L.Jadham v. The Union of India & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:30-04-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRAAND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENW.P.No.24040 of 2004L.Jadham.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Union of India, rep. byThe Secretary to GovernmentMinistry of Industries and CommerceDepartment of Industrial Policy& Promotion, Udyog Bhavan,New Delhi-II.2.The Salt CommissionerLavan Bhavan, 2A Lavan Marg,Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur-302 004.3.The Registrar,Central Administrative Tribunal,Chennai-600 104... Respondents.For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandra KumarFor Respondents: Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan (CGSC) (R1 to R3)PRAYER: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records relating to the third respondent's order madein O.A.No.465 of 2003, dated 17.9.2003 and R.A.No.35 of 2003, dated12.11.2003, to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st and 2ndrespondents to fix the Pay of the petitioner at Rs.14,250/- in theScales of Rs.12000-16500 with effect from 1.1.1996 and to extend allother service benefits thereto. O R D E RM.JAICHANDREN,J.Heard Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan, the learned Central GovernmentStanding Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 17.9.2003, made inO.A.No.465 of 2003, and the order, dated 12.11.2003, made inR.A.No.35 of 2003 and to direct the first and the second respondentsto fix the pay of the petitioner at Rs.14,250/- in the scale of payof Rs.12000–16500 with effect from 1.1.1996 and for other servicebenefits.3. By the impugned orders made in O.A.No.465 of 2003 and thereview application the claim of the petitioner for the grant of oneincrement, as per the revised pay Rules, had been rejected.4. It has been stated that the petitioner had been directlyrecruited as Assistant Salt Commissioner, through the Union PublicService Commission, during the year 1980. He had been promoted asDeputy Salt Commissioner, on 30.9.86, at the initial pay scale ofRs.3000-100-3500-125-5000. Based on the cadre review the post wasupgraded, with effect from 21.7.1987 and the scale of pay was revisedas Rs.3700-125-4700-150-5000. In view of the cadre review and theconsequential upgradation of the post an option had been given forthe concerned persons either to remain in the existing scale of payor to move to the new scale of pay. The petitioner had reached themaximum in the original scale of pay at Rs.5,000/-, on 1.9.1994.5. It had been further stated that the fifth Central PayCommission revised scales of pay came into existence, with effectfrom 1.1.1996. However, contrary to the provisions of the relevantRules, the petitioner’s pay was wrongly fixed at Rs.13,875/-, as on1.1.1996 and Rs.14,250/-, as on 1.1.1997. Therefore, the petitionerhad made a representation, dated 9.1.2001, pointing out thediscrepancies. The said representation was rejected by the secondrespondent by the proceedings, dated 15.3.2001, which was challengedbefore the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. By an order,dated 14.9.2001, the original Application was allowed by the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Mumbai, directing restoration of the revisedscales of pay of Rs.12,000-16500, with effect from 1.1.1996 and forthe granting of the other consequential benefits. Thereafter, theorder, dated 15.3.2001, had been cancelled by proceedings, dated21.1.2002.6. It has been further stated that the petitioner had made arepresentation, dated 6.2.2002, for the grant of additionalincrements. However, the said representation had been rejected.Hence, the petitioner had filed the original application inO.A.No.465 of 2003, before the Central Administrative Tribunal,Madras Bench, praying for a direction to fix the pay of thepetitioner at Rs.14,250/-, in the scale of Rs.12000-16500, witheffect from 1.1.1996 and for other consequential reliefs. The CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, had rejected the original https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application. Thereafter, the revision application filed by thepetitioner had also been rejected.7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerin the present writ petition is that the Central AdministrativeTribunal, Madras Bench, had wrongly rejected the prayer of thepetitioner without noting the proviso to Rule 7(1) (A) of the CentralCivil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, according to which thepetitioner is eligible for the grant of increment as prayed for inthe original application. The petitioner ought to have been grantedsix increments instead of five, as on 1.1.1996. According to thethird proviso to Rule 7(1)(A) of the Central Civil Services (RevisedPay) Rules, 1997, for every three increments in the `existing scale'of pay the employee concerned is entitled to one increment in therevised scale of pay. The Existing Scale has been defined in Rule 3(2) of the Rules. Thus, even the personal scale applicable to theapplicant is deemed to be the existing scale of pay and therefore, byvirtue of the option exercised by the applicant he was entitled toremain in the scale of Rs.3000-5000 and thus, it was the `existingscale' of pay of the applicant. In the said scale of pay there were17 stages and the applicant had reached the maximum of the scale on1.9.1994. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to the grant of fiveincrements under the third proviso to Rule 7(1)(A) of the CentralCivil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. Additionally, thepetitioner was also entitled to one increment under the third provisoto Rule 8 and hence, he was entitled for the grant of all the sixincrements in the revised scale of pay and he was entitled to havehis pay fixed at Rs.14,250/- in the scale of Rs.12000-16500, witheffect from 1.1.1996.8. