Dismissed

Union of India & Ors. v. Cat, Chd.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2010CWP/12894/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order that granted pay stepping up to match a junior but refused to grant the same pay scale. The Court held that no provision in the Assured Career Progression Scheme entitles a promoted officer to the direct recruit's pay scale, especially after earning three prior promotions.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; stay on Tribunal order regarding pay stepping up upheld.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Cat, Chd. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No.12894 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No. 12894 of 2010 Date of decision 23 .7.2010

¶5

Union of India and others

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Central Administrative Tribunal , Chandigarh ... Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Heman Aggarwal ,Advocate Addl. Central Govt. Standing counsel for the petitioners

¶11

1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶12

2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

¶13

M.M.KUMAR, J.

¶14

The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a part of the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The challenge is only to that part of the order where the pay of the petitioner has been ordered to be stepped up so as to match the pay drawn by his junior without granting him the pay scale which stood granted to his junior.

¶15

The petitioner had initially joined the office of the Chief Commissioner- appellant No. 2 as Lower Division Clerk on 25.11.1980. Thereafter he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 2.8.1988 and then as Tax Assistant on 30.11.1990. He was eventually promoted as Inspector, Central Excise and Custom and joined as such on 29.3.1993. One Ram Chand Sharma joined as Inspector by way of direct recruitment on

¶16

¶17

CWP No.12894 of 2010

¶18

31.3.1993 and is apparently junior to the petitioner. In the seniority list of Inspectors his name figures at serial No. 268 whereas that of the petitioner is at serial no.206. The petitioner approached the Tribunal with the grievance that in pursuance of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) dated 9.8.1999 the aforesaid Ram Chand Sharma has been given the benefit of upgradation on completion of 12 years of service in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 whereas the petitioner continues to work in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 although he is senior to Ram Chand Sharma. He made representation which was turned down vide letter dated 6.3.2008 (A.1). The petitioner had placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others v. Ram Sarup Ganda and others 2007(2) SCT 476. The respondent took the view that judgement in Ram Sarup Ganda's case (supra) was judgement in persona and not a judgement in rem and on that basis has rejected the claim.

¶19

However, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the respondents and granted the petitioner the relief of stepping up of pay and bringing it at par with the pay of his junior but it has refused to grant him the benefit of giving pay scale which is being drawn after the grant of ACP to his junior. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Harcharan Singh Sudan v. Union of India (OA No. 97 CH of 2007) decided on 23.12.2008 which in turn is based on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ram Sarup Ganda's case (supra).

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal for stepping up the pay of the petitioner and bringing it equivalent with the pay of his junior Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma does not suffer from any legal infirmity. There is no

¶21

CWP No.12894 of 2010

¶22

¶23

provision in the ACP Scheme that the petitioner is entitled to the same pay scale as is given to his counter part who is a direct recruit. Moreover, the petitioner had already earned three promotions and therefore would not be

¶24

entitled to any other benefit in the shape of higher pay scale.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶26

(M.M.Kumar) Judge

¶27

(A. N. Jindal ) 23 .7.2010 Judge

¶28

okg

Union of India & Ors. v. Cat, Chd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Cat, Chd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hasan Lal Yadav Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kuldeep Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sohan Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Inder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajbir Singh Tomar Vs Haryana Seeds Devl. Corp. Ltd.

Baldev Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.