S RAVICHANDRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed on 14.9.1976 in the Office of Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Chennai as Lower Division Clerk and promoted as Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 10.9.1986 and thereafter promoted to the post of Head Clerk w.e.f. 30.6.1994 in the pre -revised pay -scale of Rs.1400 -40 -1800 -50 - 2300. He was promoted as Works Assistant Grade -I w.e.f. 1.5.1997. As is clear from the document at Annexure -E, dated 3.10.1997, petitioner was given promotion w.e.f. 1.9.1997. The pay -scale attached to the post of Works Assistant Grade -I to which the petitioner was promoted and taken charge in the said post on 1.9.1997 was Rs.1400 -40 -1600 -50 -2300 -60 - 2600. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance gave effect the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission on 1.1.1996 granting revised scale of pay of Rs.4500 -125 -7000 and Rs.5000 -150 -8000 as replacement scale of pay instead of pay of Rs.1400 - 2300 and Rs.1400 -2600 applicable to the posts of Head Clerk and Works Assistant Grade -I respectively.

(2.) On his promotion to the post of Works Assistant Grade -I, the petitioner was entitled to pay fixation in accordance with the provisions of FR22(1)(a)(1) as was done in respect of several seniors and juniors to the petitioner. Since the said pay fixation was not done in respect of the petitioner's case, he submitted a representation dated 11.9.2003 to the third respondent which came to be rejected on 9.9.2005, on the ground that petitioner's pay can be fixed under FR22(1)(a)(2) as the duties and responsibilities assigned to the post of Works Assistant Grade -I are not higher than that of Head Clerk. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2011 as Administrative Officer, but unfortunately his pay was not refixed as per the pay -scale attached to the post of Head Clerk as well as to the Works Assistant Grade -I during the relevant point of time. Another representation came to be made by the petitioner in the form of appeal before the second respondent on 2.11.2005, which was also not considered. Being aggrieved by the denial of his pay fixed in accordance with FR22(1)(a)(1), the petitioner herein filed OA.No.516/2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, which came to be dismissed on 4.9.2013, on the same ground that the post of Works Assistant Grade -I does not carry higher duties than that of Head Clerk. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) It is not in dispute that pre -revised scale attached to the post of Head Clerk was Rs.1400 -40 - 1800 -50 -2300. It is also not in dispute that pre - revised scale of pay attached to the post of Works Assistant Grade -I was Rs.1400 -40 -1800 -50 -2300 -60 - 2600. After revision of pay -scale pursuant to acceptance of the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission, the pay -scale in respect of the post of Head Clerk was modified to Rs.4500 -125 -7000. So also, the revised scale of pay of Works Assistant Grade -I was Rs.5000 -150 -8000.