UNION OF INDIA Vs. P VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by the Union of India Challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called as Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal set aside the order dated 15.4.1998. By that order, the Government of India created 418 posts of Assistants (i.e.,10% of the total number 4177 posts of Upper Division Clerks) of Military Engineering Service to the grade of assistant in the revised pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 and in its place reduced the same number of posts in the Upper Division Clerks' Grade. Simultaneously, the scheme of granting special pay ofRs.70/- per month to the Upper Division Clerks for performing complex nature of duties was ordered to be abolished. It was conveyed in this order that the appointment to the upgraded posts of Assistant shall be effected through a normal Departmental Promotion Committee based on All India Seniority of the Upper Division Clerks. THIS order came to be challenged by the respondents 1 to 17 on the ground that this was nothing but an attempt to expose them to a fresh selection by constituting a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee. They pointed out that all of them were already subjected to a Departmental Promotion Committee procedure for being granted an extra pay of Rs.70/- per month which was meant for the stagnated employees or for those doing complex duties. They pointed out to the Tribunal that all of them were selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee and it was only on that basis that the extra pay o Rs.70/- per month was made payable to them. They pointed out that even in the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, there was a specific recommendation to the following effect:

(2.) THE tribunal took the view that it was an admitted position that the original applicants before the Tribunal and the respondents before us were actually selected candidates by Departmental Promotion Committee . This was on the basis of the admission given in the counter by the Government where it was not disputed that the respondents herein were actually selected by the respective Departmental Promotion Committees to receive the extra pay of Rs.70/-. THE Tribunal relying on the aforementioned para, came to the conclusion that this upgradation was meant only for those persons who were selected to receive the extra pay. On this basis the Tribunal by order dated 02.03.1999 permitted the upgradation of the respondents to the level of assistants without convening a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee. Much water flew under the bridge thereafter because the Government was slow in implementing the order of the Tribunal. Even contempt proceedings were taken for that purpose and ultimately it seems that the Government made some other make shift arrangements by placing the 14 respondents and adjusted them somehow or the other in the post of assistants but without giving them the effect of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1996. Be that as it may, the Government now comes and challenges the order on the ground that the Tribunal should not have set aside the order and should not have thwarted the attempt on the part of the Government to make selection by formulating fresh Departmental Promotion Committees.

(3.) BUT, before parting we must point out the actual mistake which has crept in the whole affair because of the incorrect statement of fact made on the part of few applicants before the Tribunal as also because of the laxity shown by the Central Government while filing the counter before the Tribunal. It is pointed out by Mr.V.Vaithyalingam, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel that respondents 12,15&16 were not the persons who had been selected in the earlier Departmental Promotion Committees to receive Rs.70/- held prior to 1-1-96. He therefore pointed out that atleast those three persons could not claim the exalted status of assistants with effect from 1-1-1996 which has been granted to them by the order of the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also fairly conceded that these three persons were not selected in any of the Departmental Promotion Committees held prior to 1.1.1996. It is therefore obvious that a mistake has been committed in respect of those respondents. In this respect it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that these three respondents were selected in the Departmental Promotion Committees held after 1-1-1996 but before the 5th Pay Commission report was made applicable. The 5th Pay Commission Report was dated 30.1.1997 and the supplement report was dated 20.2.1997 and it was made applicable with effect from 1-1-1997 by notification dated 13-9-1997. Perhaps it is because of that the three respondents who were selected after 1-1-1996 but before 13-9-1997 to receive the extra pay also joined the band of applicants before the Tribunal. Because of this judgement, now they will loose their benefits not altogether, but their benefits will be only with effect from the date on which they were selected and not relatable to 1-1-1996. With this clarification we close the judgement.