Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE ADVISOR TO ADMINISTRATOR,UT CHD& ORS versus THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,CHAN

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Advisor to Administrator,UT CHD& Ors v. The Central Administrative Tribunal,Chan - CWP-4961-CAT-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 3097 (12 May 2006)

C.W.P.No.4961-CAT of 2003 [1]

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P.No.4961-CAT of 2003

Date of Decision: 17 - 5 - 2006

The Advisor to Administrator, UT, ........Petitioners Chandigarh and others

v.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, .........Respondents Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.PATWALIA

***

Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr.N.P.Mittal, Advocate

for respondents No.2 to 9.

***

P.S.PATWALIA, J.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration being aggrieved against the order dated 10.5.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Tribunal') allowing O.A.No.766/CH of 2000 and also the order dated 6.8.2002 vide which Review Application No.103 of 2002 filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10.5.2002 was dismissed.

Briefly the facts leading to the filing of the petition are that respondents 2 to 9 who were working as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Union Territory, Chandigarh had filed O.A.No.766/CH of 2000 claiming that they be granted the pay scale of Superintendent Grade-I with effect from 24.9.1996 which was the date when the C.W.P.No.4961-CAT of 2003 [2]

office of Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh (also designated as Joint Secretary, Finance for Education Department, College cadre and Ministerial cadre), petitioner No.3 in the petition, had been declared as Head of the Department. This relief was claimed by the applicants on the strength of notification dated 18.10.1979 issued by the State of Punjab wherein it had been notified that Superintendents in the offices of the Head of the Departments would be re-designated as Superintendent Grade-I and would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.825-1580/-. It was the further case of the applicants that this notification had been adopted by the Chandigarh Administration by its notification dated 13.1.1992 with effect from 1.4.1991. On a combined reading of the aforestated two notifications, respondents 2 to 9 had claimed that since they were Superintendents working in the office notified as office of Head of a Department, they were entitled to the pay scale of Superintendent Grade-I i.e. Rs.825-1580/- with effect from 24.9.1996 when the office of petitioner No.3 had been designated as that of Head of the Department.

The Tribunal allowed the claim of respondents 2 to 9. While allowing this claim, the Tribunal noted that similarly placed persons like respondents 2 to 9 had earlier filed O.A.No.565/CH of 1986, Krishan Lal Sethi v.

Chandigarh Administration which was allowed by the Tribunal on 13.3.1991.

Besides this, another set of similarly situated persons had filed O.A.No.1285/CH of 1992 which was also allowed on 3.1.1996. It was further noted by the Tribunal that the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.565/CH of 1996 was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 10.7.1991. Therefore the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 10.5.2002 allowed the claim of the applicants and held that they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.825-1580/- (pre-revised) with effect from the date the office of petitioner No.3 was declared as Head of the Department on 24.9.1996. It was, however, held by the Tribunal that the pay of respondents 2 to 9 would be fixed from 24.9.1996 on notional basis and they would not be entitled to C.W.P.No.4961-CAT of 2003 [3]

arrears of pay. Chandigarh Administration filed a review application being R.A.No.103 of 2002 seeking recalling/review of the order aforementioned.

However, the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 6.8.2002. It is therefore that the Chandigarh Administration has filed the present writ petition impugning the orders passed in the original application, as also the order rejecting the review application.

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel for Chandigarh Administration firstly drew our attention to a notification dated 10.12.1991 vide which the Chandigarh Administration Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1991 had been enforced with effect from the 1st

day of April, 1991. He contended that the said notification clearly envisages the posts of Superintendents Grade-I, Grade-II, Grade-III and Grade IV. It did not provide that a Superintendent working in the office of Head of the Department would automatically be entitled to the pay scale of Superintendent Grade-I even otherwise he is Superintendent Grade-II, Grade-III or Grade IV. He argued that respondents 2 to 9 in the present case were all Superintendent Grade-II and could not claim the pay scale of Superintendent Grade-I.

