1
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH.
O.A. NO. 1113 /HR/2013
1. Satpal Singh, IDAS ACDA (Retd), S/o Sh. Faqiar Chand, aged
63 years, resident of H.No. 874, Sector 9, Panchkula.
2. H.S. Sodhi, IDAS ACDA (Retd), aged 63 years, resident of
H.No. 613, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh
3. Darshan Lal, IDAS ACDA (Retd), resident of H.No. 65/16,
Sector – 9, Badala Road, Kharar.
4. Surinder Singh. IDAS ACDA(retd), resident of H.No. S-10,
Sector 127, Greater Mohali, Kharar.
5. Nar Singh Das, IDAS Jt.CDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 2161/1,
Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.
6. T.S. Verma, IDAS Dy.CDA(Retd), resident of S-10, Sector
127, Greater Mohali Kharar.
7. R.P. Mittal, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of Flat No. 102,
G.H.7, Sector 20, Panchkula.
8. S.R. Bhardwaj, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 459/2,
Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.
9. Surinder Mohan, IDAS Dy.CDA(Retd) resident of H.No. 416,
Badal colony, Zirakpur.
10. Vir Singh,IDAS Dy.CDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 11, Harmilap
Nagar, Baltana (Pb.)
11. D.S. Dheer, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of D-505, Ivory
Towers Sector 70, Mohali.
2
12. Phool Chand, IDAS ACDA(Retd) resident of Village Moujgarh,
P.O. Barara, Distt. Ambala.
13. R.K. Singh, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of Thakur Niwas,
Near Paradise INN Wakna Ghat, Distt. Solan (HP).
14. Dip Chand Gupta, IDAS Dy.CDA(Retd), resident of H.No.
778, U.E., Phase I, Patiala.
15. Balbir Singh, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of VPO Ratangarh,
Distt. Rup Nagar (Pb.)
16. Dharam Singh, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 1309,
Sector 10, Panchkula.
17. Dharminder Dutt, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of 5C Green
View Apartment, Badal Colony, Zirakpur (Pb.)
18. Didar Singh, IDAS Dy. CDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 501A,
Street No. 9, Ghuman Nagar, Patiala (Pb.)
19. Paramjit Singh, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of H.No. G-128,
Govind Nagar, Model Town Patiala (Pb.
20. R.S.Seraik, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of Sunview, Opposite
Durga Mandir, Engine Garh, Shimla (HP).
21. Vijendra Pal Bansal,IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of House No
38 A/14, Savitiri Enclave, Zirakpur (Pb).
22. L.P. Naithani, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of House No 213,
NK Sharma Road, Badal colony, Zirakpur (Pb).
……Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary to Govt., Ministry of
Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
3
2. Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road,
Delhi Cantt. 110010
……Respondents
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
1. PARTICULARS OF ORDER AGAINST WHICH
APPLICATION IS MADE
This application under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against office order No. AN-
I/1381/TRK/Rep. dated 25.4.2013 and another Order No. AN-
I/1381/TRK/Rep Dt. 25.04.2013 copies enclosed as ANNEXURE
A-1, collectively vide which the claim of applicant No 1 & 2 for
extending them the benefit of judgment in the case of Sh. T.R.
Krishnamurty and others and Vs. Union of India (OA No. 35/2009)
dated 26.04.2010, copy enclosed as ANNEXURE A-2, which has
been upheld by Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP (c) no. 23816 of
2010, copy enclosed as ANNEXURE A-3, has been rejected by
respondent No 2, stating that such benefit has been granted to
only those who have got court orders in their favour and same
cannot be extended to other officers automatically. The copy of
both representations dt. 20.03.2013, filed by applicant no. 1 & 2
are enclosed as ANNEXURE A-4 collectively.It is respectfully
submitted that present applicants are similarly situated to applicant
in OA No. 35/2009 decided through ANNEXURE A-2 and as per law
laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Sharma Vs.
4
Union of India reported as 1997 (3) SCT 341, applicants are also
entitled to same benefits and it is the duty of respondents to grant
the them similar benefit being similarly situated otherwise the
action of respondents will amount to violation of Article 14 and 16
of Constitution of India.
2. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL
That applicants declare that the subject matter of the order against
which they want redressal, is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Tribunal.
3. LIMITATION
That applicants further declare that the application is within
limitation period as prescribed under Section 21 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Applicants are suffering
recurring cause of action.
