OA No. 557-PB of 2010, OA No. 555-CH of 2010. Case: 1. Dalbara Singh S/o Bachan Singh, 2. Manohar Dass Mukhia Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, 2. Union Territory, Chandigarh, Through Secretary Printing and Stationery, 3. Controller, Printing and Stationery, U.T. Chandigarh. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOA No. 557-PB of 2010, OA No. 555-CH of 2010
Party Name1. Dalbara Singh S/o Bachan Singh, 2. Manohar Dass Mukhia Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, 2. Union Territory, Chandigarh, Through Secretary Printing and Stationery, 3. Controller, Printing and Stationery, U.T. Chandigarh
JudgesS. D. Anand (Judicial Member) & Khushi Ram (Accountant Member)
IssueService Law
Judgement DateApril 06, 2011
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

S. D. Anand (Judicial Member), (Chandigarh Bench)

  1. There is apparent commonness of the essential facets of controversy in these two O.As and that is what exactly persuades us to record a common order. There is indeed certain variation in the facts which we will notice in the course of this order but that variation is comparatively inconsequential in character and would not affect the common nature of adjudication.

  2. The applicant in O.A.No.557-PB of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'applicant Dalbara Singh', came to be initially appointed, as a Monocaster, on 30.9.1978 and was absorbed in that capacity on regular basis with effect from 1.1.1979, vide order dated 21.8.1980 (Annexure A-2), and posted as Jr. Technician (Retoucher) on temporary basis with effect from 3.10.1997. While being put on that post, he was placed on probation for a period of one year which he was declared to have completed on 31.3.1999. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted as Junior Technician (Caligrapher) in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160, with a probation period of one year. He successfully completed that probation and was absorbed on that post on, regular basis with effect from the date he was working thereon. Thereafter, on his own request dated 27.5.2003, he was re-transferred to the post of Junior Technician (Retoucher) in that very pay scale of Rs.3120-5160.

  3. The grievance raised by Dalbara Singh, in the course of this O.A., is that he ought to be granted the pay scale of Rs.4550-7220 (with all consequential benefits and with effect from 3.10.1997) as he is performing the same duties as in the case of the holders of the post of Assistant Litho Artist (in the State of Punjab).

  4. Applicant Dalbara Singh had earlier filed an O.A. (No.11-CH of 2007) which came to be disposed of by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal on 4.9.2008 with a direction to the Competent Authority to have a re-look at the plea of equivalence of pay scale raised by the applicant therein.

  5. The respondents, by means of a short reply, contested the grant of relief applied for by averring that 'The applicant is not entitled for the grade as the nature, duties and qualification of this post is totally different from the post of Retoucher in U.T. against which post applicant is working'. It was further averred, in continuity, that the variation in the qualifications and mode of recruitment etc. also sustain denial of plea of equivalence adopted by the respondents. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial