UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears on behalf of the respondent in spite of valid service of notice. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 185 of 2005 (Ram Narayan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed and the authorities have been directed to grant him the benefit of special pay of Rs. 35/-per month with effect from the date person next to him was granted with arrears of salary and all consequential benefits.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The respondent was a retired Senior Auditor in the Ministry of Defence, and superannuated from the services of the Central Government in January, 2002. Special pay of Rs. 35/- per month was payable to the employees of the department who were superior, efficient, and handling complex nature of work. Taking into account the over-all situation, a number of employees, some of them who were senior and others were junior to the respondent herein, were granted special pay of Rs. 35/- with effect from 1.5.1987. The respondent did not challenge this order either on the administrative side or on the judicial side. As stated hereinabove, he superannuated in January, 2002, and three years thereafter preferred O.A. No. 185 of 2005, which has been allowed on the ground that the decision of the authorities is discriminatory and arbitrary. The objection as to the delay in filing the original application has been considered by the learned Tribunal and has been decided in favour of the employee.

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The undisputed position is that persons junior to the original applicant were given the benefit of special pay with effect from 1.5.1987, and was challenged in 2005. The learned Tribunal completely lost sight of position that only 10% of the cadre are entitled to benefit of special pay. It has unsettled affairs which had remained settled for 18 years, and became final. This was more than adequate ground to reject the Original Application. The learned Tribunal further failed to realize that it does not have the jurisdiction to exceed the quota of 10%, and allowing the Original Application would by necessary implication mean that one person will have to. be unseated. The impugned order could not, therefore, have been passed in the absence of such a person. We disagree with the approach of the learned Tribunal.