Upendra Thakur vs Secretary, Government Of India Ministry Of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 & Ors

Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

Present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:

"a) issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent to grant the applicant grade pay of Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and grade pay of Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 26.11.2011 and fix the salary of the applicant accordingly.

b) issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent to grant the applicant arrears of benefits accrued to him on account of grant revision of the grade pay as prayed in para (a) of the prayer clause and 12% interest thereof.

c) issuance of appropriate direction to the office order dated 8.4.2015 and 17.1.2014 wherein the respondents had erroneously refused to grant him his lawful entitlement.

d) pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Factual Matrix

2.1 The present applicant was appointed as labourer on 26.11.1981 in the pay scale of Rs.196-232. He was promoted to the post of Offset Machine Attendant in the scale of Rs.950-1500 w.e.f. 01.05.1995. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Dark Room Assistant (DRA) in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 on 08.03.2002. After completion of 30 years of regular service, the applicant was granted 3rd MACP benefits in PB-1 (i.e. Rs.5200-20200) with Grade Pay of Rs.2800 w.e.f. 26.11.2011.

2.2 The applicant submitted a representation dated 04.10.2012 (Annexure A-6) requesting the respondents to consider granting him GP of Rs.2800 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 considering him under the cadre of highly skilled workers. This representation was followed by reminders on 07.10.2013, 30.12.2013, 09.07.2014 and 20.01.2015. Respondents had also come out with the OM dated 07.02.2012 and 17.05.2012 splitting the cadre of highly skilled workers equally in the ratio of 50:50 by redesignating them into the category of Highly Skilled Workers Grade-II (GP Rs.2400 in PB-1) and Highly Skilled Workers Grade-I (GP Rs.2800 in PB-1). The applicant is continuously agitating that he should be considered under the category of highly skilled workers and should have been given the higher grade pay as per the aforementioned notifications. The applicant was comparing his pay scale with one Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Sh. R.P.S.Nimotra, Cameraman, who was giving GP of Rs.4200 and applicant is seeking parity with those two employees.

2.3 The respondents vide their Office Order dated 08.04.2025 (impugned order at Annexure A-1) rejected the claim of the applicant stating that he is not similarly placed as aforementioned two employees and hence cannot be given parity with them. Moreover, they have stated that they have been given all the benefits due to the applicants by way of promotion and 3rd MACP. However, the applicant was not satisfied with the detailed order as mentioned above. Being aggrieved, applicant has filed the present OA seeking aforementioned relief.

Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder.

Submission by learned counsel for applicant

4.1 Learned counsel for applicant states that the respondents have not granted parity of pay of the applicant with that of Sh. R.P.S.Nimotra who has received GP of Rs.4200. The applicant is seeking parity with the said Sh. R.P.S.Nimotra. He referred to Annexure A-5 which is the order dated 13.02.2012 where Sh. R.P.S.Nimotra has been upgraded to the GP of Rs.4200 from his previous GP of Rs.2800. Applicant's designation has been mentioned as DRA w.e.f. 26.11.2011 whereas Sh. R.P.S.Nimotra whose designation is mentioned as DRA and he has been given the GP of Rs.2800 w.e.f. 01.11.2011. Applicant seeks GP of Rs.4200 at par with Sh. R.P.S.Nimotra when he got his 3rd MACP. He referred to the Order of Department of Printing and Stationery dated 07.02.2012 and 17.05.2012, Annexure A-9 and A-10 respectively vide which respondent department has given higher grade pay to highly skilled workers. The present applicant should have been considered as highly skilled grade-II employee and he should have been granted GP of Rs.4200.

Submission by Learned Counsel for Respondents

5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondents refers to counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the impugned order dated 08.04.2015. It has been categorically mentioned that applicant has got two promotions during his service career and 3rd MACP was granted to him on 26.11.2011. At the time of granting of these promotions, the applicant never objected regarding his pay fixation. Similarly, when the 3rd MACP was granted on 26.11.2011 as per the MACP Scheme the applicant never agitated regarding the said pay fixation. He is comparing parity with one Sh. R.P.S.Nimotra, who is a Camerman.

