UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASHOKE KUMAR BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the Union of India and the C.P.W.D. against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta dated 3-12-1993 passed in O.A. No. 241 of 1993. By that order, the Tribunal directed that the "pay of the petitioner in the promotional post should be fixed in terms of F.R. 22(1)(a)(i) with effect from 1-8-1991 and all consequential benefits including arrears should be paid to him within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order".

(2.) The facts relevant to the case are as follows:The respondent was working in the C.P.W.D. as Junior Engineer in the senior scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and as he had put in 15 years service as Junior Engineer, he was granted the Assistant Engineer's scale of Rs. 2000-3500 (in terms of Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development (I Division) No. 12014/2/87 IW II dated 22-3-1991). By giving him the necessary increment, his pay was fixed at Rs. 2600/- as on 1-2-1991 by applying FR 22(1)(a)(i) as permitted in the said order. This was after the respondent opted for this scale. The date of his next increment which fell on 1-2-1991 was taken into account while granting him the increment mentioned in the FR. Later he was promoted, pursuant to certain order of the CAT in an earlier OA, as Assistant Engineer. He, then filed the present OA claiming that FR 22(1)(a)(i) is to be applied to his case once again and his pay should be refixed in the scale of 2000-3500 by giving him fresh benefit of the increment permitted by the said FR. The CAT opined that as this was his actual promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, and as he was necessarily discharging higher duties and responsibilities, he was entitled to a fresh application of the said FR 22(1)(a)(i).

(3.) The appellants contend that this would amount to giving the benefit of FR twice over and this is not permissible. The respondent has been served and notices have been sent to him that his case will be heard on a specific date but he has not chosen to be present and we are, therefore, proceeding to decide the case on merits, setting him ex parte.