C R MADHAVA MURTHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are working as Superintendents in the Central Excise under the fourth respondent. They were recruited in the Customs and Central Excise Department as LDCs and were promoted as UDCs based on their seniority. Thereafter, the first petitioner was promoted to officiate as Inspector of Central Excise w.e.f. 02.04.1981 and the second petitioner w.e.f. 13.07.1987. They were regularly appointed as Inspectors w.e.f. 17.04.1992. Some of the officials were directly recruited as Inspectors later than the dates from which the petitioners started officiating as Inspectors in the Central Excise Department.

(2.) THE first petitioner and one Sri.C.K. Sathish, were promoted on 29.08.1987, whereas the second petitioner and Shri.B.S.Srikanth were promoted on 23.09.2002. The first petitioner is senior to Sri.C.K.Sathish and the second petitioner is senior to Sri.B.S.Srikanth, as per their seniority list of Superintendents. When the petitioners continued in the grade of Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, the directly recruited officials were promoted under the ACP Scheme to the next higher pay grade. Shri.C.K.Sathish got upgradation with effect from 17.12.2005 and Shri.B.S.Srikanth got the upgradation from 15.05.2006. The first petitioner submitted a representation seeking appropriate pay scale, which was rejected.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner was that they have not been given the higher grade of pay, based on the instructions contained in para -5.1, 5.2 and 8 in O.M. dated 9.8.1999 and clarification at Sl.No.27, contained in O.M. 10.02.2000 at Annexure -A3. That these instructions, are opposed to Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. That equals are treated as unequals. That they are drawing a lesser pay than their juniors, who joined as Inspectors much later than the petitioners. That during their entire services, they would be drawing a much lesser pay than their juniors. In fact, till the direct recruits were granted the second upgradation under the ACP Scheme, they were drawing lesser pay than the petitioners.