ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

(2.) AVERMENT has been made in the OA that the applicants were initially recruited as Mazdoor and subsequently promoted to the post of Motor Pump Attendant (MPA). One MES No. 367552 Shamsher Singh was appointed as Oil Engine Driver on 27.5.1978 and another employee namely MES No. 368198 Kuku Pal was appointed as Oil Engine Driver on 30.6.1978. Similarly, two other employees namely MES No. 371319 Ram Kumar was appointed as Oil Engine Driver on 30.1.1979 and MES No. 368062 Ramesh Masih was appointed as Oil Engine Driver on 1.2.1979. All these persons were junior to the applicants as the applicants were promoted as Pump Attendant on 1.8.1977, 2.8.1977 and 11.7.1978 and further w.e.f. 1996 all the feeder cadre posts like Pump House Operator, Oil Engine Driver, Roller Driver were re -designated as Fitter General Mechanic i.e. FGM. Since ACP Scheme was introduced by the respondents w.e.f. 9.8.1999 and like the applicants, the 1st ACP of Rs. 4000 -6000 was given to the above mentioned four persons namely Shamsher Singh, Suraj, Ram Kumar and Ramesh Masih w.e.f. 9.8.1999 on completion of their 12 years of service. However, the respondents granted the benefit of 2nd ACP of Rs. 5000 -8000 to the persons junior to the applicants in the year 2002 and 2003 respectively on their completion of 24 years of service. But the benefit of 2nd ACP of Rs. 5000 -8000 was not allowed to the applicants on the pretext that since they had already got one promotion, hence they are entitled for only one ACP. The resultant effect of granting the benefit of 2nd ACP of Rs. 5000 -8000 to the persons junior to the applicants and non grant of the same to the applicants was that the persons junior to the applicants started getting higher pay as compared to the applicants. Hence the applicants made representations to the respondents highlighting these facts and requested the respondents to fill up the gap (Annexure A -1).

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated there is no provision in any rule or law for stepping up of a pay scale or grade pay. The concept of stepping up of pay carries with it element of increase in one or two increment and not the entire pay scale. The applicants have failed to show under which rule their stepping up of pay case is covered and as such the O.A. is liable to be dismissed. The applicants were appointed as Mazdoors in 1973 and 1974 and after passing the Trade Test in 1977 and 1978 were promoted as Motor Pump Attendant and then re -designated as Fitter General Mechanic w.e.f. 1996. In so far as juniors to applicants are concerned, they were directly appointed as Oil Engine Drivers in 1978 -79 and claim of the applicants is that these Oil Engine Drivers being junior to the applicants cannot draw more pay than them. A similar claim has been decided by Hon'ble Principal Bench of C.A.T. in O.A. No. 4178 of 2010 titled Arjun Kumar & Another v. Union of India and others, decided on 2.3.2012, rejecting the prayer holding that once it is recognized that one promotion had been granted from the post of Mazdoor to Pump Attendant, then such promotion has to be counted for purpose of grant of ACP benefit (Annexure R -1).