Original Application No. 1194 of 2008. Case: Ram Dhyan Singh Vs Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOriginal Application No. 1194 of 2008
CounselFor Appellant: Dr. G.S.D. Mishra and For Respondents: Ajay Singh
JudgesS.S. Tiwari, J. (Member (J)) and B. Bhamathi, Member (A)
IssueAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19
Judgement DateJuly 02, 2014
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


S.S. Tiwari, J. (Member (J)), (Allahabad Bench)

  1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following relief(s): -

  2. That the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 8.5.2008 passed by the Respondent no. 2;

  3. That the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the applicant/s pay scale and pension according to the Government Order dated 22.9.1992 after fixing pay of the applicant in promotional grade of Senior Accounts Officer w.e.f. 1.7.2002 and further prayed that the respondent may be directed to release the entire dues which is liable to pay by the respondents w.e.f. 1.7.2002 with relevant rate of interest and fixed the pension accordingly.

  4. The brief facts (for the present purpose) are that the applicant joined as L.D.C. in the Department of Defence Accounts in Pay Accounts Office (other ranks) 58 Gorakha Regiment Center, Dehradun under the command of Controller of Defence Accounts (O.R.S.) Mysore and served up to 03.05.1963. Subsequently, he was transferred from Dehradun to Pay Accounts Office, Bihar Regiment Center, Danapur under the command of C.D.A. (O.R.S.) North Meerut and again he was transferred from Danapur to Controller of Defence Accounts (P) at Allahabad where he served up to 21.07.1978. The applicant after serving the department at various places superannuated from the office of respondent No. 4 as Accounts Officer on 31.01.2003.

  5. By means of present O.A., applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 08.05.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the representation made by the applicant, pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.03.2008, has been arbitrarily and illegally rejected. In the aforesaid representation, applicant had claimed parity with the applicant of O.A. No. 1366/1998 Jagat Narain Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 07.04.2004 by this Tribunal. The respondent No. 2 without making any reference to the aforesaid Order in the impugned order rejected the claim of applicant. Since the respondents did not give the benefit of the ratio laid down in the case of Jagat Narain Singh (supra) to the applicant, present O.A. has been filed.

  6. The respondents in their Counter Affidavit have denied the averments made by the applicant, justifying the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 alleging that the Recruitment Rules of Senior Accounts Officer of Defence Accounts department notified vide S.R.O. No. 68 dated 25.02.1997 prescribes that the Accounts Officer with regular three years service in the grade may be promoted to Senior Accounts Officer's grade. Due process of promotions, as mentioned in the Government Order dated 22.09.1992, involves adjudication of the eligible officers by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short D.P.C.) which has to act according to the guidelines as enumerated in D.O.P & T O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt. (D) dated 10.04.1989. The respondents have implemented the Govt. Order dated 22.09.1992 and promotions have been given to the eligible officers based on the recommendations of D.P.C. No officer was promoted to the grade of Senior Accounts Officer without...

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