Union of India and Others vs R.K. Thakur

V.K. Sharma, J.—It is stated at the bar on behalf of the sole respondent by his learned counsel, Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, that since the present writ petition has been filed against a judgment rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), no reply is required to the same on behalf of the said respondent.

Heard. The challenge herein in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the petitioners who were respondents before the CAT, Chandigarh Bench (Circuit at Shimla) is against the following direction issued in favour of the respondent herein (applicant before CAT) vide order dated 12th August, 2009 in OA No. 304/HP/2007, titled R.K. Thakur Vs. Union of India and ors:

In view of the above the impugned orders at Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3 dated 23.2.2007, 31.5.2006 and 8.6.2006 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to Respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the applicant for grant of financial up-gradations under the ACP Scheme, keeping in view the observations made above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in case the applicant is otherwise found eligible and entitled to for grant of these benefits under the ACP scheme, the financial benefits be extended to hi within one month thereafter. Needless to say that in the event of grant of admissible financial up-gradations, he shall be entitled to arrears of pay accruing to him on account of re-fixation of pay. Prayer of the applicant for payment of interest thereon is, however, rejected.

Though on the face of it, the direction issued by CAT is only for consideration of the case of the original applicant by quashing orders Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3, dated 23.2.2007, 31.5.2006 and 8.6.2006, whereby his representations for grant of the aforesaid relief were rejected, yet the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI) submits that once the original applicant was placed against the upgraded posts of Assistant Librarian, it amounted to promotion and as such he was not entitled for grant of second financial up-gradation under ACP scheme.

We have gone through the records and given thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties at the bar. Suffice it to say that the above contention of the original respondents, as canvassed before us by the learned ASGI, has been considered and decided by CAT exhaustively vide paras 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned order dated 12th August, 2009 which are extracted below for ready reference:

The crucial question for decision in the present OA is as to whether the up-gradation given to the applicant on rationalization of the pay scales, qualifications, and recruitment level of library staff under the Central Government and thereby designating the applicant as Assistant Library & Information Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 16.6.1998, is to be treated only as up-gradation and not promotion and thereby to decide whether the applicant is entitled to grant of the second financial up-gradation in the pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300 w.e.f. 15.6.2003, on completion of 24 years of regular service. The case of the applicant is primarily based on Clarification No. 1 given under OM No. 35034/1/97-Estt (D) (Vol. IV) dated 10.2.2000, reproduced above, and the point of discrimination raised by him pleading that benefits under similar circumstances has been granted to other persons. On the other hand, the respondents have made the clarification give by Respondent No. 1 in consultation with respondent No. 4 (Annexure A-2 dated 31.5.2006) as the basis for rejection of the claim of the applicant.

On going through the record of this case, we find that applicant has given a number of examples whereby the up-gradation given to various other employees, as given in his case, has not been treated as promotion and, consequently, the benefits of financial up-gradations under the ACP scheme have been allowed to them. There is no rebuttal by the respondents to such a categorical stand taken by the applicant in the O.A. As per law, the respondents cannot adopt different yardsticks for different persons, similarly circumstanced. In these facts and circumstances, a clear case of discrimination is made out by the applicant whereby he deserves to be entitled to similar benefits.

In may also not be out of place to mention that the point raised by the respondents to reject the claim of the applicant is no longer res integra and stands decided by the decision of this Bench dated 24.1.2003 in OA No. 1217-HR of 2001, titled Jatindra Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. and also by a recent decision dated 29.5.2008 of the Principal Bench in OA No. 432 of 2005, titled Hari Om P. Sharma Vs. Union of India & others. Therefore, the ground taken by the respondents to reject the claim of the applicant is held to be untenable and is hereby rejected.

Since similar relief as allowed to the original applicant by CAT had already been extended in favour of many other similarly situate employees, it was open not for the department to resist the claim of the original applicant for similar relief and more so in view of decision dated 24.1.2003 of the Principal Bench of CAT referred in para 10 of the impugned order dated 12th August, 2009, which according to the learned counsel for the original applicant has since been put a seal of approval as the challenge against the same on behalf of the department has been rejected by Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.

In view of the above, we do not see any lawful cause or basis to interfere with the impugned order dated 12th August, 2009 and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the original second respondent, Director General, Labour Bureau, Shimla (HP) to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the operative part of the impugned order dated 12th August, 2009 contained in para 12 within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the said respondent by the original applicant.

The petition as also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.