P N KOUL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working as Senior Personal Assistant, in Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal. After he retired from service on 30.6.1997, he was faced with recovery of some excess amount received by him allegedly on account of wrong pay fixation traced to Fourth 'Pay Commission recommendations. It transpires that Fourth Pay Commission recommended a revision of pay-scales of Senior Stenographer Grade-I from 550-900 to 1640-2900. It also provided that stenographers attached to Senior Administrative Grade and equivalent posts be placed in the,scale of 2000-3200 by suitably upgrading the required number of posts of stenographers from lower grades, which be filed up by promotion as per normal, procedure . This was followed by DOPT instructions vide OM .dated 1.3.88 which also contemplated that posts be filled up by promotion. Upon this, petitioner made a representation, to President, ITAT and requested for grant of benefit under FR 22-C (old). He was consequently placed in Rs.2000-3200 scale but only from 1.1.90. Later objection was taken to it by the Controller of Accounts leading to the recovery process of excess amount being sought from the petitioner. Petitioner's case is that his placement in the higher scale of 2000-3200 tentamounted to promotion but according to respondents, it was only a replacement/ upgradation of the pay scale of stenographer Grade-1/ upgradation and that petitioner was not entitled to any benefit under FR 22-C (old).

(2.) Tribunal examined petitioner's plea arid took the view that his placement in the higher scale in question was not a promotion either under Pay Commission recommendation or provisions of OM dated 1.3.88 -so because promotion in true sense involved stepping up from one post to another leaving behind first post held by incumbent. It accordingly concluded that benefit of PR 22-C (old) corresponding to PR-22(1)(a )(1) was not available to petitioner as it was to be given on appointment to new post involving assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the already held post.

(3.) Tribunal accordingly dismissed petitioner's OA . He has now filed this petition and is insisting that he was entitled to benefit under FR 22-C (old) because number of his colleagues working as Special Personal Assistants in ITAT were enjoying this and he was the only one singled out for discrimination. Though he has not furnished any specific instances in this regard but his claim required to be examined and tested and if it was found that other similarly situated Special Personal Assistants in ITAT enjoyed such benefits, he would also deserve to be given equal treatment. This obviates the necessity of examining whether his placement in the higher grade of 2000-3200 was a promotion or a pay scale replacement/upgradation in the facts and circumstances of the case.