DIRECTOR Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not find any merit in the writ petition. The petitioners have come up against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter called "Tribunal") whereby the Original Application of the second respondent has been allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to consider him for the grade of Data Entry Operator Grade-E. The other monetary benefits have also been directed to be given t o him.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jayaraman points out that the second respondent was inducted into a project on 26.12.1973. After the closure of that project, he was reinducted in another project on 21.2.1976, where he was promoted for the first time as a Console Operator. On 7.12.1982, that project was also closed and therefore, he came to be absorbed in the petitioners' organization with effect from that date on the pay scale of Rs.425-700, which pay scale was ultimately revised to Rs.1400-2300. The fact remains, therefore, that the second respondent continued to be working as a Console Operator in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 till he was given the benefits of career advancement schemes and his pay scale was raised to Rs.1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900. It is then that a revision exercise was taken by a Committee. As per its suggestions, the second respondent's post of Console Operator came to be equated to the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'D' in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660. Accordingly, now the second respondent who was way ahead of that position is being sought to be brought back to the scale of Rs.1600-2660 on the logic that he was working as a Console Operator and as such his post has been equated to the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'D'. The second respondent challenged that.

(3.) Mr. Jayaraman urges before us that an increment granted to the second respondent and his upliftment to the scale of Rs.1640-2900 was by way of career advancement and therefore, that should not be deemed to be his pay scale. It would only mean that his pay scale remained the same at Rs.1400-2300, yet, he was permitted to draw the pay on the basis of the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. The learned counsel therefore says that it should never have been deemed to be the pay scale of the second respondent and therefore, the Tribunal was in error in allowing the Original Application.