Union of India and Others vs Ganesh Sonune

Rajendra Menon and Sanjay Yadav, JJ.—Shri Sanjay Lal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Heard on admission.

Order dated 28.2.2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur on an application under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; O.A. No. 764/2011 is being assailed by the Union of India and its functionaries.

Vide impugned order, Tribunal while dwelling upon the issue as to whether a Data Entry Operator, (in brief D.E.O.), who is not a graduate, but only a Matriculate and was recruited against Recruitment Rules, that prescribed matriculation as minimum qualification, is entitled for grant of pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200, allowed the claim by respondent, who was initially appointed on 15.3.1994 as D.E.O. Grade in the pay scale of 1150-25-1500 and was matriculate at the time of initial appointment but subsequently acquired graduation in September, 1996 and his claim for grant of pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 from the date of joining was turned down by order dated 17.4.2008 in furtherance to the direction by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 9/2008 decided on 14.1.2008.

The Tribunal while condoning the delay in challenge to the action of department rejecting the claim of the respondent and taking into consideration the inconsistent stand of the department in respect of grant of pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 and the decision taken by various Tribunals and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P. No. 3161/2008 (S) and that of High Court of Bombay in W.P. No. 4441/2003 decided on 27.2.2008 directed for grant of pay scale of 1350-2200 from the date when the respondent acquired a graduation, i.e., September 1996, while rejecting his claim for grant of said pay scale with effect from initial date of appointment.

We are not apprised that orders passed in W.P. No. 4441/2003 has been varied in a higher forum. In W.P. No. 4441/2003 it has been held:--

"5. The claim of the applicant is that the nature of duties and responsibilities of Junior Key Punch Operator re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade A and Senior Key Punch Operators re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade B are same hence both these both these grades are entitled for the pay scale without any difference."

Whereas in similar manner in the case of Sajay Kumar Joshi (supra) it is observed:

"It is not in dispute before us that Lucknow Bench of Tribunal, Chennai Bench of Tribunal and Delhi Bench of Tribunal recorded findings that the said circular would apply to all persons who were even appointed after coming into force of the 1988 Rules because the work done by the Data Entry Operators Grade ''A'' as Data Entry Operators Grade ''B'' was same and similar."

Though, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in pursuance to order dated 22.9.2009 by Ernakulam Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 116/2007 (Santosh Kumar K.A. and others v. C.C.I.T. and others), Central Board of Direct Taxes convened a meeting of various Cadre Controlling Authorities; wherein, with the approval of Secretary (Revenue), it was decided that in all such cases of D.E.Os who were recruited against Recruitment Rules that prescribed matriculation as the minimum qualification but were graduate at the time of recruitment/entering into service will be given all the consequential benefits with effect from their entry in service including Grade (D.E.O. Grade B) and pay scale vide circular dated 31.3.2011; however, since the respondent was not graduate at the time when he entered service in 1994 but acquired graduation only in September, 1996 he will not be entitled for grant of pay scale Grade B and the Tribunal grossly erred in extending the said benefit to respondent. The contentions are noted to be rejected at the outset. As in absence of any material on record to establish that their exists two different cadres of different D.E.Os where the minimum qualification is matriculation and those having graduation at the time of entering into service, the respondent cannot be singled out for grant of pay scale at par with similarly situated D.E.O.

As regard to claim from initial date of appointment the Tribunal in our considered opinion is well justified in confining the claim from the date when the respondent acquired graduation, i.e., September, 1996 and not from initial date of appointment. In view whereof we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently petition fails and is dismissed.