R. RAMANAN Vs. REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of pay fixation as that of the Stenographer under F.R. 22(1)(a)(i) is the point falling for consideration in this Writ Petition, which is preferred against the order of dismissal of T.A. No. 68 of 2010 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12.07.2012. Petitioner was initially appointed as Telegraphman from 04.5.1983 and later served as Telegraphist from 20.8.1990 and then as Senior Telecom Operating Assistant (Telegraph) [Sr. TOA(T)] from 10.06.1996. As Sr. TOA, Petitioner was drawing the pay scale of Rs. 1320-30-1560-40-2040. In 1995-96, there was acute shortage of Stenographic assistance to the Officers under the 2nd Respondent. During the year 1995, the 2nd Respondent deputed the Petitioner to work as Stenographer on temporary basis. Petitioner also expressed his willingness to work as temporary Stenographer on deputation basis. Petitioner was ordered to officiate as Stenographer Grade-III in the office of the 3rd Respondent in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2040. With effect from 01.01.1996 both the scales of Sr. TOA and Stenographer Grade-III have become same as Rs. 4000-100-6000.

(2.) As per the Proceedings in Memo No. E-3/11/PF/95-97/42 dated at TNJ the 25.4.1997, it was ordered that the Appellant while officiating, all the rules regarding local officiating will apply. On 17.3.2000, Petitioner submitted a representation stating that he is discharging the duties as Stenographer with higher responsibilities and requested for awarding additional increments as per the rules. By Memo dated 20.09.2001 in Memo No. E3/11/APF/1995-01/59, the officiating order issued in respect of the Petitioner to officiate as Stenographer Grade-III was cancelled. The representation of the Petitioner dated 17.3.2000 was not favourably considered and by the letter in E3/11/PF/1995-01/62 dated 2.11.2001, the Petitioner was intimated that his request for allowing monetary benefit for the officiating duty as Stenographer Grade-III cannot be acceded to. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 34974 of 2002 to quash the said Proceedings dated 02.11.2001 and also direction for fixation of pay under F.R. 22(1)(a)(i) from 19.1.1996 till 02.11.2001. The said Writ Petition was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 68 of 2010. T.A. No. 68 of 2010 was dismissed by the Tribunal on 19.7.2011 which was challenged in W.P. No. 28025 of 2011. By the order dated 13.12.2011, the Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for re-consideration. Tribunal considered the matter afresh and held that "the Petitioner was not promoted to the post of Stenographer in substantive, temporary or officiating capacity" and also held that F.R. 22(1)(a)(i) will apply only when the promotion has taken place in the manner prescribed therein. Tribunal further held that Petitioner was holding the post of Sr. TOA in the office of BSNL and he was not a Stenographer Grade-III and any local arrangement made dehors the recruitment rule may not confirm any fixation benefit as contemplated under F.R. 22(1)(a)(i). Challenging the said order, Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) Mr. R. Murugesan, learned counsel for Petitioner contended that Tribunal failed to consider that by the Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent, the Petitioner has been ordered to officiate as Sr. TOA and that Petitioner is entitled to additional remuneration under F.R. 22(1)(a)(i). It is submitted that the recommendation made by the 3rd Respondent that Petitioner is entitled to pay fixation as per F.R. 22(1)(a)(i) was not properly considered. Placing reliance upon Raisudhir Prasad v. State of Bihar and others, 2004 13 SCC 25 it was submitted that Petitioner is entitled to additional pay of the officiating post over and above his regular salary for the period of officiation in such posts. It was submitted that the recommendation made by the 3rd Respondent that Petitioner is entitled to pay fixation as per F.R. 22(1)(a)(i) was not properly considered.