Union of India and Anr. v. Somnath Ray And Ors.

Calcutta HC13 Mar 2025WP.CT/111/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pay fixation; 5th CPC; upgradation versus merger into scale Rs. 6,500-10,500 from scale Rs. 4,500-7,000; Central Administrative Tribunal order dated 11.05.2023 in O.A. 1408 of 2019 and M.A. 815 of 2019; memorandum dated 03.10.2018 rejecting appeal set aside; Ernakulam Bench CAT O.A. 569 of 2014 applicability left open; authorities to consider claim in accordance with law; writ petition and CAN 1 of 2024 disposed of, not decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to either side; the applicants' pay fixation claim was left open for consideration by the authorities in terms of the Tribunal's order dated 11th May, 2023 in O.A. 1408 of 2019 and M.A. 815 of 2019, in accordance with law. ¶¶14

Union of India and Anr. Vs Somnath Ray And Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants, whose pay was fixed in the scale of Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 10,500/- on account of the 5th CPC recommendations, were entitled to upgradation rather than a wrong merger/fixation in that scale. +1 more

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

The question whether the Ernakulam Bench CAT judgment in O.A. 569 of 2014 applies to the applicants' claim was left open: the court left it to the authorities to consider the claim of the applicants in terms of the Tribunal's order dated 11th May, 2023 in O.A. 1408 of 2019 and M.A. 815 of 2019, in accordance with law.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of.ratio¶¶14
The application CAN 1 of 2024 also stands disposed of.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.C.T. 111 of 2024, Union of India & Ors. v. Somnath Ray & Ors. (disposed of 13.03.2025 by Madhuresh Prasad, J. and Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ.). The respondent-applicants, earlier in the pay scale of Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 7,000/-, had their pay fixed in the scale of Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 10,500/- on account of 5th CPC recommendations; they claimed this was a wrongful merger and that they were entitled to upgradation. The Tribunal, by order dated 11th May, 2023 in O.A. 1408 of 2019 and M.A. 815 of 2019, directed the authorities to consider their claim and set aside the memorandum dated 3rd October, 2018 rejecting their appeal. The Union of India pointed to specific directions to fix pay in terms of the Ernakulam Bench CAT decision in O.A. 569 of 2014, whose applicability was disputed. The Court left the question of applicability open, directing the authorities to consider the applicants' claim in terms of the Tribunal's order of 11th May, 2023 in accordance with law, and disposed of the writ petition and CAN 1 of 2024.

¶1

13.03.2025 (D/L-5) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.)

¶2

W.P.C.T. 111 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024

¶3

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Somnath Ray & Ors.

¶4

Ms. Amrita Pandey, Ms. Sneha Singh

¶5

...for the Petitioners

¶6

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Mr. Chandrachur Chatterjee

¶7

...for the Respondents

¶8

The applicants approached the Tribunal being aggrieved by a fixation of their pay scale. While they were serving in the scale of Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 7,000/their pay was fixed on account of 5^th CPC recommendations in the scale of Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 10,500/-. They have been placed in the scale of Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 10,500/- which according to them is by resorting to a wrong fixation of pay treating them to have merged in the scale in which their pay has been fixed; whereas they were entitled to upgradation.

¶9

The Tribunal has directed the authorities to consider their claim. For facilitating such consideration the Tribunal has set aside the memorandum dated 3^rd October, 2018 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners claiming such fixation was rejected.

¶10

¶11

The learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the Tribunal has given specific directions that the pay is to be fixed in terms of decision of Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 569 of 2014.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioners that the said judgment

¶13

is not applicable to the claim of the applicant. Such claim is denied and disputed by the applicants/respondents who are appearing in the present proceedings as respondents. Since the issue whether the judgment applies to the petitioners’ claim or not is an issue which is yet to be considered by the authorities, we leave it open to the authorities to consider the claim of the applicants in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 11^th May, 2023 in O.A. 1408 of 2019 and M.A. 815 of 2019 in accordance with law.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Application being CAN 1 of 2024 also stands disposed of.

¶16

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶17

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Union of India and Anr. v. Somnath Ray And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Anr. v. Somnath Ray And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dn 16 and 16/1 Bus Syndicate Vs Subrata Karmakar and Ors.

Barasat Uluberia Bus Owners Welfare Association and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dr. Sujit Chakraborty Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr Mrinal Sikdar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Asha Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Arun Mukherjee and Ors.