We are afraid that we cannot accept this contention. By a subsequent notification dated 13.1.1992 the Chandigarh Administration notified the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992 applicable with effect from 1.4.1991. These rules clearly state that the conditions of service of persons appointed to corresponding posts in Punjab Civil Services shall be governed by the same set of rules and orders, as are for the time being applicable to the latter category of persons. In the explanatory memorandum it has further been stated that the demand of the Union Territory employees has been considered carefully and it has been decided to grant the Punjab Pay Scales to the employees of Union Territory with effect from 1.4.1991 and it is for that reason that these rules are C.W.P.No.4961-CAT of 2003 [4]

being enforced with retrospective effect. The relevant clauses are extracted as hereunder:-

"2. Conditions of service of persons appointed to the Central Civil Services and posts under the Administrative control of Administrator:- The conditions of service of persons appointed to the Central Civil Services and posts in Groups A, B, C and D under the Administrative control of the Administrator of Union Territory of Chandigarh shall, subject to any other provision made by the President in this behalf, be the same as the conditions of service of persons appointed to corresponding posts in Punjab Civil Services and shall be governed by the same rules and orders as are for the time being applicable to the latter category of persons.

xx xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx xx

".........The demand of the Union Territory employees has been considered carefully and it has been decided to grant the Punjab Pay Scales to the employees of the Union Territory Administration with effect from the Ist April, 1991 and also that they should be governed by the service conditions of the corresponding employees of the Government of Punjab. Since the Punjab Pay Scales have been adopted with effect from the Ist April, 1991, it would become necessary to give effect to these rules with retrospective effect.

Accordingly, these rules have been given retrospective effect from the Ist April, 1991. It is certified that the retrospective effect being given to these rules will not adversely affect any employee to whom these rules shall apply."

It is clear from a reading of the portions extracted above that the Punjab Scales were adopted in January, 1992 with effect from 1.4.1991. With this adoption the C.W.P.No.4961-CAT of 2003 [5]

revised pay scales adopted by the Chandigarh Administration on 10.12.1991 became totally redundant. It is in fact the Punjab Pay Scales which were implemented and which were paid as per the demand of the Union Territory Employees which was accepted by the Chandigarh Administration. Therefore, the argument based on notification dated 10.12.1991 is not tenable in law and cannot be accepted.

Faced with this, Mr.Sharma then drew our attention to a notification dated 3.2.1998 issued by the Chandigarh Administration revising the pay scales in pursuance to the recommendations made by the Fourth Pay Commission. It was sought to be argued that since these rules were deemed to come into force with effect from 1.1.1996 and the office of Director Public Instructions was made Head of the Department on 24.9.1996, the notification dated 13.1.1992 revising the pay scales and adopting the Punjab Pay Scales would not be applicable in the present case. Even this submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact notification accepting the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission was issued on 3.2.1998. It further revised the pay scales which were granted in

1992. Respondents 2 to 9 in the present case were entitled to the benefit of 1992 notification when their office was designated as office of Head of the Department.

As a result of 1998 notification, respondents 2 to 9 would be entitled to a further revision of their pay scales. As is common knowledge, the benefit of pay revision is normally granted from a particular cut off date which in the present case has been fixed as 1.1.1996. The result would be that after being placed in the pay scales granted to them by the notification dated 13.1.1992, respondents 2 to 9 would be entitled to the next revision in 1998 and would get the benefit of arrears from 1.1.1996.

Apart from this, we have gone through the judgments rendered by the Tribunal in O.A.No.565/CH of 1996 and O.A.No.1285/CH of 1996. In those cases also the claim made by the applicants therein was peri materia with the claim made C.W.P.No.4961-CAT of 2003 [6]

in this case. The claim of respondents 2 to 9 is therefore covered by those two judgments as well.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.

( P.S.PATWALIA )

JUDGE

( J.S.KHEHAR )

May 17, 2006. JUDGE

RC


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.