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by its order, dated17.9.2003, made in O.A.No.465 of 2003, had found that the post ofDeputy Salt Commissioner had been upgraded, with effect from21.7.1987 and the petitioner had been placed in the pay scale ofRs.3700-5000. As per Rule 3 of The Central Civil Services (RevisedPay) Rules, 1997, the words `existing scale’ have been defined as`present scale applicable to the post held by the Governmentservant'. Thus, it was clear that the post of Deputy SaltCommissioner, prior to 1.1.1996, was in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000. Merely because the petitioner had opted to remain in the payscale of Rs.3,000-5000, prior to its upgradation, it could not besaid that he was in the pay scale of Rs.3,000-5000. The words `postheld’ in Rule 3 of The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,1997, is the determining factor. Admittedly, the petitioner held thepost of Deputy salt Commissioner in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000. Atbest, the pay scale of Rs.3000-5000 could be regarded as the`personal scale' held by the petitioner. As long as the post ofDeputy Salt Commissioner remains in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000,having only 11 stages and not 17 stages in the pay scale of Rs.3000-5000, the petitioner would be entitled only to three increments interms of the third proviso under Rule 7 of the Central Civil Services https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. Thus, the increments in the pay scale ofRs.12000–16500 is of Rs.375. The said amount of Rs.375 had beenmultiplied by 3 and after adding one more increment in terms of Rule8 of the said Rules, the basic pay of the petitioner, as on 1.1.1996,had been fixed at Rs.13,500/-. The petitioner had been allowed theadditional increment of Rs.375/- on account of the fact that he wasdrawing the maximum of Rs.5,000/- in the pre-revised pay scale formore than one year. As such it could be said that he was granted thebenefit of one stagnation increment to which he was entitled to.Thus, there is no irregularity or illegality in the fixation of thepay scale of the petitioner and the granting of the increments due tohim.9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the secondrespondent, the claims made by the petitioner had been denied. It hasbeen stated that the pay fixation in respect of the applicant hasbeen made in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CentralCivil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. The maximum benefit ofincrements as admissible under the said Rules has been allowed tothe petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for anyadditional increments, as claimed by him. The petitioner had beenpromoted to the post of Deputy Salt Commissioner in the pay scale ofRs.1300/- to Rs.1700/-, with effect from 30.9.1986. Consequent uponthe recommendations of the fourth Pay Commission, the pay scale wasrevised from Rs.3000 to 5000, with effect from 1.1.1986. The post ofDeputy Salt Commissioner was upgraded to the scale of Rs.3700/- toRs.5000/-, with effect from 21.7.1987, based on the Indian SaltServices Cadre Review. However, the petitioner had retained the oldpay scale of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- by exercising the option underF.R-23. The fifth Central Pay Commission had granted the pay scaleof Rs.12000/- to Rs.16,500/-, to the pre-revised scale of Rs.3700/-to Rs.5000/- and Rs.10000/- to Rs.15200/- to the pre-revised scale ofRs.3000/- to Rs.5000/-. The petitioner had opted to retain his oldpay of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5000/- at the time of revision of the payscale of Deputy Salt Commissioner. According to Rule 5 of The CentralCivil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, he was allowed to draw thecorresponding scale of pay of Rs.10000/- to Rs.15200/- to the pre-revised scale of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5000/-. The petitioner hadchallenged the same by way of an original application before theCentral Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, in O.A.No.256 of 2001. TheTribunal had restored the pay scale of Rs.12000/- to Rs.16500/- andthus, the petitioner’s pay had been fixed according to second provisounder Rule 7(1)(A) and the third proviso under Rule 8 of the TheCentral Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. The maximum benefitof bunching has also been allowed ensuring that the petitioner gotthe maximum benefits due to him. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as for the respondentsand on a perusal of the records available, we are of the consideredview that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Court to interfere with the order passed by the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, made in O.A.No.465 of 2003 and thesubsequent order, dated 12.11.2003, passed in the revisionapplication. 11. The Tribunal had given sufficient reasons for arriving at itsconclusions. It has been found that the pay fixation of thepetitioner and the increments granted to him were in accordance withthe provisions of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,1997. The words `post held’ in Rule 3 of the said Rules would onlymean the post of Deputy Salt Commissioner held by the petitioner atthe relevant point of time. However, it is not in dispute that thesaid post was placed in the pay scale of Rs.3700- 5000. Merelybecause the petitioner had opted to remain in the then existing payscale of Rs.3000-5000/-, which was applicable prior to the date ofthe upgradation of the said post, it cannot be stated that the saidscale was applicable to the post of Deputy Salt Commissioner. Atbest, the pay scale of Rs.3000-5000 could be regarded only as the`personal scale' of pay held by the petitioner. Thus, it is seen thatthe Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, had rightlyapplied the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay)Rules, 1997, and rejected the claim made by the petitioner.Therefore, we see no scope to interfere with the said findings of theTribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Secretary to Government of India,Ministry of Industries and CommerceDepartment of Industrial Policy& Promotion, Udyog Bhavan,New Delhi-II.2.The Salt CommissionerLavan Bhavan, 2A Lavan Marg,Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur-302 004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Registrar,Central Administrative Tribunal,Chennai-600 1041 cc To Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, SR.198241 cc To Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan, Advocate, SR.19888W.P.No.24040 of 2004KSK(CO)SRA(27/5/2009)