Allowed

K. Sivaramakrishna Sastry, S/o Late Mallikarjuna v. The Union of India rep. by the Secretary

Telangana HC4 Jun 2014WP/32217/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Tribunal's order refusing to adjudicate the petitioners' claim for senior time scale pay fixation, remanding the matter for fresh disposal within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal within four weeks.

K. Sivaramakrishna Sastry, S/o Late… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.32217 of 2012

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed a) to call for the records relating to the order, dated 20.06.2012, in Original Application No.832 of 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (For short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same; b) to declare that the action of the respondents in rejecting the representation seeking fixation of pay of the petitioners in the Senior Time Scale in the Indian Defence Accounts Service, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners in the Senior Time Scale of the Indian Defence Accounts Service on and from the date on which they have been holding the responsibility of Group of Officers and compute and release the arrears and would become payable to them on grant of the relief prayed for.

¶6

2. Petitioners herein and some others filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to call for the records relating to the order No.AN/XIV/14162/5^th CPC/Modalities of pay dated 29.04.2010, issued by the Controller General of Defence Accounts, New Delhi and quash the same holding it as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to fix their pay in Senior Time Scale as applicable on their date of promotion till their retirement and grant them all arrears of pay and allowances and to revise their pension on the basis their re-fixed pay while directing the respondents to pay interest at 18% per annum from the due date of fixation of pay in the Senior Time Scale till realization.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material available on record, disposed of the Original Application. Operative portion of the order reads as follows:

¶8

“In the circumstances, we dispose of this O.A. on the same lines as in Sri E.Madhava Rao (supra) with a direction that the applicants herein will be entitled for the relief prayed for if such a relief is ordered in LPA No.50/81 pending before the Honourarble High Court of Delhi. Time for compliance will be four months from the date of disposal of LPA No.50/81 by the Honourable High Court of Delhi. The applicants will be entitled for the said relief from 22.07.2009 i.e., one year prior to the date of filing of this application.”

¶9

4. Petitioners herein challenged the order, dated 29.04.2010, issued by the Controller General of Defence Accounts, New Delhi, on various grounds raised in the Original Application. The following grounds are raised in the Original Application for seeking the reliefs prayed for.

¶10

(1) As the applicants had carried out the duties of Group Officer, the applicants are entitled from the date of their promotion to Indian Defence Accounts Service (for short, ‘IDAS) the senior time scale of pay.

¶11

(2) As the applicants were directed to perform duties from the date of their promotion to IDAS till their retirement they are deemed to have been appointed on Senior Scale of pay atleast on adhoc basis from the date of their promotion and appointment to IDAS, they are entitled to the benefit of fixation of pay in the Senior Time of Pay.

¶12

(3) Denial of benefits of senior time scale of pay to the applicants which their counterparts in other organized Group ‘A’ Services are getting the benefits would amount to discrimination.

¶13

(4) Whether the benefits accruing to a Government servant through Court orders is applicable to all the Government servants similarly situated.

¶14

(5) Whether denial of senior time scale of the applicants who were discharging the duties of Group Officer and assigned to them responsibilities of Deputy Controller of Defence Accounts would amount to gross injustice.

¶15

These aspects have not been adverted to by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have decided whether the order, dated 29.04.2010, is sustainable or not. When the main relief sought for in the Original Application has not been adverted to by the Tribunal, we feel that it is a fit case where the matter can be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶16

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 20.06.2012, in Original Application No.832 of 2010 and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal considering the fact that pleadings are already completed. As all the petitioners are senior citizens, we request the Tribunal to dispose of the Original Application within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties are at liberty to file their additional counters, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶18

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS JUNE 04, 2014 YVL

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND

¶20

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.32217 of 2012

¶22

DATED: 04.06.2014

¶23

YVL

K. Sivaramakrishna Sastry, S/o Late Mallikarjuna v. The Union of India rep. by the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sivaramakrishna Sastry, S/o Late Mallikarjuna v. The Union of India rep. by the Secretary

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

N. Prem Kumar, Vs Director General, Films Division

A. Sri Ramachandra Murthy Vs The A.P. Public Service Commission, Rep. by its

Union of India, Vs Yala Ramakrishna

M. Ramachandra Rao, Vs Union of India rep by its The Chairman and Managing Director

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs K.Reddaiah

T. Satya Kumar, Vs The District Collector and Chairman