accordingly re-fix the pay in the Rank of Nb Sub and consequently in the Rank of Sub as

granted to all other persons whose option was accepted by following the ratio of the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed in OA No. 130 of 2014 in

Chittar Singh 86 Ors.

(c) Direct the Respondents to pay the Applicant arrears of the difference of pay in the Rank of Nb Sub and Sub after adjusting the payments already

made by revising other allowances as per the revised rate including increment/DA etc. earned till date along with interest @ 12% from the date it was

payable till the date payment is made.

(d) Pass any other order/ orders as deemed appropriate by this Honble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the maintainability of the OA on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, there is no

impugned order. It is further submitted that before filing the present OA, neither any representation nor any appeal was preferred by the applicant and,

therefore,3 before exhausting statutory remedies, the OA is premature.

Since large number of 0As have been filed before the Tribunal on this issue, therefore, for the time being, we are leaving the issue of jurisdiction

open. One thing is clear that before filing the OA, either no representation was made by the applicant or if made, same was not disposed of.

Therefore, it will be desirable that the OA be treated as redressal of grievances by the Competent Authority, which will dispose of the rederssal of

grievances in the light of the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed in O.A. No. 113 of 2014 titled Sub ChittarSingh and othersVs. Union of India & Ors.

Andjudgment dated 09.12.2016 in O.A. No. 1610 of 2016 titled SubSadeesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed by the Principal. Bench of

AFT.

In case, the applicant is entitled for the relief(s) in the light of the aforesaid judgments, same be granted to him, otherwise a speaking order be

passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, which be communicated to the applicant.

In case the applicant still feels aggrieved by the order so passed, he will be at liberty to take legal recourse at appropriate Forum.

The respondents are also at liberty to take appropriate objection including jurisdiction in case any subsequent proceedings are initiated by the

applicant.

In view of the foregoing, OA stands disposed of.

Copy of this order be given `Dasti' to the learned counsel for the parties.