4. FACTS OF THE CASE
i) That all the applicants are aggrieved by same cause of action
against the same respondents and are praying for similar relief and
therefore to avoid multiplicity of litigation they are filing the instant
OA jointly.
ii) That applicants are retired officers as per the detail given
hereunder and have served the respondent no. 2 on various posts
such as Auditors, Section Officer (Accounts), Assistant Accounts
Officer, Accounts Officer, Sr. Account Officer and Assistant
Controller of Defence Account (JTS) ,Dy. Controllers and Jt.
Controllers of Defence Accounts. The relevant service profile of
each of the applicants as hereunder:-
5
Sr. No.
Name of Applicant
Date of Appointment As auditor
Date of Promotion As ACDA
Date of Retirement
Office fromWhich Retired
1. Satpal
Singh
15.07.1975 09.10.2009 31.03.2010 PCDA(WC)
2. H.S. Sodhi 02.12.1974 02.02.2009 31.01.2010 PCDA(WC)
3. Darshan Lal 03.05.1973 01.10.2007 31.01.2010 PCDA(WC)
4. Surinder
Singh
01.06.1974 13.08.2009 30.04.2012 AO(P)
Himank
5. Nar Singh
Dass
11.01.1974 17.12.2003 30.06.2012 PCDA(WC)
6. T.S. Verma 20.08.1971 23.10.2008 31.10.2011 AO(P)Deepak
7. R.P. Mittal 21.11.1973 29.07.2009 31.07.2011 PCDA(WC)
8. S.R.
Bhardwaj
18.04.1960 28.06.1996 30.04.1997 PCDA(WC)
9. Surinder
Mohan
21.11.1970 18.05.2005 31.10.2010
IFA(WC)
10. Vir Singh 26.03.1964 13.08.1997 31.07.2002 PCDA(WC)
11. D.S. Dheer 01.04.1974 28.06.2002 30.06.2002 PCDA(WC)
12. Phool
Chand
23.01.1974 26.06.2008 28.02.2011 PCDA(BR)
13. R.K. Singh 11.06.1974 01.01.2011 20.02.2011 PCDA(WC)
14. Dip Chand
Gupta
15.09.1963 29.06.1998 30.09.2004 PCDA(BR)
15. Balbir Singh 21.08.1971 01.07.2008 30.04.2009 PCDA(WC)
16. Dharam
Singh
14.03.1973 11.07.2008 30.04.2011 PCDA(WC)
17. Dharminder
Dutt
05.04.1973 12.05.2010 31.07.2011 PCDA(WC)
6
21 Vijendra pal
Bansal
27.02.1967 28.11.2003 31.07.2006 IFA(AF)
3BRD
Chandigarhs
22 L.P.Naithani 22.10.1964 12.01.2004 31.08.2006 PCDA(WC)
iii) That applicants were recruited as Auditors in Defence
Accounts Departments. The promotion to the next post i.e. Section
Officer (Accts) is based on qualifying the departmental SAS exam.
Comprising of 11 papers held in three parts spread out over a
period of two years and comprising of a very vast syllabus of civil
services and Defence Service Regulations, Office Manuals, Book
keeping with elements of cost Accounting, Precis Noting and
Drafting and Information and Technology. Successful clearance of
S.A.S. Examination is a difficult process to go through and crack.
The examination is conducted on all India basis. Thereafter, the
Section Officers are promoted as Asst. Accounts Officer. Further
promotion from AAO (Asstt. Accounts Officer) is to Accounts Officer
and thereafter as Sr. Accounts Officer. Only very few candidates
get promotion from the post of Sr. Accounts Officer to Assistant
Controller of Defence Accounts (ACDA) in the cadre of IDAS in
Junior Time scale, who are directly given the Charge of Group
18. Didar Singh 21.11.1973 17.05.2005 30.04.2010
PCDA(WC)
19. Paramjit
Singh
22.06.1974 01.07.2010 30.04.2013
PCDA(WC)
20 R.S.Seraik 21.05.1974 02.01.2011 30.04.2011 CDA(PD)s
7
Officer of various sections. The duties and responsibilities of all
these posts are contained in Annexure-I to para 367 of office
Manual Part-I, enclosed as ANNEXURE A-5.
vi) That the recruitment to ACDA (Asstt. Controller of Defence
Accounts) in the cadre of IDAS in Jr. Time Scale is made partly
from GP ‘B’ Officers i.e. Sr. Accounts Officers and partly by direct
entry of I.D.A.S. through U.P.S.C. The direct entrants discharge
their duties as ACDA I/C (Appendix-I) to para 367 of office Manual
Part-I) for a period of 2 to 3 years. Thereafter they are promoted
as Dy. Controller of Defence Accounts in the pay scale of 15600-
39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3 ( revised wef.
01.01.2006) whereas the ACsDA in Jr. Time Scale of IDAS
promoted from the post of Sr. Accounts Officer are placed in the
pay scale of 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs. 5400/-in PB-3
despite having put in more than 30 to 35 years of service and
despite the hard fact that they are straightway given the charge of
Group Officers with duties and responsibility quite higher than
those of Sr. Accounts Officers, as almost 3 to 4 Accounts
Officers/Sr. Accounts Officers serve under them. Since they have
already served as Accounts Officers/Sr. Accounts Officer for more
than 6 to 8 years as such they are given the direct charge of Group
Officers contrary to the direct entrants who are to serve as
probationers in the Department for two years and function as ACDA
I/C of various sections in the Department for a period from 2 to 3
years.
8
The pay structure of the following posts is given below to
justify the demand of the applicants for grant of STS on promotion
from Sr. Accounts Officer to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS as already
granted to some of the officers on the basis of Hon`ble court`s
orders;
Sr.
No.
Period of
Pay scale
Pay Scale of
Sr.AO (in
rupees)
Pay scale of
ACDA in
IDAS
cadre(in
rupees)
STS Pay Scale in
the IDAS cadre
granted on the
basis of court`s
orders(in rupees)
1 Wef.
01.01.1986
2200-4000 2200-4000 3000-4500
2 01.01.1996 8000-13500 8000-13500 10000-325-15200
3 01.01.2006 15600-
39100 Gr
Pay Rs
5400
15600-
39100 Gr.
Pay Rs 5400
15600-39100 Gr.
Pay of Rs 6600
v) That from above it would be seen that the pay scales of SR.
AO & ACDA in the cadre of IDAS is same wef. 01.01.1986. On
promotion from the post of Sr. Accounts Officer to the post of
Asst. Controller of Defence Accounts in the cadre of IDAS, the
fixation of pay has been done in the same scale of pay instead of
the next higher STS Pay scale given in col. 5 of the above table,
despite the fact, that Sr. Accounts Officer after promotion to
A.C.D.A. is directly given the charge of Group Officer having 3 to 4
Accounts Officers/Sr. Accounts Officer under him and the duties
and responsibilities as a Group Officer are manifold higher than
that attached to the post of AOs/Sr. AOs. This existed ground
9
reality in the department forced the aggrieved officers to knock at
the doors of the Hon`ble courts and got court orders in their
favour. These cases were decided on the grounds that the Pay of
Sr. AO and the next higher scale of JTS is same and on promotion
from Sr. AO to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS there was no higher
fixation despite the fact that the promotion from SAO to JTS
involves higher duties and responsibilities and as such the next
higher scale of STS should be given on promotion from the post of
Sr.AO to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS. Therefore, the request of the
applicants is genuine and fully justified for grant of Sr. Time Scale
pay at the time of promotion from the post of Sr. Accounts Officer
to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS and hence they may be granted the
STS of pay ie. 10000-325-15200 after 01.01.1996 and pay scale
of Rs 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs 6600 in PB-3 after
01.01.2006.
vi) That similar claim has already been considered by various
benches of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal and decided in
favour of similarly placed employees. Applicants were promoted as
ACsDA and they served the said posts to the utmost satisfaction of
their seniors and have unblemished service record and some of
them were even promoted up to the rank of Dy. & Jt. Controller of
Defence Accounts.
vii) That the direct entrants IDAS officers have to undergo
probation and attain experience of 2-3 years in the Department as
Accounts Officer before occupying the post of Group Officer which
10
is directly given to the promotes from group `B`. The direct
entrant is promoted within 4 years of service as Dy. Controller of
Defence Accounts in S.T.S. who also holds the charge of Group
Officer. In this way, the promotes Group Officers reach to this post
only at the end of their service. Therefore, the applicants who are
directly given the charges of Group Officers cannot be denied the
S.T.S of pay as has been given by the Department to some others
based on various judgments of various Benches of Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunals. Therefore the denial of the benefit as
stated herein-above will amount to denial of their Fundamental
Rights of equality in terms of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. A list of those who have retired from the same posts and
were granted the S.T.S. after promotion from Sr. A.O. is detailed
below to show the disparity meted out to the applicants depriving
them of their valuable Fundamental Rights by the respondent no.
