Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 471 (GAU)

Alok Acharjee v. Union of India

2011-06-01

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA, TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI

body2011
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Chanda, learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Central Govt. Counsel. 2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by denial of arrears on account of pay fixation as per the judgment and order dated 5.12.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No. 323/2006. The said application was filed by the Petitioners, who are the Draughtsman in the Assam Rifles claiming parity in pay scale at par with their colleagues as well as the Draughtsman of the Central Public Works Department. In fact, there was no requirement of the Petitioners to approach the Tribunal with the said prayer inasmuch as the issue was settled by the Tribunal by its earlier order dated 8.10.2001 passed in another original application being O.A. No. 10/2001. 3. The only plea advanced by the Respondents is that the said judgment was in person am and not rem. Such plea, in our view, is not at all tenable inasmuch as the particular principle regarding fixation of pay and pay parity having been laid down by the Tribunal in its earlier decision dated 8.10.2001 passed in O.A. No. 10/2001, the Respondents, following the said principle, ought to have fixed the pay of the Petitioners at par with the other similarly situated Draughtsman. Instead, they forced the Petitioners to approach the Tribunal. 4. The Petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 142(SH)2008. The writ petition was preferred by Union of India against granting of relief to the Draughtsman of Assam Rifles by the Tribunal as regards their grievance regarding same pay parity. In the said judgment and order dated 17.6.2008, this Court duly took notice of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and accordingly, held that the Draughtsman involved in the said writ petition were also entitled to similar benefit extended to earlier group of Draughtsman as per the judgment of the Tribunal. 5. In view of the above and following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in K.T. Veerappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 406, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing that part of the earlier judgment and order dated 5.12.2007 in O.A. No. 323/2006, by which the Petitioners have been denied arrear benefits. 6. Mr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 406, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing that part of the earlier judgment and order dated 5.12.2007 in O.A. No. 323/2006, by which the Petitioners have been denied arrear benefits. 6. Mr. M. Chanda, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, referring to the prayer made in the original application, further submits that the Petitioners on being conferred with the benefit of pay parity at par with the other Draughtsman are also entitled to the benefit of career advancement in the form of A.C.P. etc. He submits that except the Petitioner No. 1, others have not been provided with the benefit of ACP. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Central Govt. Counsel, referring to the stand taken by the Respondents submits that the Petitioners, as per instructions, have already been provided with the benefit of A.C.P. 7. It appears that the aforesaid prayer of the Petitioners has not been dealt with by the Tribunal, Accordingly, a further direction is issued to the Respondents to examine the case of the Petitioners for benefits in the form of A.C.P. etc. 8. At this stage, Mr. Shyam, learned Central Govt. Counsel submits that out of 4 (four), 3 (three) have been granted the benefit of A.C.P. Without expressing any opinion in this regard, the Respondents are directed to examine the case of the Petitioners and pass appropriate order. 9. Let appropriate order be passed by the Respondents in terms of this order on both counts i.e. arrear benefits of pay fixation and consideration of case for career advancement, as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31st August, 2011. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed