G v. Union

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) We have heard Mr. Nikhil Kerial, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. M.M.Bhatt, leaned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 10th September, 2003 passed in O.A.No. 255 of 2001 as well as the order dated 14th November, 2003 in Review Application No. 82 of 2003. The petitioner claimed for steeping up of pay vis-a-vis his junior Mr. Chandrashekharan in terms of Ministry of Finance, OM No. 7 (75)-E III/94 dated 1st December, 1994. The case of the petitioner in brief is that both he and his junior Shri M.Chandrasekharan joined the department as LDC with special pay (steno-typist). Both of them were promoted as UDC by the same order but he actually joined the promotion post after Shri Chandrashekharan as he was proceeding on leave. He was directly promoted as Tax Assistant in 1978 and thereafter as Head Clerk and then Inspector. On the other hand, Shri Chandrasekharan was first selected as UDC with special pay and thereafter promoted as Tax Assistant in 1982. Mr. Chandrasekharan was also promoted as Head Clerk and Inspector. The anomaly arose in 1982 as his special pay of Rs. 35/- was taken into account for fixation of pay as Head Clerk. Finance Ministry OM of 1994 allows notional stepping up from the date of anomaly with arrears from date of issue of the OM. The petitioner fulfils all the conditions of the said OM. He submitted a representation dated 14.2.2000 for removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay with effect from 9.8.1982. The zonal Accounts Officer advised ITO, TDSI and DDO (Administration) that proposal appears to be in order but the order should be issued by Head of Department quoting the 1994 OM.

3. From the seniority list of 1977, it is apparent that the petitioner was junior to Mr. Chandrasekharan. Therefore, stepping up was not possible as the petitioner was not senior. Accordingly, stepping up was not permissible as the petitioner was not senior to Mr. Chandrasekharan in the seniority list of 1977 which was of UDC. Since the seniority list of UDC remained unchallenged and the petitioner was junior to Mr.Chandrasekharan, therefore, in the next cadre, same seniority will prevail. When the promotion was made of the petitioner as well as of Mr. Chandrasekharan on the post of Tax Assistant, as per the seniority list of UDC, Mr. Chandrasekharan would be senior to the petitioner and the seniority of UDC was never challenged by the petitioner, nor he has challenged the seniority even at this stage. Therefore, stepping up in the pay vis-a-vis Mr. Chandrasekharan cannot be granted to the petitioner.

4. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal, in rejecting O.A. NO.255 of 2001 as well as Review Application No. 82 of 2003 filed by the petitioner did not commit any error of law. We do not find any merit in this petition. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.

(V.M.Sahai,J) (G.B.Shah,J) ***vcdarji Top