2:-
a) Sh. T.R. Krishnamurthy : The case of promotion from
Sr. AO to direct STS was filed
vide OA 35 of 2009 in the
Hon’ble Central Administrative
Tribunal Madras which was
decided in his favour. The
respondent no. 2 challenged
the decision of Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal,
Madras in the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras and was
dismissed by upholding the
decision of Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal,
11
Madras.
b) Sh. K.S. Rangaswamy : The case for promotion from
Sr. AO to direct STS was filed
by the applicant vide OA No.
2356/93 and allowed on
28.11.1994 and the same was
decided by Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench New Delhi in
favour of the applicant.
c) Sh. P.D. Makkar : The case was filed before the
Hon’ble Central Administrative
Tribunal Principal Bench New
Delhi vide OA 1100/89 allowed
on 25.7.1991 and was also
decided in favour of the
applicant.
d) Sh. P.K. Jain : The case was filed before the
Hon’ble Central Administrative
Tribunal Principal Bench New
Delhi vide OA No. 57/88
allowed on 25.7.1991 and was
decided in favour of the
applicant.
e) Sh. S. Bakirathan : The case was filed before
Hon’ble Central Administrative
Tribunal Bombay vide OA
426/1988 and allowed on
25.3.1992 was also decided in
favour of the applicant.
viii) That above persons who were also deprived of their such
valuable rights have approached the various Benches of Hon’ble
Central Administrative Tribunal to address their grievances. The
Hon’ble Tribunals have decided their claims in their favour by
12
granting them STS scale on promotion from Sr. Accounts Officers
to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS, and all the consequential retirement
benefits have been given to those officers.
ix) That the applicant no. 1 & 2 approached the respondent no.
2 through the medium of representations dated 20.03.2013. In
response to the said application, the respondent no. 2 vide its
order no. AN-I/1381/TRK/Rep., dated 25.04.2013 and no. AN-
1/1381/TRK/Rep dt. 25.04.2013 has rejected their claim by an
same order stating that
“That issue has been examined and I have been
directed to inform you that the benefit extended to Shri T.R.
Krishnamurthy & other officers were specifically based
orders/directions of the various Benches of the Central
Administrative Tribunal and Hon’ble High Courts in OAs/WPs
filed by them and the benefit of the same cannot be
extended to other officers automatically.”
x) That impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 has
virtually accepted the claim of the applicants but it has been told
that the due benefit cannot be granted because the applicants did
not approach the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, meaning thereby the applicants are
entitled to the said benefit but they could not be granted benefits
because they did not went to the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble
Central Administrative Tribunal. As such, the applicants are entitled
13
to the said benefits but are being deprived of their valuable
Fundamental Rights in wholly illegal and arbitrary manner.
Hence, the present OA.
5. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF WITH LEGAL PROVISIONS
a) Because admittedly, the claim of the applicants is squarely
covered by the order dated 26.04.2010, passed by the co-
ordinate Bench of Hon’ble CAT Madras Bench in the case of
Sh. T.R. Krishnamurty Vs. Union of India (OA No. 35/2009).
The order dated 26.04.2010 has been upheld by the Hon’ble
Madras High Court vide its judgment dated 9.9.2011 (WP No.
1/2010) and has also been implemented by the respondents
qua, applicant in that case only, whereas applicants, who are
similarly placed, have been ignored for benefit of STS Pay
scale on the similar pattern. Such an action on the part of
the respondents is violative of Fundamental Right of equality
to the applicants by virtue of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution
of India.
b) Because the order passed by the Hon’ble Madras Bench in
the case of T.R. Krishnamurty, has been relied upon the
various other judgments and similar benefit has also been
accorded to many other individuals as detailed in para 4 (vii)
of the OA and therefore similar treatment cannot be denied
to the present applicants as well.
14
c) Because, admittedly, as is evident from letter dated
25.4.2013, respondents are admitting that the category of
ACDA has been granted the higher pay scale pursuant to
order passed by coordinate benches of this Hon’ble Tribunal
and Hon’ble High Court. They had only taken one objection
that benefit been granted only to the employees who have
approached the court of law and since applicant have not
filed any case they are not been granted the similar benefit.
d) Because it is settled law that once an employee is held
entitled to a benefit, to which other similarly situated
employees are also entitled to, it shall be extended to all
without compelling each one to approach court of law. In this
regard reference is made to the judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of K. C. Sharma Vs
Union Of India (1997(3) SCT, 341) and in the case of
Satbir Singh Vs State of Haryana 2000(2) SCT 54.
