Original Application No. 35/HP/2013. Case: Savita Devi Vs Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application No. 35/HP/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.K. Sharma and For Respondents: Sanjiv Sharma |
| Judges | Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A) and Brahm A. Agrawal, Member (J) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 |
| Judgement Date | August 14, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A), (Chandigarh Bench)
-
This O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
8 (i) Quash Order No. 400103/Est. dated 16th July 2012 passed by the respondents whereby representation of the applicant for allowing her to exercise fresh option has been rejected and her case has been ordered to be closed and quashing thereof.
(ii) Issue directions to the respondents to allow the applicant to exercise fresh option and then fix her pay correctly by giving benefit of one increment w.e.f. 01.6.2001 and also grant benefit of ACP taking into consideration his fresh option.
-
Averment has been made in the OA that the applicant joined respondent department as LDC on 2.2.1997 and was promoted on 13.6.1998 as UDC with next date of increment as 1.6.1998. The applicant was granted second financial upgradation under ACP Scheme in next pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 (pre-revised) w.e.f. 01.2.2001 vide order dated 19.3.2001. Her basic pay as on 01.2.2001 was Rs.4800/- with next date of increment as 01.6.2001 and the office fixed her pay straightway w.e.f. 01.2.2001 at minimum of the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 i.e. at Rs.5000/- without giving her an opportunity to exercise her option. Pay of the applicant was not fixed as per laid down procedure i.e. under FR 22 (I) (a) (1) resulting in recurring loss of one increment since 01.6.2001 and this anomaly came to her notice on fixation of her pay under 6th Central Pay Commission during 2008, when she came to know that her junior s pay had been fixed higher than her. It is further stated that action of the respondents in passing impugned order dated 16.7.2012 (A-1) whereby representation of the applicant for allowing her to exercise fresh option has been rejected and her case has been ordered to be closed, is illegal and arbitrary and direction is required to be issued to the respondents to allow the applicant to exercise fresh option and then fix her pay correctly by giving benefit of one increment w.e.f. 01.6.2001 and also grant benefit of ACP taking into consideration her fresh option inter alia on the following grounds:-
(i) Any option can only be exercised after passing order of promotion or grant of ACP etc. In the present case orders for grant of second financial upgradation under ACP Scheme to the applicant w.e.f. 01.2.2001 were issued on 19.3.2001 and therefore option for fixation of pay was required to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial