UNION OF INDIA Vs. TRIPTA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is instituted against the judgment dated 22.7.2014 rendered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 332/HP/2012.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent has filed O.A. No. 332/HP/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, being an ExBCB employee. She was declared surplus in the year 1984. She was redeployed to the NSSO (FOD) against the post of a Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 260 -400. She sought the grant of pay scale of Rs. 1350 -2200 with effect from 1.1.1986 revised to Rs. 4500 -7000 with effect from 1.1.1996, including other benefits such as financial upgradation under the ACP scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 5000 -8000 (as first upgradation) and Rs. 5500 -9000 (as second upgradation) with arrears of pay and allowance with further revision with effect from 1.1.2006 on the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. According to her, the Government of India has taken a decision in the year 1987 to afford fresh option to Ex -BCB employees, who had opted for the Central Pay scales, but she was not given any opportunity to exercise the option. She was not given option even after letter dated 31.3.1992 on the basis of judgment rendered in O.A. No. 159/1987 titled as O.P. Jaswal and others Vs. Union of India and others. She has placed strong reliance on O.A. No. 253/CH/1991, titled as Bharat Bhushan and others vs. Union of India and others decided on 9.2.2011. The DOPT has already given advice on 4.11.2005 to extend the benefit of related judgments even to the nonpetitioners. She made a representation in the year 2006. It was decided on 27.9.2006. She again made representation on 19.11.2011. It was rejected on 6.3.2012.

(3.) THE original application was resisted by the petitioners on the ground of limitation. According to the petitioners, respondent has failed to exercise her option. Thus, she was not entitled to the relief.