6. DETAILS sOF REMEDIES EXHAUSTED
That the applicant declares that there is no statutory remedy
available to him, but to move to this Hon’ble Tribunal by filing the
present OA.
7. MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING WITH
ANY OTHER COURT
That the applicant declares that he has not filed any similar
case before any Court of Law nor any such petition is pending
15
before any Court of Law, except to which reference has been made
above.
8. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT
That in view of facts and circumstances mentioned here-in-
above applicant respectfully prays:-
i) That both the Impugned orders dated 25.4.2013 (Annexure
A-1) to the extent denying the applicant benefit of STS pay scale in
accordance with judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras Bench of
this Hon’ble Tribunal and upheld by the Hon’ble Madras High Court
be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
ii) That respondents be directed to grant the applicants benefit
of STS pay scale i.e. Rs. 10000-325-15200 (revised to PB-3 in the
pay band of Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay Rs. 6600/-) to w.e.f.
the date they were promoted as ACDA’s in the cadre of IDAS with
all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears of pay fixation
with further benefits of revision of their retiral benefits from the
date they have been retired from service.
16
iii) That respondent be further directed to grant the applicants
interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount calculated as per relief no. (ii)
in as much as it is the respondent who have denied the aforesaid
benefit to the applicants.
iv) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may also pass any other order in
favour of the applicants which it may deem fit in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case.
v) That costs of the application may also be awarded in favour
of the applicants.
vi) That applicants be permitted to file the present original
application jointly.
9. INTERIM ORDER, IF ANY, PRAYED FOR: NIL
10. That the applicants desires to have oral hearing at
admission stage through his counsel.
11. PARTICULARS OF POSTAL ORDER FILED IN RESPECT
OF APPLICATION FEE
17
i) No. of Indian Postal Order
ii) Date of issue of Postal Order
iii) Name of issuing Post Office
iv) Post Office at which payable
12. LIST OF ENCLOSURES-
As per Index.
VERIFICATION
I, Satpal Singh, IDAS ACDA(Retd), S/o Sh. Faqiar Chand
aged 63 years, resident of H.No. 874, Sector 9, Panchkula
(Haryana), verify that contents of para 1, 4 and 6 to 12 is true and
correct as per my personal knowledge and para 2, 3 and 5 is
believed to be true on legal advice and that I have not suppressed
any material fact.
Place:-Chandigarh Applicant
Dated: 12.8.2013 Through
(JAGDEEP JASWAL & N K BHANDULA)
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT
18
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH
O.A. NO. 1113/PB/2013
Satpal Singh and others …Applicant
Versus
Union of India & ors. ……Respondents
I N D E X
Sr.
No
Particulars of Documents Dated Pages
1. List of Events and Dates 12.08.2013 A-C
2. Original Application 12.08.2013 1-17
3. Annexure A-1 (Office Orders) 25.04.2013 18-19
4. Annexure A-2 (Hon’ble C.A.T.
Madras Bench Order)
26.04.2010 20-
5. Annexure A-3 (Hon’ble Madras
High Court Judgment)
09.09.2011
6. Annexure A-4 (Representations) 20.03.2013
7. Annexure A-5 (Duties and
Responsibilities)
_
8. Power of Attorney 02.08.2013
Place:-Chandigarh Dated:- 12.08.2013
(JAGDEEP JASWAL & N K BHANDULA) ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT
19
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
Sole question involved in the instant OA is whether
applicants can be denied benefit of judgment in the case of Sh.
T.R. Krishnamurty & ors. and Vs. Union of India (OA No. 35/2009)
dated 26.04.2010(A-2), upheld by Hon’ble Madras High Court in
WP (C) no. 23816 of 2010(A-3) by stating that such benefit has to
granted to only those who have got court orders in their favour and
same cannot be extended to other officers automatically, especially
when applicants are also similarly situated.
Applicants are retired officers and have served the
respondent no. 2 on posts such as Auditors, Section Officer
(Accounts), Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer, Sr.
Account Officer and Assistant Controller of Defence Account (JTS)
,Dy. Controllers and Jt. Controllers of Defence Accounts. Their
relevant service profile is given in para 4(ii) of OA.
