V. SRIDHAR AND OTHERS Vs. DIRECTOR, THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO RAKSHA MANTHRI AND SECRETARY AND THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners are all persons who are working as a Technical Assistants 'A' in the Aeronautical Development Establishment, Defence Research and Development Organisation (for short 'DRDO') at Bangalore had been promoted from the Technical Assistants 'A' to Technical Assistants 'B' on they being evaluated on their eligibility for promotion by the Local Assessment Board and in terms of the provisions of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules applicable to the employees of the Research Establishment during the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 i.e., in between 1st of September, 2006 and 1st of September, 2008. The petitioners accepted the offer of promotion and started functioning in the higher position of Technical Assistants 'B' and corresponding benefits are also being extended to the petitioners and they are drawing the salary in the higher grade of Technical Assistants 'B' from the date they assumed the charge in the said grade. In the interregnum, the VI Central Pay Commission submitted its report to the Central Government containing various recommendations. The Central Government accepted the recommendations and amended the Central Government Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and notified the same as per the notification dated 29.8.2008. However, it was implemented with effect from 1.1.2006. As per the recommendations of the Pay Commission, the Grades of Technical Assistants 'A' with the pay scale of Rs. 5,000 -8,000/ - and Technical Assistants 'B' with the pay scale of Rs. 5,500 -9,000/ - in which pay scale the petitioners were at that time came to be merged and a common revised pay scale of Rs. 9,300 -34,800/ - with the grade pay of Rs. 4,200/ - was fixed for the merged grade of Technical Assistants 'B' retrospectively from 1.1.2006. Writ Petitioners had exercised their option for the revised pay scale while holding the post of Technical Assistants 'B' to which post they had already been promoted. On the exercise of the option, commensurate benefits were also given to the petitioners. However as per the order dated 29th September, 2009, the Senior Administrative Officer Grade -II functioning on behalf of the Director of Defence Research and Development Organisation Aeronautical Development Establishment, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore issued an office order indicating that the promotions of the' petitioners had been given and on 1st September 2006 promotion from Technical Assistants 'A' to Technical Assistants 'B' gets cancelled and their pay fixation already done was being withdrawn and as a consequence, persons like petitioners were advised to refund the entire amount of benefits which they had earned earlier on promotion as per certain terms offered failing which the amount will be recovered in one lumpsum from the pay and allowance for the month of October, 2009. Feeling aggrieved by this order, writ petitioners questioned the same by filing applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in application No. 450/2009 and there is an interim order passed by the Tribunal on 15.10.2009 staying the implementation of the recovery order. It appears the applications had been withdrawn by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, New Delhi on 19.11.2009 to be heard along with similar applications which were pending before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and other places. The matter was transferred because similar matters were pending before the different Benches of the Tribunal at different places. Ultimately, the Principal Bench of the Tribunal heard the applications fried by the present writ petitioners along with various like applications that had been transferred to the Principal Bench and on noticing the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Central Government to the effect that the implementation of the VI Central Pay Commission and the manner of giving effect to it was a policy decision of the Government and that having been uniformly applied and on the recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission, if Technical Assistant 'A' post and Technical Assistant 'B' post had been merged and two grades eliminated with effect from 1.1.2006, no exception can be taken and therefore, there cannot be any promotion within the Grade on and after 1.1.2006 and further noticing the submission of Sri A.K. Bhardwaj that no actual recovery from the pay of the applicants was involved and the amounts involved get adjusted on fixation of their pay in the new scales that have come into effect on implementation of the VI Central Pay Commission's recommendations etc., proceeded to examine the matter and found no occasion to interfere and accordingly, dismissed all the applications.

(2.) IT is aggrieved by this order dated 30th July 2010 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 713/2010 (Annexure -A to the writ petitions) in so far as it relates to the petitioners are concerned, the present writ petitions.

(3.) THE matter has been listed for such purpose to examine the submission as Sri D. Leelakrishnana contends that these writ petitions had to be allowed in terms of the earlier order passed in W.P. Nos. 15515 -521/2012.