UNION OF INDIA Vs. TOMY MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India [for brevity "UoI"] challenge the order of the Tribunal, produced at Exhibit P6.

(2.) The issue arises in the Statistical Department of the UoI and concerns respondents 1 to 3, who were the applicants before the Tribunal. They were promoted on an ad hoc basis to the post of Assistant Superintendent, in a higher pay scale and continued there for long. Later, even without a reversion they were fixed in a lower pay scale on the formation of a Subordinate Statistical Service (Group-B Gazetted). A revision was made, in an attempt to protect their pay and they were permitted in the very same pay scale which they enjoyed in the ad hoc post. But, however, on fixation in the higher pay scale, their total pay was lesser than that fixed in the lower pay scale; which prompted a demand for recovery.

(3.) The respondents 1 to 3 approached the Tribunal for interfering with the recovery and also for regularization of their appointments in the post of Assistant Superintendents, which, they asserted, was not ad hoc, though termed so, in the orders at Annexures A-2 and A-3. The Tribunal found that there could not have been any reduction of pay especially when they were fixed in the higher pay scale. It was also found, on the basis of the clear admission of the petitioners herein, the official respondents, that there were posts in the cadre of Assistant Superintendents to which these applicants could have been promoted. In such circumstances,it was directed that the respondents 1 to 3 be regularized from the date of their ad hoc promotion and also granted benefits of Annexure A-19. Annexure A-19 was issued in favour of the existing Assistant Superintendents, on the creation of Statistical Investigator Grade-I and Statistical Investigator Grade-II posts in the SS Service. The existing Assistant Superintendents who were holding posts in the SS Service in the pay scale 5500-9000 was absorbed and appointed as Statistical Investigator Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. The respondents 1 to 3 claimed the very same benefits on the ground that they ought to have been absorbed similarly.