OA 2147 of 2012. Case: Balbir Singh Vs Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | OA 2147 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Sangeeta Dubey, CGC for Gurpreet Singh Sr. PC |
| Judges | Vinod Kumar Ahuja, J. (Member (J)) and D.S. Sidhu, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - Sections 14, 22 |
| Judgement Date | May 21, 2014 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
-
The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 14 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, praying as under:-
i) Directions to the respondents to release the pay and allowances and pensionary benefits of three MACP to the applicants who are retired after 01.01.2006 and benefit of MACP be implemented w.e.f. 01.09.2008 as per Govt. of India Gazette Notification dated 30.08.2008;
ii) Direction to quash the unlawful and illegal impugned letter dated 30.05.2011 (Annexure A-8) in the interest of justice; and
iii) Directions to the respondents to grant interest @ 15% to the applicants since 01.09.2008 till realization.
-
A notice of the application was issued to the respondents who filed reply.
-
No rejoinder was filed by the petitioner.
-
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
-
The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are that as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission the petitioner was entitled to ACP on regular intervals of 8 years, 16 years and 24 years of service. It was submitted that on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission including the revision of the pay and pay structure came into effect with effect from 01.01.2006. However, by a subsequent letter dated 30.05.2011 Annexure A. 8 it was clarified by the Government that the ACP scheme would be operational with effect from 01.09.2008 and the final up-gradations as per the provisions of the earlier ACP scheme of August 2003 would be granted till 31.08.2008. Thus, the Government had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that though the pay grades were granted with effect from 01.01.2006 but the benefits of the scheme of ACP would be applicable with effect from 01.09.2008 only.
-
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had taken the plea that the petition is barred by limitation since the policy letter was issued on 30.05.2011 and the petitioner No. 1 filed the representation subsequently on 25.02.2012 and petitioner No. 2 filed separate representation on 30.03.2012 and as such the present petition is barred by limitation under Section 22 of the Act. It was also pleaded that no statutory appeal was filed by the petitioner and as such the petition is time barred.
-
It is clear that in pursuance of the adoption of the scales by 6th Central Pay Commission the pay scales became effective from 01.01.2006. Thereafter the policy letter dated 30.05.2011 was issued clarifying the position that the scheme would be applicable from 01.01.2008 only and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner No. 2 was rejected on 09.05.2012, whereas no decision was taken on the representation filed by petitioner No. 1. Thereafter the present petition was filed on 16.08.2012.
-
Coming to the question that the petitioner should have filed a statutory appeal once the petitioner had already retired from service he had the remedy of filing representation and accordingly a legal notice was issued as mentioned above which was rejected and his representation was rejected and within four months the present petition was filed by the petitioner which is well within time, therefore, the plea of limitation falls squarely on the ground.
-
Coming to the question as to whether this scheme could have been implemented from a subsequent date i.e. 01.09.2008 though the pay grades were granted from...
To continue reading
Request your trial