Applicants after being recruited as Auditors were promoted
as Section Officer (Accts), Asst. Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer
and Sr. Accounts Officer. Very few candidates get promotion from
the post of Sr. Accounts Officer to Assistant Controller of Defence
Accounts (ACDA) in the cadre of IDAS in Junior Time scale, who
are directly given the Charge of Group Officers of various Sections.
The duties and responsibilities of all these posts are contained in
Annexure-I to para 367 of office Manual Part-I(A-5).
Recruitment to ACDA (Asstt. Controller of Defence Accounts)
in the cadre of IDAS in Jr. Time Scale is made partly from GP ‘B’
Officers i.e. Sr. Accounts Officers and partly by direct entry of
I.D.A.S. through U.P.S.C. The direct entrants discharge their duties
as ACDA I/C (Appendix-I) to para 367 of office Manual Part-I) for a
period of 2 to 3 years. Thereafter they are promoted as Dy.
20
Controller of Defence Accounts in the pay scale of 15600-39100
with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3 ( revised wef. 01.01.2006)
whereas the ACsDA in Jr. Time Scale of IDAS promoted from the
post of Sr. Accounts Officer are placed in the pay scale of 15600-
39100 with grade pay of Rs. 5400/-in PB-3 despite having put in
more than 30 to 35 years of service and despite the fact that they
are straightway given the charge of Group Officers with duties and
responsibility quite higher than those of Sr. Accounts Officers, they
having already served as Accounts Officers/Sr. Accounts Officer for
more than 6 to 8 years. It is contrary to the direct entrants who
are to serve as probationers in the Department for two years and
function as ACDA I/C of various sections in the Department for a
period from 2 to 3 years.
The pay scales of Sr. AO & ACDA in the cadre of IDAS are
same w.e.f. 01.01.1986. On promotion the fixation of pay is done
in the same pay scale instead of the next higher STS Pay scale,
despite the fact, that Sr. Accounts Officer after promotion to
A.C.D.A. are directly given the charge of Group Officer having 3 to
4 Accounts Officers/Sr. Accounts Officer under him and the duties
and responsibilities as a Group Officer are manifold higher than
that attached to the post of AOs/Sr. AOs. This forced the aggrieved
officers to knock at the doors of the Hon’ble courts and get court
orders in their favour. Various cases have been decided in favor of
the similarly situated employees like Sh. T.R. Krishnamurthy Vs
UOI & ors. (OA 35 of 2009) before Hon’ble C.A.T., Madras Bench
which has also been upheld in Hon’ble High Court of Madras., Sh.
K.S. Rangaswamy Vs UOI & ors. (OA No. 2356/93) allowed on
28.11.1994 by Hon’ble C.A.T. Principal Bench, New Delhi, Sh. P.D.
Makkar Vs UOI & ors. (OA 1100/89) allowed on 25.7.1991 by
Hon’ble C.A.T. Principal Bench, New Delhi, Sh. P.K. Jain Vs UOI
& ors. (OA No. 57/88) allowed on 25.7.1991 and in Sh. S.
Bakirathan Vs UOI & ors. (OA 426/1988) allowed.
Above persons who were also deprived of STS pay scale and
the Hon’ble Tribunals have decided their claims in their favour by
21
granting them STS scale on promotion from Sr. Accounts Officers
to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS, and all the consequential retirement
benefits have been given to those officers.
Applicant no. 1 & 2 submitted representations dated
20.03.2013 claiming similar relief but their claim has been rejected
stating that “benefit extended to Shri T.R. Krishnamurthy & other
officers were specifically based orders/directions of the various
Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal and Hon’ble High
Courts in OAs/WPs filed by them and the benefit of the same
cannot be extended to other officers automatically.” This is clear-
cut violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constituion of India.
Impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 has virtually
accepted the claim of the applicants but it has been told that the
due benefit cannot be granted because the applicants did not
approach the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, meaning thereby the applicants are entitled to the said
benefit but they could not be granted benefits because they did not
went to the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Central Administrative
Tribunal. As per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
K.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India reported as 1997 (3) SCT
341, applicants are also entitled to same benefits and it is the duty
of respondents to grant the them similar benefit being similarly
situated otherwise the action of respondents will amount to
violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
Hence the present OA.
Place:-Chandigarh Dated:- 12.08.2013
(JAGDEEP JASWAL & N K BHANDULA) ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT
