Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 136 (JHR)

D. K. Pal v. Union of India

2014-01-22

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Challenging order dated 18.01.2010 passed in O.A. No. 123 of 2008, O.A. No. 124 of 2008 and O.A. No. 126 of 2008, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were initially appointed on 01.12.1972, 20.12.1972 and 15.11.1972 respectively and all of them completed 23 years of service on or before 31.12.1996. They were granted benefit of first time-bound promotion with effect from 01.01.1996 and second time-bound promotion on different dates in the year, 1998. Relying on an order passed in the case of one, Jagdish Jha, the petitioners raised a claim for grant of increments in addition to the pay-scale granted to them. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal recorded a finding that, 8. “The CCS [Revised Pay] Rules has been framed in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of Rule 7 of the said Rule has the heading “ Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale”. Clause [b] of proviso to rule 7[1][A] is as under:- “If the amount so arrived at is more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay shall be fixed at the maximum of the scale.” 9. Swamy's compilation of CCS [Revised Pay] Rules also has tables indicating stage in the revised scales of Rs. 3200-4900 in respect of employees in the pay scale of Rs. 975-1540 and Rs. 975-1660. The table shows that basic pay+DA+IR+fitment benefit for employees in receipt of pay of Rs. 1630/-add up to Rs. 4967/-which is more than the maximum of Rs. 4900/-and hence the pay has been restricted at Rs. 4900/-only.” 3. Accordingly, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has held that there was no error in fixation of pay in the revised pay-scale of the petitioners. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed taking a stand that in the revised pay under FR22(1)(a)(1) bunching benefit is extended only in the case of initial fixation of revised pay and not in case of promotion and accordingly, the petitioners' claim was denied. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing of the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed taking a stand that in the revised pay under FR22(1)(a)(1) bunching benefit is extended only in the case of initial fixation of revised pay and not in case of promotion and accordingly, the petitioners' claim was denied. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing of the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that proviso to Rule 7(1)(A) provides that the bunching of increment has to be carried out in the existing scale of pay and since it has not been done in the case of the petitioners, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioners. 7. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that since the benefit under proviso to Rule 7 (1)(A) is not extended in cases of promotion, the claim of the petitioners has rightly been rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 8. We find that in O.A. No. 31 of 2007 filed by one Jagdish Jha, the Tribunal found that the applicant had completed 26 years of service on 01.01.1996 and thus was entitled for higher scale of pay on completion of 16 & 26 years of service. However, his pay was directly fixed in the scale 5500-9000/-, i.e. the scale given on completion of 26 years of service and therefore, it was revised in his case. The learned Central Industrial Tribunal has also noticed that the pay of the said Jagdish Jha was not fixed in the replacement scale 5000/--8000/-but it was fixed initially at the stage of Rs. 62,00/-in the scale of 5500-9000/-. 9. A perusal of Rule 7(1)(A) and the pleadings in the present proceeding would indicate that the pay-scale of the petitioners was fixed taking into account the Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance, Increment and Fitment Benefits and it has been fixed at the maximum in the pay-scale. Clause (b) of proviso to Rule 7 (1) (A) provides if the amount so arrived at is more than the maximum of the revised scale, the pay shall be fixed at the maximum of the scale. The petitioners have no-where indicated or produced any evidence in support of their claim that their pay has not been fixed in terms of relevant rules including Rule 7(1)(A). The petitioners have no-where indicated or produced any evidence in support of their claim that their pay has not been fixed in terms of relevant rules including Rule 7(1)(A). The only basis for raising such a claim is the order passed in the case of Jagdish Jha. We find that in the said case, since the pay-scale was wrongly fixed, the pay of the said Jagdish Jha was accordingly revised. 10. We do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.