& Programme ImplementationEast Block 6, Levels 6 & 7 R.K. PuramNew Delhi v. Vaithiyalingam, SCGSCFor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 09..01..2008CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRAandThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRUW.P. No. 45008 of 2002andW.P.M.P. No. 65814 of 2002 The Union of IndiaRep. by the Deputy Director GeneralNational Sample Survey Organisation(Field Operations Division)Department of Statistics & Programme ImplementationMinistry of Statistics & Programme ImplementationEast Block 6, Levels 6 & 7R.K. PuramNew Delhi... Petitioner-vs-1.T.S.V.S. Janaki Rama Sarma2.The RegistrarCentral Administrative TribunalMadras Bench... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingto issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2ndrespondent relating to order dated 17.4.2002 in O.A. No. 1159 of 2001and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. V. Vaithiyalingam, SCGSCFor Respondent 1: Mr. Karthik RajanORDER(Order of the Court was made by K.CHANDRU, J.)Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Vaithiyalingam, learned SeniorCentral Government Standing Counsel representing the petitioner andMr. Karthik Rajan, learned counsel for the first respondent and haveperused the records.

The Union of India represented by Deputy Director General ofthe National Sample Survey Organisation (Field Operations Division),Department of Statistics & Programme Implementation, has filed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present writ petition against the order of the Tribunal dated17.4.2002 in O.A. No. 1159 of 2001. The first respondent filed theO.A. before the Tribunal seeking to set side the order dated01.6.2001 passed by the petitioner and also for a direction to stepup his pay in the pay scale of the post of Assistant Superintendenton par with his juniors from 01.01.1996 as well as to pay the arrearsof pay and allowances.

The first respondent joined the petitioner organisation on16.5.1975 as Investigator. Subsequently, he was promoted as an Assistant Superintendent in November 1987 and from 1987 to 1991, hewas working in Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh). Thereafter, on request, he was transferred to Chennai Circle. After joining at Chennai, the first respondent found that he was drawing lesser pay than hisjuniors in the same cadre of Assistant Superintendent. Even in the seniority list for the post of Assistant Superintendent, the applicant's name was found at serialNo. 843 whereas some of his juniors such as S. Dakshinamoorthy wasshown as 870 and N.P.Shanmugam at 874 and P.K. Thirumalachary at 875and one Sethuraja at 881 and were drawing higher scale. Therefore, the first respondent submitted an application for stepping up of hispay. But, however, the petitioner rejected the representationstating that if the seniority list for lower cadres are maintainedlocally and for the higher post, the same is maintained on all Indiabasis, Stepping up of pay for seniors will be only with reference tothe juniors of the same circle to which the senior belongs. According to the petitioner, since the first respondent joined in Andhra Pradesh and the so-called juniors were in Tamil Nadu State, the question of stepping up does not arise.

The Tribunal, after notice to parties, passed an order dated17.4.2002 holding that the first respondent was eligible for steppingup of the pay. It also held that what was required to be seen wasthe cadre in which the pay anomaly arose and the reason therefor andit found that the first respondent's pay anomaly arose in the cadreof Assistant Superintendent and, therefore, he was entitled tostepping up of his pay on par with his junior in the cadre of Assistant Superintendent and directed the petitioner to step up hispay on par with his junior with effect from 01.01.1996 and also topay the consequential benefits.

The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counselrepresenting the petitioner Union of India is not able to cite anyparticular rule under which the interpretation of the Tribunal can befound to be erroneous. On the contrary, a counter affidavit dated19.3.2003 was filed wherein it is clearly shown that his juniorSethuraja was drawing more pay and the Office Memorandum dated06.3.1962 and 20/7165 read with O.M. 6.3.1962 will not apply to thecase of the petitioner. On the contrary, under the OM dated01.12.1999, it was clearly stated that the seniority of the cadre of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigators will not be affected even on request for voluntarytransfer.

We find from the records that while admitting the writpetition, this Court has granted stay on 19.12.2002 only for a periodof six months in W.P.M.P. No. 65814 of 2002. We do not find thatthere is any case made out for interfering with the order passed bythe Tribunal and the writ petition is dismissed. The petitionersare directed to comply wit the order of the Tribunal within a periodof four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs. ConnectedMiscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.griTo1.The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench2.The Deputy Director general. National sample survey organisation, (Field operation division) Department of statistics & Programme Implementation East Block 6, Level 6 & 7 R.K.Puram, New Delhi.+ 1 CC to Mr.M.Sankar Advocate SR NO.1452+ 1 CC to Mr.R.Parthiban Advocate SR NO.1183 W.P. No. 45008 of 2002KA(CO)JJM(13/03/08)