OA No. 3404/2011. Case: Pankaj Grover Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and The Director General, Shashtra Seema Bal. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOA No. 3404/2011
CounselFor Appellant: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Rajesh Katyal, Advocate
JudgesSyed Rafat Alam, J. (Chairman) and Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A)
IssueAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 309
Judgement DateMay 09, 2014
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


B.K. Sinha, Member (A), (Principal Bench)

  1. The instant OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant here is not aggrieved by any particular order of the respondents. Rather, he is aggrieved by the respondents not giving him pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300/- (Rs. 37000-67000+GP of Rs. 8700/-) despite the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and its acceptance by the Government.

  2. The case of the applicant briefly put is that he joined as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in SSB in the year 1989 and promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on 23.12.1998 in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200 (Revised pay scale in PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600 as per 6th CPC) and thereafter in the year 2007, he was granted 2nd MACP in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600 w.e.f. 01.09.2008. He was finally promoted to the rank of Superintending Engineer vide the order dated 01.04.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 (revised pay scale PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-). The applicant claims that he should have been placed in the replacement scale of Rs. 37400-67000 + GP of Rs. 8700/-.

  3. The applicant has adopted the following grounds for his claim:-

    (a) In the first instance, the applicant claims that there has been historical parity between the post of Superintending Engineer in his parent organization and that of the CPWD. Earlier the respondents' organization functioned under the Cabinet Secretariat but was subsequently placed under the MHA in the year 2001. While the respondents' organization had functioned under the Cabinet Secretariat, a decision was taken in the year 1989 for treating the Superintending Engineer in SSB at par with Superintending Engineer of CPWD. This was followed up by delegation of powers to the SSB Engineers at par with their counterparts of the CPWD vide OM dated 30.06.1989 (Annexure-2 of the paper book). This was further confirmed by the OM dated 22.05.2000 from the respondents stating that powers of the Engineers of SSB would be at par with Engineers in CPWD and the same would be subject to the restrictions and provisions of CPWD Code and CPWD Manual (Annexure A-3 of the paper book).

    (b) The second point raised by the applicant is that he has not based his claim upon that of parity, but he has already been given scale and should be given the replacement scale with Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- as per the 6th CPC.

    (c) In the third place, the applicant claims that the action of the respondents is discriminatory, as the scales in SSB at par with those of corresponding posts in the CPWD have already been given. He makes a particular reference to two incumbents of the post of Chief Engineer namely AK Sen and KP Singh, who have been appointed in the scale of Rs. 18400-22400 (now revised to 37400-67000 and Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000) since the year 2000 with the respondents' organization. This grade is at par to the Chief Engineer of CPWD.

  4. The learned counsel for the applicant alleges that the respondents have deliberately avoided discussion of this issue in the counter affidavit.

  5. The learned counsel for the applicant, during the course of the arguments, vociferously submitted that Recruitment Rules of the year 1990 do not apply because the 5th CPC report granting parity in the scale of Superintending Engineer in SSB with that of Superintending Engineer in CPWD came in the year 1996. Rather the applicant is governed by the Recruitment Rules of 2000. He strongly pleaded that he has accepted the pay scale and only seeks replacement scale granted in the 6th Pay Commission.

  6. Respondents have filed counter affidavit denying all the points raised in the OA. They claim that the services of the applicant are governed by Special Service Bureau (Engineering Service) Recruitment Rules, 1990 which provided the post of Superintending Engineer the scale of Rs. 3700-5000 (in the pre-revised scale) corresponding to Rs. 15600-39100 with GP of Rs. 7600 in PB-3 in accordance with the recommendations of the 6th CPC.

  7. The respondents also submit that the applicant cannot legitimately seek parity with other organizations or with the CPWD on the ground that they have been set up under different rules, their working norms and other conditions differ and their job requirements are also different. Hence, there is no parity that can be drawn with Superintending Engineer of the CPWD. The respondents claim that they are following the statutory Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The respondents have also submitted statement showing comparison between the charter of duties of Superintending Engineer (SSB) and Superintending Engineer (CPWD) and submitted that they are vastly different and no comparison can be enforced (Annexure R-1 of the paper book).

  8. The applicant has filed a rejoinder application rebutting the points raised in the counter affidavit.

  9. The respondents have filed additional affidavit restating by and large the points raised in their counter affidavit. They have also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT