Dismissed

Union of India v. M.K.S. Pillai

Kerala HC1 Jun 2011WP(C)/30853/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order which upheld the respondents' pay scales fixed by the Vth Pay Commission. The Court held that executive orders could not nullify pay scales established under Article 309 rules enjoyed by employees for over 4.5 years.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition was dismissed; the Tribunal's order setting aside the executive reduction in pay was upheld.

Union of India Vs M.K.S. Pillai — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929

¶6

WP(C).No. 30853 of 2003(S)

¶7

--------------------------------------

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

------------------

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI.

¶11

2. THE CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF, NAVAL HEAD QUARTERS, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110011

¶12

3. THE CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF (FOR DIRECTOR OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL), NAVAL HEADQUARTERS, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 011.

¶13

4. THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF, CIVILIAN NAVAL COMMAND, WELLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-4.

¶14

5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶15

6. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE-683 563.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI. T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN

¶17

RESPONDENTS:

¶18

-----------------------

¶19

1. M.K.S.PILLAI, ASSISTANT FOREMAN, ARMAMENT, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶20

2. K.T.GEORGE, ASSISTANT FOREMAN, ARMAMENT, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶21

WP(C) NO,30853/2003

¶22

3. P.S.KAMALANATHAN, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶23

4. C.M.ANTONY, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶24

5. T.V.KRISHNAN, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶25

6. M.K.VENU, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶26

7. V.GOPINATHAN, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶27

8. V.M.GEORGE, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶28

9. K.A.HARIHARAN, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶29

10. A.JANARDHANAN, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶30

11. S.UNNIKRISHNAN, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶31

12. K.S.PILLAI, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶32

13. M.PADMAKUMAR, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶33

14. S.SATYAJITH, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶34

15. M.R.MADHAVAN, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶35

16. K.C.JOHN,

¶36

CHARGEMAN-1, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶37

17. C.S.SEBASTIAN, CHARGEMAN-I, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALWAYE.

¶38

18. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶39

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.KAMALAKARA BABU

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON 31/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

W.P.(C) NO.30853/2003

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶44

EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE OA. NO.180/2001 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 17 BEFORE THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶45

EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OA. NO.180/2001 BEFORE THE CAT., ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶46

EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS IN OS. NO.180/2001 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶47

EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ADDL. REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OA. O.180/01 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶48

EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.11(13)/97/D (CIVIL) DT.26.12.01 OF THE MINISTRY OF DEFENDE .

¶49

EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 19.3.03 IN OA. NO.180/01 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶50

EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.01(E) DT. 1TH FEBRUARY 2004 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

/ TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.

¶55

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).NO.30853 of 2003-S

¶56

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the day of January, 2008.

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶59

The respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal have filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.180/2001. The respondents herein who were applicants in the O.A., are working as Civilian employees in the Ministry of Defence in the category of Chargeman - I. They were working in the Ammunition Workshop of the Naval Armament Supply Organisation. Their case before the Tribunal was that the IIIrd and IVth Pay Commissions have fixed the pay of Chargeman Senior and Chargeman without considering the nature of the work and duties, and that the Vth Pay Commission had rectified the anomaly and the pay scales were revised. For the post of Chargeman - I, the Vth Pay Commission recommended the scale of pay of Rs.5500 - 9000 which was implemented. But, subsequently it appears that as per Annexures A2 and A3 orders produced before the Tribunal, the said benefit was sought to be withdrawn and the amount paid to them were sought to be recovered. This was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal.

¶60

WPC 30853/2003 -2-

¶61

The order of the Tribunal is produced as Ext.P6 herein. After considering the various issues, Annexures A2 and A3 were set aside and the applicants were allowed to draw the pay and allowances as recommended by the Vth Pay Commission and accepted and implemented by the Government prior to Annexure A2. The Tribunal entered a clear finding that there was no mistake in identity on the part of the Vth Pay Commission, which warranted a refixation of the pay. It was noticed that Annexure A10 notification dated 30.9.1997 which was formulated in exercise of the powers conferred on the President, contains the rules governing the grant of pay scales in terms of the recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission accepted by the Govt. of India and under these rules, the particular scales of pay have been introduced. The said rule cannot be nullified or substituted by the executive orders, Annexures A2 and A3.

¶62

While admitting the writ petition, a Bench of this court had passed an order on 29.11.2003 directing the petitioners to explain as to how the scale of pay which was effective from 1.1.1996 and which was granted in pursuance to the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, can be taken away by executive orders.

¶63

We heard learned counsel on either side.

¶64

It is clear from the pleadings that the Vth Pay Commission had

¶65

WPC 30853/2003 -3-

¶66

recommended the scale of pay of Rs.5500 - 9000 for Chargeman - I, after taking into consideration the entire nature of duties and responsibilities. This was accepted by the Government and the new scales were brought into force in accordance with the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The applicants were granted the benefit of the pay revision with effect from 1.1.1996 and they were enjoying the said scale of pay for more than 4 ½ years. They were also not put to any notice before implementing Annexures A2 and A3. The Tribunal, on an assessment of the various circumstances, found that the reliance placed by the official respondents who are petitioners herein, on a judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. NO.812/1998 has nothing to do with the issue as regards rectifying

¶67

any anomaly on the pay scales enjoyed by the applicants. In the Tribunal's order the recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission has been extracted in paragraph 7 and it is noted that they have been incorporated in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. The Senior Chargeman in NAW under NASO in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1400 - 2300 was placed in the revised scale of Rs.5500 - 9000 and Chargeman in the same organisation and who were enjoying the pre-revised scale of Rs.1400 - 2300 was placed in the revised scale of Rs.5000 - 8000. In fact, the Tribunal noticed that the issue raised in O.A. No.812/1998 was in respect of Senior Chargeman and other Technical

¶68

WPC 30853/2003

¶69

-4-

¶70

Supervisory staff working under NAIO and the complaint therein was that their pay scales were one notch below those of their respective counterparts in NASO. Therefore, what was directed to be considered was the anomaly regarding fixing a lower pay scale for the applicants in O.A. No.812/1998 and there was no direction with regard to any anomaly involved in the recommendation regarding the pay scales allowed to the category of employees like the contesting respondents herein. Ultimately, what was done was to the detriment of the applicants in this O.A. which does not benefit the applicants in O.A. No.812/1998 either. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the decision on the part of the petitioners herein is wholly unjustified and unsustainable.

¶71

We are not persuaded to differ from the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. In fact, the pay scales have been revised and relevant notifications have been issued under the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and the respondents have enjoyed the said benefit for more than 4 ½ years. There was no anomaly as far as the fixation of their pay is concerned. Therefore, the reduction by way of executive orders is wholly unjustifiable and the Tribunal was absolutely right in setting aside the impugned orders.

¶72

In the above circumstances, there is no scope for interference in

¶73

WPC 30853/2003 -5-

¶74

exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, the matter is defective, as notice to respondents 3 and 10 was not returned after service, but we have heard the matter on merits and as noticed above, we agree with the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal.

¶75

The writ petition is therefore dismissed.

¶76

(C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶77

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶78

kav/

¶79

WPC 30853/2003 -6-

¶80

C.N. Ramachandran Nair & & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.

. No.

JUDGMENT

10^th January, 2008.

Union of India v. M.K.S. Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. M.K.S. Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaniba Vs S.Mohanan

Ammukutty Warassiar Vs Subhadra

Mani Vs Joseph

K.N.Ani Vs Robit M.Thomas

Sharafudeen and Another Vs the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insuran

Sumod Vs Sajimon and Another