S C SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners by this writ petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, have called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 25-6-1999 passed in O. A. No. 75/91 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur. It is pertinent to state here the aforesaid original application was decided along with two other original applications, but the present writ petition being confined to the aforesaid original application we shall only refer to the facts in the aforesaid original application and deal with the merit of the said case.

(2.) THE petitioners three in number, were applicants before the Tribunal in O. A. No. 757/91. It is relevant to state here that in the aforesaid O. A. there were 32 applicants. Their case before the Tribunal was that they were working on the post of Head Clerks and Superintendents-II. A scheme was floated by the respondents on 11-7-1979 stipulating that a person who was discharging onerous duties would be paid at the rate of Rs. 35/ -. This amount was to be added as the personal pay of each of the petitioners holding the post of senior clerks. The aforesaid amount was payable only to 10% of the total strength of Senior Clerks/head Clerks who were performing their duties which are of arduous nature. Each of the applicants after issuance of the aforesaid circular dated 11-7-1979 was performing the duties of Senior Clerks (UDC) and as responsibilities were of arduous nature they were rewarded by being paid the amount as personal pay to them. Subsequently, the respondent-Department issued yet another letter-circular on 27-11-1987 in which it was notified that 10 per cent of the senior clerks who have been performing onerous duties getting the amount of Rs. 35/-, the said amount would be merged in the basic pay at the stage of fixation of pay on promotion to the post of Head Clerks from Senior Clerks. It was putforth by the applicants that as they were performing the same nature of work, i. e. , onerous duties they were receiving Rs. 35/- as personal pay and were promoted earlier to those who were juniors to them, vide Annexure-D, their basic pay could not be fixed below the juniors. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that the juniors had been given the benefit whereas the senior persons who were promoted already earlier to the juniors from the post of Senior Clerks to the post of Head Clerks have been ignored, though they were receiving the special pay when they were working in the post of Senior Clerks, and discharging onerous duties.

(3.) THE respondents before the Tribunal resisted the claims of the applicants therein on two counts viz. , the cause of action had arisen in the year 1984 as upgradation had taken place during the year with effect from 1-1-1984 and, therefore, the application was barred by limitation and special pay was given to such senior clerks who came within the zone as stipulated under the OMS and none of the applicants was working in 10% posts of senior clerks on that day they were not entitled to the special pay of Rs. 35/- and hence, the applicants cannot claim special pay as matter of right. The Tribunal addressed to the aforesaid facets and formulated the issue that the claim is based on the fact that the applicants have been receiving Rs. 35/- as personal pay, but the same had not been added to their pay on promotion. The Tribunal appreciating the correctness of the factum pertaining to receipt of Rs. 35/- as special pay came to hold that the petitioners were not in receiving special pay as has been claimed by them. However, the Tribunal relying on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. R. Swaminathan, (1997) 7 SCC 690 and Union of India and Ors. v. M. Suryanarayana Rao, (1998) 6 SCC 400, came to hold that the applicants did not satisfy the conditions laid down therein and accordingly rejected the application.