1

IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH.

O.A. NO. 1113 /HR/2013

1.

Satpal Singh, IDAS ACDA (Retd), S/o Sh. Faqiar Chand, aged 63 years, resident of H.No. 874, Sector 9, Panchkula.

2.

H.S. Sodhi, IDAS ACDA (Retd), aged 63 years, resident of H.No. 613, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh

3.

Darshan Lal, IDAS ACDA (Retd), resident of H.No. 65/16, Sector 9, Badala Road, Kharar.

4.

Surinder Singh. IDAS ACDA(retd), resident of H.No. S-10, Sector 127, Greater Mohali, Kharar.

5.

Nar Singh Das, IDAS Jt.CDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 2161/1, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

6.

T.S. Verma, IDAS Dy.CDA(Retd), resident of S-10, Sector 127, Greater Mohali Kharar.

7.

R.P. Mittal, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of Flat No. 102, G.H.7, Sector 20, Panchkula.

8.

S.R. Bhardwaj, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 459/2, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.

9.

Surinder Mohan, IDAS Dy.CDA(Retd) resident of H.No. 416, Badal colony, Zirakpur.

10.

Vir Singh,IDAS Dy.CDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 11, Harmilap Nagar, Baltana (Pb.)

11.

D.S. Dheer, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of D-505, Ivory Towers Sector 70, Mohali.

12.

Phool Chand, IDAS ACDA(Retd) resident of Village Moujgarh, P.O. Barara, Distt. Ambala.

13.

R.K. Singh, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of Thakur Niwas, Near Paradise INN Wakna Ghat, Distt. Solan (HP).

14.

Dip Chand Gupta, IDAS Dy.CDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 778, U.E., Phase I, Patiala.

15.

Balbir Singh, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of VPO Ratangarh, Distt. Rup Nagar (Pb.)

16.

Dharam Singh, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 1309, Sector 10, Panchkula.

17.

Dharminder Dutt, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of 5C Green View Apartment, Badal Colony, Zirakpur (Pb.)

18.

Didar Singh, IDAS Dy. CDA(Retd), resident of H.No. 501A, Street No. 9, Ghuman Nagar, Patiala (Pb.)

19.

Paramjit Singh, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of H.No. G-128, Govind Nagar, Model Town Patiala (Pb.

20.

R.S.Seraik, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of Sunview, Opposite Durga Mandir, Engine Garh, Shimla (HP).

21.

Vijendra Pal Bansal,IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of House No 38 A/14, Savitiri Enclave, Zirakpur (Pb).

22.

L.P. Naithani, IDAS ACDA(Retd), resident of House No 213, NK Sharma Road, Badal colony, Zirakpur (Pb). Applicants Versus

1.

Union of India through Secretary to Govt., Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.

2.

Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road, Delhi Cantt. 110010 Respondents APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985. RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH DETAILS OF APPLICATION 1. PARTICULARS OF ORDER AGAINST WHICH

APPLICATION IS MADE This application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against office order No. ANI/1381/TRK/Rep. dated 25.4.2013 and another Order No. ANI/1381/TRK/Rep Dt. 25.04.2013 copies enclosed as ANNEXURE A-1, collectively vide which the claim of applicant No 1 & 2 for extending them the benefit of judgment in the case of Sh. T.R.

Krishnamurty and others and Vs. Union of India (OA No. 35/2009) dated 26.04.2010, copy enclosed as ANNEXURE A-2, which has been upheld by Honble Madras High Court in WP (c) no. 23816 of 2010, copy enclosed as ANNEXURE A-3, has been rejected by respondent No 2, stating that such benefit has been granted to only those who have got court orders in their favour and same cannot be extended to other officers automatically. The copy of both representations dt. 20.03.2013, filed by applicant no. 1 & 2 are enclosed as ANNEXURE A-4 collectively.It is respectfully submitted that present applicants are similarly situated to applicant in OA No. 35/2009 decided through ANNEXURE A-2 and as per law laid down by Honble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Sharma Vs.

Union of India reported as 1997 (3) SCT 341, applicants are also entitled to same benefits and it is the duty of respondents to grant the them similar benefit being similarly situated otherwise the action of respondents will amount to violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

2.

JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL

That applicants declare that the subject matter of the order against which they want redressal, is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

3.

LIMITATION That applicants further declare that the application is within

limitation

period

as

prescribed Act,

under

Section

21 are

of

the

Administrative

Tribunals

1985.

Applicants

suffering

recurring cause of action.

4. i)

FACTS OF THE CASE That all the applicants are aggrieved by same cause of action

against the same respondents and are praying for similar relief and therefore to avoid multiplicity of litigation they are filing the instant OA jointly. ii) That applicants are retired officers as per the detail given

hereunder and have served the respondent no. 2 on various posts such as Auditors, Section Officer (Accounts), Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer, Sr. Account Officer and Assistant Controller of Defence Account (JTS) ,Dy. Controllers and Jt. Controllers of Defence Accounts. The relevant service profile of each of the applicants as hereunder:-

Sr. No. 1.

Name of Applicant Satpal Singh

Date of Appointment As auditor 15.07.1975

Date of Promotion As ACDA 09.10.2009

Date of Retirement 31.03.2010

Office from Which Retired PCDA(WC)

2. 3. 4.

H.S. Sodhi Darshan Lal Surinder Singh

02.12.1974 03.05.1973 01.06.1974

02.02.2009 01.10.2007 13.08.2009

31.01.2010 31.01.2010 30.04.2012

PCDA(WC) PCDA(WC) AO(P) Himank

5.

Nar Dass

Singh 11.01.1974

17.12.2003

30.06.2012

PCDA(WC)

6. 7. 8.

T.S. Verma R.P. Mittal S.R. Bhardwaj

20.08.1971 21.11.1973 18.04.1960

23.10.2008 29.07.2009 28.06.1996

31.10.2011 31.07.2011 30.04.1997

AO(P)Deepak PCDA(WC) PCDA(WC)

9.

Surinder Mohan

21.11.1970

18.05.2005

31.10.2010

IFA(WC)

10. 11. 12.

Vir Singh D.S. Dheer Phool Chand

26.03.1964 01.04.1974 23.01.1974

13.08.1997 28.06.2002 26.06.2008

31.07.2002 30.06.2002 28.02.2011

PCDA(WC) PCDA(WC) PCDA(BR)

13. 14.

R.K. Singh Dip Gupta

11.06.1974

01.01.2011 29.06.1998

20.02.2011 30.09.2004

PCDA(WC) PCDA(BR)

Chand 15.09.1963

15. 16.

Balbir Singh Dharam Singh

21.08.1971 14.03.1973

01.07.2008 11.07.2008

30.04.2009 30.04.2011

PCDA(WC) PCDA(WC)

17.

Dharminder Dutt

05.04.1973

12.05.2010

31.07.2011

PCDA(WC)

18.

Didar Singh

21.11.1973

17.05.2005

30.04.2010

PCDA(WC)

19.

Paramjit Singh

22.06.1974

01.07.2010

30.04.2013

PCDA(WC)

20

R.S.Seraik

21.05.1974

02.01.2011

30.04.2011

CDA(PD)s

21

Vijendra pal 27.02.1967 Bansal

28.11.2003 31.07.2006 IFA(AF) 3BRD Chandigarhs

22

L.P.Naithani 22.10.1964

12.01.2004 31.08.2006 PCDA(WC)

iii)

That applicants were recruited as Auditors in Defence

Accounts Departments. The promotion to the next post i.e. Section Officer (Accts) is based on qualifying the departmental SAS exam. Comprising of 11 papers held in three parts spread out over a period of two years and comprising of a very vast syllabus of civil services and Defence Service Regulations, Office Manuals, Book keeping with elements of cost Accounting, Precis Noting and Drafting and Information and Technology. Successful clearance of S.A.S. Examination is a difficult process to go through and crack. The examination is conducted on all India basis. Thereafter, the Section Officers are promoted as Asst. Accounts Officer. Further promotion from AAO (Asstt. Accounts Officer) is to Accounts Officer and thereafter as Sr. Accounts Officer. Only very few candidates get promotion from the post of Sr. Accounts Officer to Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts (ACDA) in the cadre of IDAS in

Junior Time scale, who are directly given the Charge of Group

Officer of various sections. The duties and responsibilities of all these posts are contained in Annexure-I to para 367 of office Manual Part-I, enclosed as ANNEXURE A-5.

vi)

That the recruitment to ACDA (Asstt. Controller of Defence

Accounts) in the cadre of IDAS in Jr. Time Scale is made partly from GP B Officers i.e. Sr. Accounts Officers and partly by direct entry of I.D.A.S. through U.P.S.C. The direct entrants discharge their duties as ACDA I/C (Appendix-I) to para 367 of office Manual Part-I) for a period of 2 to 3 years. Thereafter they are promoted as Dy. Controller of Defence Accounts in the pay scale of 1560039100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3 ( revised wef. 01.01.2006) whereas the ACsDA in Jr. Time Scale of IDAS promoted from the post of Sr. Accounts Officer are placed in the pay scale of 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs. 5400/-in PB-3 despite having put in more than 30 to 35 years of service and

despite the hard fact that they are straightway given the charge of Group Officers with duties and responsibility quite higher than those of Sr. Accounts Officers, as almost 3 to 4 Accounts Officers/Sr. Accounts Officers serve under them. Since they have already served as Accounts Officers/Sr. Accounts Officer for more than 6 to 8 years as such they are given the direct charge of Group Officers contrary to the direct entrants who are to serve as probationers in the Department for two years and function as ACDA I/C of various sections in the Department for a period from 2 to 3 years.

The pay structure of the following posts is given below to justify the demand of the applicants for grant of STS on promotion from Sr. Accounts Officer to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS as already granted to some of the officers on the basis of Hon`ble court`s orders; Sr. No. Period Pay scale of Pay Scale of Pay scale of STS Pay Scale in Sr.AO rupees) (in ACDA IDAS cadre(in rupees) 1 2 3 Wef. 01.01.1986 01.01.1996 8000-13500 8000-13500 01.01.2006 1560039100 Pay 5400 15600Gr 39100 Rs Pay Rs 5400 10000-325-15200 15600-39100 Gr. Pay of Rs 6600 Gr. 2200-4000 2200-4000 in the basis IDAS on of cadre the court`s granted

orders(in rupees) 3000-4500

v)

That from above it would be seen that the pay scales of SR.

AO & ACDA in the cadre of IDAS is same wef. 01.01.1986. On promotion from the post of Sr. Accounts Officer to the post of Asst. Controller of Defence Accounts in the cadre of IDAS, the fixation of pay has been done in the same scale of pay instead of the next higher STS Pay scale given in col. 5 of the above table, despite the fact, that Sr. Accounts Officer after promotion to A.C.D.A. is directly given the charge of Group Officer having 3 to 4 Accounts Officers/Sr. Accounts Officer under him and the duties and responsibilities as a Group Officer are manifold higher than that attached to the post of AOs/Sr. AOs. This existed ground

reality in the department forced the aggrieved officers to knock at the doors of the Hon`ble courts and got court orders in their favour. These cases were decided on the grounds that the Pay of Sr. AO and the next higher scale of JTS is same and on promotion from Sr. AO to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS there was no higher fixation despite the fact that the promotion from SAO to JTS involves higher duties and responsibilities and as such the next higher scale of STS should be given on promotion from the post of Sr.AO to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS. Therefore, the request of the

applicants is genuine and fully justified for grant of Sr. Time Scale pay at the time of promotion from the post of Sr. Accounts Officer to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS and hence they may be granted the STS of pay ie. 10000-325-15200 after 01.01.1996 and pay scale of Rs 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs 6600 in PB-3 after 01.01.2006.

vi)

That similar claim has already been considered by various

benches of Honble Central Administrative Tribunal and decided in favour of similarly placed employees. Applicants were promoted as ACsDA and they served the said posts to the utmost satisfaction of their seniors and have unblemished service record and some of them were even promoted up to the rank of Dy. & Jt. Controller of Defence Accounts.

vii)

That the direct entrants IDAS officers

have to undergo

probation and attain experience of 2-3 years in the Department as Accounts Officer before occupying the post of Group Officer which

10

is directly given to the promotes from group `B`. The direct entrant is promoted within 4 years of service as Dy. Controller of Defence Accounts in S.T.S. who also holds the charge of Group Officer. In this way, the promotes Group Officers reach to this post only at the end of their service. Therefore, the applicants who are directly given the charges of Group Officers cannot be denied the S.T.S of pay as has been given by the Department to some others based on various judgments of various Benches of Honble Central Administrative Tribunals. Therefore the denial of the benefit as stated herein-above will amount to denial of their Fundamental Rights of equality in terms of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A list of those who have retired from the same posts and were granted the S.T.S. after promotion from Sr. A.O. is detailed below to show the disparity meted out to the applicants depriving them of their valuable Fundamental Rights by the respondent no. 2:a) Sh. T.R. Krishnamurthy : The case of promotion from Sr. AO to direct STS was filed vide OA 35 of 2009 in the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal decided Madras in his which favour. was The

respondent no. 2 challenged the decision of Honble Central Administrative Court of Madras by of Tribunal, and was the Madras in the Honble High dismissed decision upholding Honble

