RAMKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A classic example where the Central Administrative Tribunal has taken up the administrative function of refixing the salary of an employee, though its function was judicial determination. The thrust of the argument in this present original petition is on the ground that the Tribunal had definitely exceeded in its power conferred on it under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 while rendering its Order.

(2.) The applicant approached the Tribunal aggrieved by refixation of his pay contrary to judicial parlance and also ordering consequential recovery and ended up in getting his pay re-fixed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in a proportion altogether alien to what even his employer had ordered. Such was the extent of excessive exercise of power by the Central Administrative Tribunal. We are not amused as to why the applicant has come with full vigor before this Court in an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. With an atypical order, we are called upon to decide as to whether the order of the Tribunal re-fixing the entire pay structure of the applicant contrary to what his employer had ordered could be sustained, and if not what would be the relief the petitioner/applicant would be entitled to.

(3.) The facts succinctly stated before us are as follows. The applicant was appointed as an Artificer Class-IV in the Navy on 1/5/1999. Subsequently, the applicant was promoted as Chief Engine Room Artificer on 1/4/2006 and on completion of ten (10) years service on bond, the applicant was relieved from service on 30/4/2009. Subsequently, the applicant returned the original discharge certificate to his present office, namely Naval Aircraft Yard (Kochi), Southern Naval Command as directed by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension). On 30/4/2009, the date of discharge, the applicant was drawing his salary in pay band-2 with grade pay of Rs.4,200.00 and 22% DA. The last pay drawn certificate is produced as Annexure-A2. It is evident that the applicant was drawing Rs.25,479.00 as his total pay in which the basic pay components reckoned for DA were only (Rs.15,630.00+4,200) totalling to Rs.19,830.00. At the time of discharge, the applicant was getting Rs.4,363.00 towards DA, 22% of Rs.19,830.00. Rs.19,830.00, which includes DA, being the total basic pay, it included Grade Pay, Military Service Pay and X-group pay. In compliance with Rule 19(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the applicant exercised his option and submitted a representation on 21/1/2010. Thereafter on 11/3/2013, the applicant exercised his second option also. By Annexure-A7, the applicant was directed to refund the retirement gratuity, including the amount received on account of five years exclusive weightage, which would come to Rs.4,23,378.00 along with interest at Rs.1,23,295.00 totalling to Rs.5,46,673.00. The said amount includes interest @ 8.8% from the date of joining in civil service to the date of payment. On 14/8/2013, the applicant remitted the above amount, which is evident from Annexure-A8. On remittance of entire gratuity, by Annexure-A9, the Principal Controller of Defence (Accounts) issued orders permitting the petitioner to count the military service towards civil pension by letter dtd. 7/11/2014. In tune with the said order, pay fixation proforma was issued to the applicant as evident from Annexure-A10. While so, the applicant received Annexure-A14 wherein the pay of the applicant was reduced from Rs.15,630.00/- to 12,230/-. The applicant/petitioner contends that the same was without any opportunity to show cause. Consequent to Annexure-A14, Annexure-A15 was also issued in which the pay of the applicant was reduced on the ground that he was not entitled to calculate the Military Service Pay and X-pay while fixing his last drawn pay as a civilian. Later, by Annexure-A18, he was informed that a further amount of Rs.5,87,505.00 has to be refunded by him as excess pay drawn during his tenure. It was impugning these proceedings that the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and filed the original application.