SRI v. T. RAJENDRAN

SRI. V. T. RAJENDRAN AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS S/O THANIKACHALAM OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT (REGD) SURVEY OF INDIA PRESENTLY R/AT 'GANESH NILAYAM' NO.3/1, 2ND CROSS, NEHRU ROAD KAMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 084. MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY NEW DELHI - 110 001.

2. THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF INDIA, SURVEY OF INDIA, POST BOX NO.37, HATHIBARKALA, DEHRADUN - 248 001, UTTARKHAND. - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33012-DB WP No. 17148 of 2022

3. THE ADDITIONAL SURVEYOR GENERAL, SOUTH ZONE, SURVEY OF INDIA, SARJAPUR ROAD, KORAMANGALA IIND BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 034.

4. THE DIRECTOR, SURVEY OF INDIA, K.G.D.C POST BOX NO.3403 SARJAPUR ROAD, KORAMANGALA II BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 034.

5. THE REGIONAL PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER SURVEY OF INDIA, BLOCK 'A', 2ND FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADAN, SULTAN BAZAAR, KOTI, HYDERABAD - 500 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DESAI SHARANABASAPPA VIRANNA, CGC FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21/06/2022 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, IN OA NO.170/01162/2019 AT ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW OA NO.170/01162/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33012-DB WP No. 17148 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench dated 21.06.2022, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner by stating as under: recommends the Report of "16. The applicant is relying on paragraph 85.29 the Fifth Central Pay Commission (Volume 11 January 1997). This paragraph Superintendents in the Circle Offices should be upgraded from the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 tο Rs.1640-2900. This recommendation of the 5th CPC, however, does not specify that there should be a notional pay fixation in the pay scale of 1640-2900 first, and subsequently a second pay fixation benefit should be given while fixing the pay in the revised pay scale of 5500-9000. The contention of the applicant that the 5th CPC recommendations envisaged the pay revision in two steps, is not correct, and is nowhere borne dut under any para of the 5th CPC recommendations.

17. The revision of pay and grant of revised pay scales are, in any case, governed by the specific rules, as notified by the Government of India, subsequent to its acceptance of the 5th CPC recommendations. Once the rules have been notified by the Central Government, there can be no case of reliance on any of the provisions in the recommendations of the 5th CPC. The Fifth CPC recommendations, in any case are just - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33012-DB WP No. 17148 of 2022 recommendations. The that, ie recommendations. It is up to the employer, that is the Central Government, to either accept or partly accept or reject the Pay Commission's decision of the Central Government, in the case of the 5th CPC recommendations, were as notified by it in the CCS Revised Pay Rules 1997. These rules are legally enforceable, irrespective of whatever may have been the recommendations of the Pay Commission. In any case, the applicant has not challenged any of the provisions of these CCS Revised Pay rules.

18. Higher replacement pay scales, instead of the normal replacement pay scales, as listed in Part C of the Schedule to the CCS Pay rules 1997, have been granted to a large number of posts in various departments, besides the applicant. In all these cases, the principle of fixation of pay in the revised pay scales is identical. The pay fixation in the revised pay scales, is front the pay and pay scale actually drawn by the Government Servant in the pay scale existing as on 01.01.1996 to the revised pay in the revised new pay scales as specified in Schedule applicable to the Government Servant.

19. It is observed that the present Original Application has been filed by the applicant on 21.10.2019, seeking refixation of his pay in the revised pay scale and consequent revision of his pensionary benefits due to him w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The applicant has been submitting multiple representations and reminders to the Respondents for the last many years since 19.12.1997 onwards. However, he has chosen to approach this Tribunal in 2019 only. The application, therefore, also suffers from delays and latches and deserves to he dismissed on grounds of delay. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33012-DB WP No. 17148 of 2022

20. Keeping in view the above points, the OA, being devoid of any meris whatsoever, and also on grounds of being barred by limitation, deserves to be dismissed."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would re-iterate the submissions as advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. On the last date of hearing we had passed the following order: "Re-notify on 14.08.2024 to enable the learned counsel for the respondents to take instructions as to whether the prayer made by the petitioner before the Tribunal was granted in favour of certain persons on the post of Surveyor."

4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit as per his instructions there are no cases where the prayer as sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal was granted in favour of certain persons on the post of Surveyor. If that be so, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal in the above paragraphs cannot be faulted. This we say because in terms of the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission, the scale of the petitioner has been upgraded from Rs.1600-2660 to - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33012-DB WP No. 17148 of 2022 Rs.1640-2900. The revised scale on 01.01.1996 has necessarily to be that of Rs.1640-2900 and the fixation of pay shall be in the said revised scale only and not in the manner sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal.

5. We do not see any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31