DEV MANI YADAV Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has assailed an order dated 11th April 1997 passed by the central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dismissing the OA. The Petitioners were employed as Assistant Superintendent Telegraph traffic (later on designated as Junior Telecom Officers) under the Chief General manager, Northern Telecom Region, New Delhi. The pay scale of the Petitioners was revised vide order dated 8th April 1992 and the revision was made effective from 1st April 1991. The matter was re-examined and vide order dated 20th June 1994, the revised scale was made effective from 1st January 1986. The petitioners were thus entitled to the arrears of pay. The Respondents gave the option to the Petitioners to receive the arrears of pay in cash or by transfer to their GPF accounts or partly in cash and partly by transfer to their GPF accounts. The Department of Personnel and Training issued an OM dated 12th november 1990 to the effect that in respect of the arrears credited to the GPF accounts, the interest on the arrears would also be payable with effect from 1st may 1992.

(2.) THE Petitioners partly received the arrears of pay in cash and partly by transfer to their GPF accounts. The detail of the payment of arrears of pay received by the Petitioners is as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2031_ILRDLH17_2008Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE Petitioners are demanding interest on the part arrears of pay received by them in cash at the same rate as has been given in respect of part arrears transferred to their GPF accounts. The case of the Petitioners is that the decision of the Respondents to pay interest only in respect of the part arrears transferred to GPF account is arbitrary and discriminatory. We do not find any merit in the contention of the Petitioners. Firstly, the Petitioners have no right to the interest on the arrears of pay. The respondents revised the pay scales of the Petitioners and gave effect to the said revision with retrospective effect. The right to the arrears of pay came into existence in the year 1992/94. Merely because the Respondents offered to pay interest on the amount kept in GPF account would not create any right to claim the interest on the arrears received in cash. Secondly, the non-payment of interest on the arrears of pay received in cash is not arbitrary and discriminatory merely because the Respondents have given interest on the part arrears transferred to GPF account. According to the respondents, they had offered to pay interest on the amount transferred in GPF account because amount so transferred would remain with the Respondents and, therefore, the immediate liability of making the payment would not arise. Thirdly, the Respondents also wanted to promote the savings by the employees. We see reason in the said submission and do not find any discrimination in non-payment of interest on the part arrears of pay received in cash by the petitioners.