VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Office Order No.176 of 2011 dtd. 27/9/2011, whereby and whereunder, the respondent-NIFT have degraded the petitioner from Group 'A' to Group 'B' category by reducing his salary from Pay Band 3 (Rs.15600.0039100) +5400 GP being the Group 'A' entry grade to Pay Band 2 (9300-34800)+5400 GP meant for the Group 'B' Category posts. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to extend the Financial Up-gradation as per MACP Scheme w.e.f., 1/9/2008 in the Pay Band 3 (15600-39100 +6600 GP) and to pay the consequential arrears of pay and allowance for the period from 1/9/2008 to 30/6/2011. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to fix the pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits on the basis of last Pay drawn on 30/6/2011 in the Pay Band 3 (15600-39100+6600 GP) and to pay the arrears with interest. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents for payment of Retiral Gratuity along with statutory interest.

(2.) Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the prayer regarding payment of gratuity along with statutory interest at this stage.

(3.) The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was initially appointed as Upper Division Clerk on 29/10/1976 and was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 1/11/1984. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent (Admn.) in the revised pay scale of Rs.5500.009000 under V Pay Revision. An Internal Advertisement No.1/2004 was floated by the respondent-NIFFT for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar (Admn.) by promotion only from the Internal Candidates and accordingly, the petitioner upon being found suitable by the Selection Committee amongst the internal candidates, was selected vide letter dtd. 31/5/2004 to the post of Assistant Registrar (Admin) in the pay scale of Rs.8000.0013000 (V Pay Revision). It is specific case of the petitioner that after VI Pay Revision was implemented in the Central Government, the same was also implemented in the respondent - NIFFT vide Letter No.2/7/2009-T.S.VI New Delhi dtd. 13/11/2009 and the corresponding Revised pay scale for the post of Assistant Registrar in the VI Pay Revision Commission is Pay Band-3 (15,600-39100+5400 GP). The petitioner had drawn pay and allowance in the Pay Band-3(15,600- 39100+5400 GP) for more than 5 years and completion of age of superannuation, retired on 30/6/2011 on the said pay band. After superannuation of the petitioner, the respondents vide impugned order dtd. 27/9/2011 degraded the petitioner in Pay Band 2 (15,600- 39100+4800 GP) in place of Pay Band 3(15,600-39100+5400 GP) and also reduced the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.18,950.00 to Rs.18,750.00 and without gratuity. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner represented before the respondents on several occasions, but no heed was paid. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that petitioner is entitled for pay scale of Rs.15,600.0039100 +5400 GP in. Pay Band-3, which is the pay-scale of Assistant Registrar and he has superannuated on the said pay-scale and as such, last pay drawn by him at the time of superannuation should be taken into consideration for fixation of pension, but the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily issued the order for reduction of the pay-scale. He further submits that after retirement, it was not open for the respondents to reduce the pay-scale, which was fixed in accordance with the Rule and as per the Notification of the Central Government itself. There cannot be two pay-scales i.e. PB-3 (Rs.15,600.0039100+5400 GP) and PB-2 (Rs.9300.00 34800+5400GP) for same post i.e. one is for the direct recruits and other for the promotion promotees. If an employee is holding substantive post, by way of promotion or by way of direct recruitment, he is entitled for the same pay-scale. He further argues that vide Notification dtd. 28/1/2009, provisional pay fixation was done and Notification dtd. 13/11/2009 itself was approved by the Central Government and thereafter, pay-fixation of the petitioner was done on 21/12/2009 on the basis of letter dtd. 13/11/2009 and any reduction in the said pay-scale amounts to discrimination. The petitioner was holding a Group A post, there is no matter whether he is directly appointed or promoted. He further submits that petitioner is also entitled for the benefits of MACP, which has already been given to the similarly situated employees.