5.2 As regards the claim of the applicant that the benefits of highly skilled employees should be granted to him as per the notifications dated 07.02.2012 and 17.05.2012, learned counsel for the respondents refers to the additional affidavit filed on 26.02.2026. He referred to paragraphs 3 to 6 of the additional affidavit, which are reproduced below:

"3. That in pursuance of the Directorate of Printing's Office Memorandum No. 60/16/2009/ A-IV dated 07.02.2012 (Annexure R-2) and 17.05.2012 (Annexure R- 3), along with the subsequent clarification issued on 22.09.2025 (in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs -Annexure-R-4 ), the placement of employees in Grade Pay Rs. 2800/- as Highly Skilled Worker Grade-I was to be made strictly on the basis of inter-se-seniority.

That as per the seniority list (copy annexed at p.17- 21 of MA No. 853/2018), Shri Upender Thakur is placed at Serial No. 104 out of a total of 122 employees. Consequently, only the first 61 employees in the seniority list were eligible for placement in Highly Skilled Worker Grade-I (GP Rs. 2800/-), while the remaining 61 were to be placed in Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II (GP Rs. 2400/-). This placement constitutes one financial upgradation.

That Shri Upender Thakur was not eligible for placement in Highly Skilled Worker Grade-I under the order dated 17.05.2012, as his position in the seniority list fell beyond the eligible quota.

That it is further submitted that Shri Upender Thakur was already granted Grade Pay Rs. 2800/- w.e.f. 26.11.2011 on account of the 3rd MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression) (p. 4). Therefore, separate placement/upgradation in GP Rs. 2800/- on account of Highly Skilled Worker Grade-I does not arise, particularly after accounting for the provisions of the order dated 17.05.2012."

5.3 Referring to aforementioned pleadings in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicant has been granted what is due to him as per Rules.

Analysis

6.1 Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

6.2 The issue here is whether the present applicant falls under highly skilled category as per the aforementioned notifications dated 07.02.2012 and 07.05.2012. The stand taken by the respondents in the first counter affidavit filed on 17.07.2017 is that the post of DRA does not fall under the category of highly skilled workers. However, in the additional affidavit filed by the respondents on 26.02.2026 they have annexed OM dated 22.09.2025 issued by the Directorate of Printing, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. Para 2 of the same states that the Reader, Mechanic (Printing & Binding), Offset Plate Maker & Offset Machine Assistant are already classified as highly skilled grade-I as per the Recruitment Rules of 2003 and they were given the GP of Rs.2800 as per the OM dated 20.11.2009.

6.3 The respondents in their counter affidavit dated 12.07.2016 in para 4.3 have admitted that the applicant was promoted to the post of Offset Machine Attendant w.e.f. 01.05.1995. Hence, the earlier contention by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the DRAs are not under the category of Master Craftsman and highly skilled worker seems to be contradictory. It has been mentioned that the applicant was promoted to the post of Office Machine Attendant on 01.05.1995 and subsequently to the post of DRA on 08.03.2002. There is no specific denial that the DRA is not a highly skilled worker to get the benefits of the aforementioned OMs, i.e. 07.02.2012 and 17.05.2012 followed by clarification dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure R-4). In para 4 of the additional affidavit the respondents have stated that as the present applicant did not fall under the 50% category of seniors to be granted the benefit for highly skilled workers Grade-I with GP of Rs.2800, he was placed in skilled worker Grade-II with GP of Rs.2400. The period of his consideration has also not been specifically mentioned.

Conclusion

7.1 In view of the above, this matter requires fresh relook by the respondents. Let the respondents pass a detailed and speaking order regarding the grant of benefits to the applicant in pursuance with OM dated 07.02.2012 and 17.05.2012 and clarification dated 22.09.2025, from the date when such notifications were made effective.

7.2 Let the respondents consider the grant of benefit of these OMs to the applicant as per the seniority at the relevant point of time. There may be more than one occasion when such benefits might have been granted to the similarly placed employees and whether the applicant was considered and his case was rejected because he did not fall under the category of number of employees falling under the 50% seniority to get the benefit. This has to be clearly mentioned at each point of consideration. If the respondents find the contention of the applicant acceptable, all consequential benefits including back wages shall be paid to the employee. However, such benefits shall be restricted to period starting from three years prior to filing the present OA till these are actually paid, without any interest.

7.3 This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of.