Dismissed

Union of India v. Rama Chandra Lenka

Orissa HC22 Mar 2021WP(C)/6545/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Union of India challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting second stepping up of pay to an employee based on salary anomalies caused by pay revision and incentive increments.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal's order in O.A. No.558/2015 was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Union of India Vs Rama Chandra Lenka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.6545 of 2020

¶2

5 22.3.2021.

¶3

Present : Shri S.K.Mishra, J Miss Savitri Ratho, J

¶4

Union of India & others ………. Petitioners.

¶5

-vrs-

¶6

Sri Rama Chandra Lenka ……… Opp. Parties and another

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.Sudhir Ku.Patra Standing Counsel (IA & AD)

¶8

For Opp.Party No.1: S.K.Ojha & S.K.Nayak.

¶9

Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Patra, learned Standing Counsel (IA & AD) appearing for the Union of India represented through the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1.

¶10

AKB

¶11

In this Writ Petition the Union of India assails the order passed by the Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.558/2015 on 28.3.2019. The dispute is relating to the second stepping up pay of the Opposite Party No.1 with respect to his junior.

¶12

Facts of the case are not in dispute. The Opposite Party

¶13

No.1 was once granted a stepping up of pay. After the upgradation of pay according to the Scheme of 2006 which made applicable on 01.1.2006, one of his junior again drew higher salary than him. Therefore, he approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed his application and directed for stepping up his pays.

¶14

In course of such disposal of the case, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack took into consideration the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No.435 of 1994 and also took into consideration the following observations:

¶15

“This is most unreasonable condition incorporation an arbitrary element into the OM. Secondly, the respondents themselves have admitted that there is no provision in the Government of India to circulate a seniority list along with pay scales drawn by them. If that is the situation, it is clear that there are limitations to the knowledge which would be available to any employee for making a representation. There is no doubt, that when the department itself does not take steps to promote a better knowledge of opportunity enjoyed by their colleagues working in other stations, an employee must take a chance of knowing about an anomaly from whatever source he can gather and in such a situation he should not be shut out merely on the ground that he came to know about the anomaly of stepping up with reference to which he should have been benefited more at a later date. From this point of view also the conditions imposed in this OM,

¶16

dated 32.3.1984, are unreasonable. It is not contended that these conditions are part of FR 22C. Therefore, the OM dated 31.3.1984, cannot be said to have a greater authority that FR 22-C. We are, therefore, of the view that so long as the applicant is able to show that he is fulfilling the conditions laid down in FR 22-C vis-à-vis an employee giving rise to an anomalous situation, he is entitled to have his pay stepped up for a second time irrespective of whatever is stated in OM, dated 31.3.1984, so long as the three conditions set out in FR 22-C are fulfilled.”

¶17

Moreover, we see that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the circular issued by the CAG on 22.3.2010, copy of which was produced before the Tribunal. In that circular, the CAG has directed for stepping up of pay of the Seniors who are getting less pay only due to additional increment eared by him prior to 1.1.2006 whereas the junior was getting more pay on account of the additional increment earned after 1.1.2006. Thus, in this case also the anomaly has arisen because the junior was granted an additional increment after 1.1.2006.

¶18

Moreover, in this case, the anomaly in pay has arisen not due to pay fixation on account of promotion under FR 22, but it is due to revision in the rate of increment on account of sixth pay commission recommendation for which different in pay has arisen due to the incentive increment. Learned Tribunal was of

¶19

the opinion that the instructions at Sl. No.20 after FR 22 do not bar the cases like that of the applicant where the anomaly in pay is due to grant of incentive increment after implementation of the sixth pay commission recommendations for pay revision.

¶20

We are in agreement with the Tribunal’s findings and find no infirmity in the same. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶21

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶22

S.K.Mishra, J

¶23

…………………….. Savitri Ratho, J

Union of India v. Rama Chandra Lenka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Rama Chandra Lenka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Odisha Vs Shibashis Kar

Biswojit Malla Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bbsr

Biswojit Malla Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Bbsr

Alekhabihari Beura Vs State and Ors.

Govt.of Odisha Vs Biswanath Sahoo

Laxmidhar Mohapatra Vs Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha