O.A. No.453/2007. Case: 1. 1. P. Satyanarayana, 2. N. S. S. C. A. Nrusimham; 3. V. U. Ravi; 4. P. P. Balan; 5. T. Bhavanarayana; 6. D. S. N. Murthy; 7. P. Sankar Rao, 8. B. A. Varma; 9. D. V. N. Swamy; 10. G. C. Nayak; 11. M. D. Wicket; 12. A. C. Nayak; 13. A. Someswara Rao; 14. T. Bernard; 15. S. Bhaskara Rao; 16. B. Papa Rao; 17. V. Narasimha Rao; 18. M. Gandhi; 19. M. Naga Raju; 20. D. V. S. S. P. S. Sarma; 21. N. N. Nageswara Rao; 22. K. Nirieekshana Rao; 23. P. Naganna; 24. M. A. Jaya Raja Rao; 25. S. V. Subba Rao; 26. L. Prusti; 27. K. Peddi Raju; 28. Syed Ali; 29. P. David Paul; 30. V. Sanyasi Rao; 31. B. Thrinadha Rao; 32. G. V. V. Koteswara Rao; 33. M. K. Guha; 34. K. Madhavan; 35. V. Mahendra; 36. K. K. Thambi Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi; 2. Chief of Naval Staff, Naval Headquarters, New Delhi; 3. Flag Officer Commanding-In Chief, Visakhapatnam; 4. Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. No.453/2007
CounselDr. P. B. Vijaya Kumar, P. Venkat Rao
JudgesBharati Ray (Judicial Member) & Hriday Narain (Administrative Member)
IssueConstitution of India, 1950 - Article 14
Judgement DateFebruary 17, 2009
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

Bharati Ray (Judicial Member), (Hyderabad Bench)

  1. Heard Mr. P. Venkata Rama Sarma for Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants. None appeared for the respondents.

  2. This application has been filed questioning the proceedings of 4th respondent in PES/3202/PF/NI dated 4.10.2005/7/11/2005/10.11.2005/ 11.11.2005/14.11.2005 rejecting the request of the applicants for stepping up of pay on par with their juniors in the cadre of Charge man-I and has sought for the following relief:

    to declare the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent in PES/3202/PF/NI dated 4.10.2005/7/11/2005/ 10.11.2005/ 11.11.2005/ 14.11.2005 in rejecting the request of the applicants for stepping up of pay on par with their juniors in the cadre of Charge man-I in the pay scale of Rs.5500-8000 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution Of India, 1950 and by nullifying the same consequently direct the respondents to step up the pay of the applicants on par with their juniors in the scale of Rs.5500-8000 in the cadre of Charge man-I with all attendant and consequential benefits.

  3. It is the contention of the applicants that the grade of Senior Charge men is being filled in by the HSK-I, the Technicians who have qualified in departmental qualifying examinations and who fulfill the other conditions like the requisite numbers of years of seniority and experience, no disciplinary action either pending or contemplated against such HSK Grade-I etc. The grade of MCM is not a feeder post for promotion to the post of CM-II and it is not a part of hierarchy and the placement therein shall not be treated as promotion for High Skilled Grade-I either under normal promotion rules or under ACP scheme. It is added that the post of MCM shall continue to be as Highly Skilled Grade for the purpose of promotion to the grade of Charge man-II as promulgated by the 1st respondent vide order dated 20.5.2003 and communicated to the 2nd respondent.

  4. The respondents have filed a counter reply to contest the case. It is the contention of the respondents that consequent on implementation of the III CPC recommendations, the Master Craftsman (MCM) post which was not in the hierarchy was created in the pay scale of Rs.425-15-560-EB-640 (identical pay scale of the then Senior Charge man) i.e. in between the Highly Skilled Grade-I and Charge man Grade-II vide Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 21.9.1982. The said...

To continue reading

Request your trial