Dismissed

P.A. No. 30908 Barkha Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jan 2014CWP/8089/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CWP No.8089 of 2000, the High Court disposed of a petition challenging the down-gradation and failure to implement the 5th Pay Commission recommendations for Civilian Motor Drivers in the Air Force. The court noted the uniformity of implementation across defence forces and the existence of a circular allowing applications based on seniority-cum-fitness, dismissing the immediate claim. Attempted

What did the court decide?

Disposed in agreed terms; dismissed immediate challenges regarding pay scales and down-gradation pending future eligibility consideration under GO 09.04.2001.

P.A. No. 30908 Barkha Ram & Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

[1]

¶2

CWP No.8089 of 2000

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.8089 of 2000 Date of Decision: 27.01.2014

¶5

Barkha Ram and others

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

¶11

Present:Mr. Chitwan Prabhakar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Senior Panel Counsel, for Union of India.

¶13

¶14

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)

¶15

The Civilian Motor Drivers deployed by the Air Force filed OA No.19-CH of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal making dual grievance: -

¶16

I. There has been a down-gradation of one step lower in the pay scale than one held by them prior to the 5^th Pay Commission recommendations.

¶17

II. They have not been granted pay scales as recommended by the 5^th Pay Commission.

¶18

It was a case of the petitioners that scale of pay admissible to them was 5000-8000 while they were placed in the lower grade of 4500-7000. This was predicated on a reasoning that Store Superintendents, who were in the grade of

¶19

Rajan Kumar 2014.01.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

[2]

¶21

CWP No.8089 of 2000

¶22

1450-2300 earlier in the same department, had been placed in the pay scale of 5000-8000 while the petitioners, who were of course different category, were not granted this benefit.

¶23

The Central Administrative Tribunal, however, dismissed their petition vide the impugned order dated 11.05.2000, which has been assailed before us by only three of the original petitioners.

¶24

In the course of hearing, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the pay scales for Motor Drivers pre-the 5^th Pay Commission recommendations and postthe 5^th Pay Commission recommendations correspondingly are as under: -

¶25

“Pre-the 5th Pay Commission recommendations

¶26

Civilian Motor Driver Grade-II: 950-1500 Civilian Motor Driver Grade-I: 1150-1500 Civilian Motor Driver Selection Grade: 1320-2040

¶27

Post-the 5th Pay Commission recommendations

¶28

Civilian Motor Driver Ordinary Grade: 3050-4590 Civilian Motor Driver Grade-II: 4000-6000 Civilian Motor Driver Grade-I: 4500-7000”

¶29

It is thus submitted that the findings recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal are in accordance with law as the petitioners have been given their corresponding pay scales as the highest pay scale was `1320-2040 and the corresponding pay

¶30

[3]

¶31

CWP No.8089 of 2000

¶32

scale too i.e. `4500-7000, which has been granted to the petitioners.

¶33

It has also been clarified that this has uniformly implemented in the Army, Air Force and Navy. This statement has been made in view of the fact that learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that a higher pay scale was recommended for Navy but learned counsel for the respondents has clarified that the said recommendation was not accepted.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners faced with the aforesaid situation seeks to bring to our notice a new document in the form of Government circular dated 09.04.2001 addressed to the three Chiefs of the Staffs regarding promotion scheme for Civilian Motor Drivers in Defence Establishments, which creates a four grade structure – three grade as they existed and the fourth Special Grade of `5000-8000. This, however, has an eligibility requirement of three years of regular service in Grade I and is to be based on the principle of seniority-cum-fitness.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent thus cannot dispute that such of the petitioners, who may become eligible in pursuance to this circular, can apply to the respondent authority for consideration and on such an application being made, the same would be examined within the parameters of this circular dated 09.04.2001.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks to bring to

¶37

[4]

¶38

CWP No.8089 of 2000

¶39

our notice another subsequent fact stated to be arising from a decision rendered by the Madras High Court against which the SLP is stated to be pending, copy of which has been handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent. It is, however, not clear us to whether this judgment applies to the category of drivers qua the petitioners before us but if it is so, naturally, it would apply uniformly to the category dependent upon the final view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶40

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid agreed

¶41

terms.

¶42

( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE

¶44

January 27, 2014 Rajan

P.A. No. 30908 Barkha Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.A. No. 30908 Barkha Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) M/S Harnam Singh Hardwari Lal Kalanwali Vs Cotton Corporation of India

M/S Oswal Seed Firm & Ors. Vs Authorized Officer, State Bank of India Shah Bad Markanda

Virender Singh Vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Jagdish Vs State of Haryana

Raj Mal Vs Addl.Director of Consolidation

Om Parkash and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.