P. THANIGAIMALAI Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WMP No.26994 of 2023 seeking to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition, stands ordered on payment of separate Court fee.

(2.) The petitioners in both these writ petitions have sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 1 st respondent and quash the order passed in O.A.No.1726 of 2016 dtd. 3/1/2023 as illegal, incompetent and contrary to law with a consequential direction to the respondents to grant the petitioners with the 2 nd Financial Upgradation applying the Assured Career Progression Scheme in the scale of Rs.15,600.0039,100 with a Grade Pay of Rs.5,400.00 from the due date. Since the relief sought for in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The petitioners herein approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench with O.A.No.1736 of 2016 seeking to quash the order passed by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner dtd. 19/9/2016 and to consequently direct the respondents to grant 2nd Financial Upgradation applying the ACP Scheme in the scale of pay of Rs.15600.0039100 with a Grade Pay of Rs.5400.00 from the respective due dates with arrears. It is the case of the petitioners that they were initially appointed by direct recruitment as Data Entry Operators (Grade-B) between the years 1982-1983 in the services of the respondents and as on 1/1/1996, they were drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs.4500.007000 with a Grade Pay of Rs.2800.00 as per the 5 th Pay Commission. As per the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, the ACP Scheme), the petitioners were granted with 1st financial upgradation in the scale of pay of Rs.5000.00150-8000 with a Grade pay of Rs.4200.00 in PB-2. The pay scale of Rs.5000.008000 belongs to the post of Junior Supervisor, which is the next promotional post for Data Entry Operator Grade 'B'. Further, as per the 6th Pay Commission, the pay scales of Junior Supervisor and Senior Supervisor were merged and the pay was rationalised in the scale of Rs.9300.0034800 PB-2 with a Grade pay of Rs.4200.00. The next avenue of upgradation to the petitioners is to the post of Assistant Director in PB-3 i.e., 15600-39100 with a Grade Pay of Rs.5400.00. The respondents, rather than applying the ACP scheme for 2 nd financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.15600.0039100 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400.00, granted the petitioners with the next grade pay of Rs.4600.00in the same scale of pay, as per the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, the MACP Scheme), though they have completed more than 24 years prior to the introduction of the MACP Scheme. Therefore, the petitioners made several representations and also filed O.A.No.1203 of 2014, in which the Department had accepted to grant the Grade Pay of Rs.5400.00 to all the petitioners. However, only 9 persons in the above mentioned O.A had been granted with the GP of Rs.5400.00. Aggrieved by the same, the remaining 28 persons filed another O.A.No.1000 of 2016 praying the Tribunal to direct the respondents to grant them similar benefits as was extended to their colleagues vide Order No.A.33011/3/2015-AD-III dtd. 18/1/2016, which came to be disposed of vide order dtd. 8/6/2016 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations made by the 28 persons, within a period of 2 months. As the respondents failed to comply with the order of the Tribunal within the stipulated time period, the petitioners herein issued a contempt notice dtd. 10/9/2016, pursuant to which the 2nd respondent passed the order dtd. 19/9/2016, stating that out of 28 persons, 10 persons were declared to be eligible for granting the benefits as asked for, and the request of the remaining 18 persons were declared as not being eligible, on the ground that they do not possess the educational qualification as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Director (Data Centre) being the next hierarchical post and thus denied the benefit of the 2nd financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the original application seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.