(1.) THE applicant in OA No. 363/2007, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, is the writ petitioner. THE said Original Application was filed by him, challenging Annexure A1 and A 10, produced along with the memorandum of Original Application, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P2.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are the following: THE writ petitioner joined the Air Force as a Combatant Clerk on 31/01/1967. On completion of 15 years service, he was discharged from the Air Force on 31/01 /1982. THE petitioner got reemployment as Postal Assistant on 06/08/1984 in the scale of pay of Rs.260-480. Regarding the fixation of pay, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondents. As per the office memorandum issued by the Central Government on 25/11/1958, the petitioner was entitled to get 15 increments for the 15 years' service rendered by him in the post of Combatant Clerk. So, he claimed, he was entitled to get the pay fixed at the stage of Rs.396/-. THE Central Government issued a further order on 08/02/1983, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P6, providing that the entire pension drawn by a non-commissioned officer shall be ignored while fixing the pay of an ex-service man on re-employment in civil service. Based on those two orders, the petitioner claimed fixation of pay at the stage of Rs.396. But, the respondents -took the view that his pay can be fixed only at the minimum of the scale of pay and he cannot get the benefit of past service in the Air Force. THE said dispute led to the filing of OA No. 661 / 1993, which was allowed by Annexure A2 order by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench. In that order, the CAT relied on a Full Bench decision of the CAT in OA No. 3/89. THE operative portion of Annexure A2 order of the CAT reads as follows:
(3.) THE petitioner contended that being dissatisfied with the pay fixed at Rs.324/-, he started the legal fight and the same finally ended in his pay being fixed at Rs.260+1, though he succeeded in all the cases. THE petitioner pointed out that the respondents never had a case that his entire pension cannot be ignored. THEir only dispute was relating to the counting of 15 years service for the purpose of grant of increment. According to them, his service for 7 years was in a lower scale of pay, the same could not be counted. THE said dispute was resolved in his favour. But, relying on a mistake committed by the Tribunal while rendering Annexure A6, the present stand was taken by the respondents. Before the Tribunal, in the present Original Application the respondents stuck to their stand and supported the impugned orders. THE Tribunal, after hearing both sides, upheld the contentions of the respondents made relying on Annexure A7 and dismissed the Original Application by Ext. P1 order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, this Writ Petition was filed.