Implementation of CAT judgement in respect of grant of GP 5400 to AAOs lieu of MACPS
No. NAF/2014-16/25
Dated : 05 September 2014
To
The Comptroller and Auditor
General of India,
9 – Deen Dayal Upadyay
Marg, New Delhi – 110124
Sub: Implementation of
CAT, Chennai Bench orders – extending benefit of MACP scheme to applicants –
fixing of Grade Pay at `5400 to applicants – reg.
Ref: Pr.AG(A&E)/Estt.I/Gl.VI/2014-15/194
dated 28-08-2014 of Pr. AG(A&E), Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
Sir,
Kind attention is invited
to the reference cited wherein it was ordered to extend the benefit of MACP
scheme by fixing the Grade Pay of the applicants in OAs 966 and 967 filed at
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench in 2009 at `5400 with
effect from 1-09-2008, the date on which any one of the private respondents in
the said OAs was placed in GP of `5400 under MACP scheme.
Some of the Assistant
Accounts Officers drawing Grade Pay of `4800, aggrieved on granting of Grade
Pay of `5400 to Senior Accountants subordinate to them in the Principal
Accountant General (A&E), Chennai, Tamil Nadu by virtue of the
implementation of Modified Assured Career Progression scheme introduced in the
year 2008 approached the Honorable CAT, Chennai Bench to quash the office
memorandum wherein such benefit was extended to the private respondent.
Honorable CAT, observed that 'the private respondents who are functioning
inferior than the applicants and who are not even qualified to be promoted to
the post held by the applicants are given higher pay scale in the guise of
implementation of the scheme which is unsustainable in law'. Further
both the OAs were disposed in the terms that; "There will be a
direction to the respondents to grant the revised pay to the applicants by
extending the benefit of MACP Scheme in favour of the applicants by fixing
their grade pay at Rs.5400/- from the date on which the said benefit was
extended to the private respondents and to disburse the accrued arrears, if
any, to the applicants within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order". The directions of CAT were upheld by the
Honorable High Court of Madras and later on the SLP filed by CAG at the Apex
Court was also dismissed and hence the office order cited was issued.
The Assistant Accounts Officers of Chennai office
had expended huge amounts for arbitration upto the Supreme Court of India. By
making the said judgment applicable to the original applicants only, similarly
placed employees may be constrained to approach Courts of Law for getting the
benefits extended to them also. Several judgments have been pronounced by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Some of
such judgments are cited below for kind information :-
(i) The Apex court in the case of Amrit Lal
Berry v. CCE, (1975) 4 SCC, held as under:-
“We may, however, observe that when a citizen
aggrieved by the action of a government department has approached the Court and
obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others, in like circumstances, should
be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the department concerned and
to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the
need to take their grievances to court”.
(ii) In Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India,
(1985) 2 SCC 648, the Apex Court has held as
under:-
“….. those who could not come to the court need not
be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are
otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by
anyone else at the hands of the Court”.
(iii) The V Central Pay Commission in its
recommendation, in regard to extension of
benefit of court judgment to similarly situated, held as under:-
“126.5 – Extending judicial decisions in matters of
a general nature to all similarly placed employees. – We have observed that
frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed
employees, the benefit of judgment is only extended to those employees who had
agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless
litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed and others v. UOI
& others (O.A. No. 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the
entire class of employees who are similarly situated are required to be given
the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original
writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in this
case as well as in numerous other judgments like G.C. Ghosh v. UOI, [(1992) 19
ATC 94 (SC)], dated 20-07-1998; K.I. Shepherd v. UOI [(JT 1987 (3) SC 600)];
Abid Hussain v. UOI [(JT 1987 (1) SC 147], etc. Accordingly, we recommend that
decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Government
should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other
employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. We
clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common
issue of general nature applicable to a group or category of Government
employees is concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or
anomaly of an individual employee”.
(iv) In the case of Uttaranchal Forest
Rangers’ Association (Direct Recruit) v. State of
U.P., (2006) 10 SCC 346, the Apex court has referred to the decision in the case of State of Karnataka v. C
Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 as under:-
“29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court
from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be
treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would
not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently”.
I, therefore, request the
Honorable Comptroller and Auditor General of India to issue directions to
implement the above judgment in its letter and spirit to all similarly placed
Officers in IA&AD with effect from 1-09-2008 in order to uphold the
observations of the Apex Court, another Constitutional Authority, on the above
well settled law point. This will also help the employees to avoid unnecessary
litigations, expenditure and to concentrate on their assigned duties.
Yours faithfully,
Post a Comment