Central Tribunal,

Administrative

11

Madras. b) Sh. K.S. Rangaswamy : The case for promotion from Sr. AO to direct STS was filed by the applicant vide OA No. 2356/93 decided and by allowed on 28.11.1994 and the same was Honble Central Tribunal, Administrative

Principal Bench New Delhi in favour of the applicant. c) Sh. P.D. Makkar : The case was filed before the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi vide OA 1100/89 allowed on 25.7.1991 and was also decided applicant. d) Sh. P.K. Jain : The case was filed before the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi vide in OA No. 57/88 of the allowed on 25.7.1991 and was decided applicant. e) Sh. S. Bakirathan : The case was filed before OA on Honble Central Administrative Tribunal 426/1988 Bombay and vide allowed favour in favour of the

25.3.1992 was also decided in favour of the applicant.

viii)

That above persons who were also deprived of their such

valuable rights have approached the various Benches of Honble Central Administrative Tribunal to address their grievances. The Honble Tribunals have decided their claims in their favour by

12

granting them STS scale on promotion from Sr. Accounts Officers to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS, and all the consequential retirement benefits have been given to those officers.

ix)

That the applicant no. 1 & 2 approached the respondent no.

2 through the medium of representations dated 20.03.2013. In response to the said application, the respondent no. 2 vide its order no. AN-I/1381/TRK/Rep., dated 25.04.2013 and no. AN1/1381/TRK/Rep dt. 25.04.2013 same order stating that That issue has been examined and I have been directed to inform you that the benefit extended to Shri T.R. Krishnamurthy & other officers were specifically based orders/directions of the various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal and Honble High Courts in OAs/WPs filed by them and the benefit of the same cannot be extended to other officers automatically. has rejected their claim by an

x)

That impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 has

virtually accepted the claim of the applicants but it has been told that the due benefit cannot be granted because the applicants did not approach the Honble High Court or Honble Central

Administrative

Tribunal,

meaning thereby the applicants are

entitled to the said benefit but they could not be granted benefits because they did not went to the Honble High Court or Honble Central Administrative Tribunal. As such, the applicants are entitled

13

to the said benefits but are being deprived of their valuable Fundamental Rights in wholly illegal and arbitrary manner.

Hence, the present OA.

5. a)

GROUNDS FOR RELIEF WITH LEGAL PROVISIONS Because admittedly, the claim of the applicants is squarely covered by the order dated 26.04.2010, passed by the coordinate Bench of Honble CAT Madras Bench in the case of Sh. T.R. Krishnamurty Vs. Union of India (OA No. 35/2009). The order dated 26.04.2010 has been upheld by the Honble Madras High Court vide its judgment dated 9.9.2011 (WP No. 1/2010) and has also been implemented by the respondents qua, applicant in that case only, whereas applicants, who are similarly placed, have been ignored for benefit of STS Pay scale on the similar pattern. Such an action on the part of the respondents is violative of Fundamental Right of equality to the applicants by virtue of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India.

b)

Because the order passed by the Honble Madras Bench in the case of T.R. Krishnamurty, has been relied upon the various other judgments and similar benefit has also been accorded to many other individuals as detailed in para 4 (vii) of the OA and therefore similar treatment cannot be denied to the present applicants as well.

14

c)

Because,

admittedly,

as

is

evident

from

letter

dated

25.4.2013, respondents are admitting that the category of ACDA has been granted the higher pay scale pursuant to order passed by coordinate benches of this Honble Tribunal and Honble High Court. They had only taken one objection that benefit been granted only to the employees who have approached the court of law and since applicant have not filed any case they are not been granted the similar benefit.

d)

Because it is settled law that once an employee is held entitled to a benefit, to which other similarly situated employees are also entitled to, it shall be extended to all without compelling each one to approach court of law. In this regard reference is made to the judgments of Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. C. Sharma Vs Union Of India (1997(3) SCT, 341) and in the case of Satbir Singh Vs State of Haryana 2000(2) SCT 54.

6.

DETAILS sOF REMEDIES EXHAUSTED That the applicant declares that there is no statutory remedy

available to him, but to move to this Honble Tribunal by filing the present OA.

7.

MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING WITH That the applicant declares that he has not filed any similar

ANY OTHER COURT

case before any Court of Law nor any such petition is pending

15

before any Court of Law, except to which reference has been made above.

8.

RELIEF(S) SOUGHT That in view of facts and circumstances mentioned here-in-

above applicant respectfully prays:-

i)

That both the Impugned orders dated 25.4.2013 (Annexure

A-1) to the extent denying the applicant benefit of STS pay scale in accordance with judgment passed by the Honble Madras Bench of this Honble Tribunal and upheld by the Honble Madras High Court be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

ii)

That respondents be directed to grant the applicants benefit

of STS pay scale i.e. Rs. 10000-325-15200 (revised to PB-3 in the pay band of Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay Rs. 6600/-) to w.e.f. the date they were promoted as ACDAs in the cadre of IDAS with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears of pay fixation with further benefits of revision of their retiral benefits from the date they have been retired from service.

16

iii)

That respondent be further directed to grant the applicants

interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount calculated as per relief no. (ii) in as much as it is the respondent who have denied the aforesaid benefit to the applicants.

iv)

That this Honble Tribunal may also pass any other order in

favour of the applicants which it may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

v)

That costs of the application may also be

awarded in favour

of the applicants.

vi)

That applicants be permitted to file the present original

application jointly.

9.

INTERIM ORDER, IF ANY, PRAYED FOR: NIL

10.

That the applicants desires to have oral hearing at

admission stage through his counsel.

11.

PARTICULARS OF POSTAL ORDER FILED IN

RESPECT

OF APPLICATION FEE

17

i) ii) iii) iv)

No. of Indian Postal Order Date of issue of Postal Order Name of issuing Post Office Post Office at which payable

12. LIST OF ENCLOSURESAs per Index.

VERIFICATION I, Satpal Singh, IDAS ACDA(Retd), S/o Sh. Faqiar Chand aged 63 years, resident of H.No. 874, Sector 9, Panchkula (Haryana), verify that contents of para 1, 4 and 6 to 12 is true and correct as per my personal knowledge and para 2, 3 and 5 is believed to be true on legal advice and that I have not suppressed any material fact.

Place:-Chandigarh Dated: 12.8.2013

Applicant Through

(JAGDEEP JASWAL & N K BHANDULA) ADVOCATES COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

18

IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH O.A. NO. 1113/PB/2013 Satpal Singh and others Versus Union of India & ors. INDEX Sr. No 1. 2. 3. 4. List of Events and Dates Original Application Annexure A-1 (Office Orders) Annexure A-2 (Honble 12.08.2013 12.08.2013 25.04.2013 C.A.T. 26.04.2010 A-C 1-17 18-19 20Particulars of Documents Dated Pages Respondents Applicant

Madras Bench Order) 5. Annexure A-3 (Honble Madras 09.09.2011

High Court Judgment) 6. 7. Annexure A-4 (Representations) Annexure A-5 (Duties and 20.03.2013 _

Responsibilities) 8. Power of Attorney 02.08.2013

Place:-Chandigarh Dated:- 12.08.2013 (JAGDEEP JASWAL & N K BHANDULA) ADVOCATES COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

19

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS Sole question involved in the instant OA is whether

applicants can be denied benefit of judgment in the case of Sh. T.R. Krishnamurty & ors. and Vs. Union of India (OA No. 35/2009) dated 26.04.2010(A-2), upheld by Honble Madras High Court in WP (C) no. 23816 of 2010(A-3) by stating that such benefit has to granted to only those who have got court orders in their favour and same cannot be extended to other officers automatically, especially when applicants are also similarly situated.

Applicants (Accounts),

are

retired

officers

and

have

served Officer,

the Sr.

respondent no. 2 on posts such as Auditors, Section Officer Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Account Officer and Assistant Controller of Defence Account (JTS) ,Dy. Controllers and Jt. Controllers of Defence Accounts. Their relevant service profile is given in para 4(ii) of OA.

Applicants after being recruited as Auditors were promoted as Section Officer (Accts), Asst. Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Sr. Accounts Officer. Very few candidates get promotion from the post of Sr. Accounts Officer to Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts (ACDA) in the cadre of IDAS in Junior Time scale, who are directly given the Charge of Group Officers of various Sections. The duties and responsibilities of all these posts are contained in Annexure-I to para 367 of office Manual Part-I(A-5).

Recruitment to ACDA (Asstt. Controller of Defence Accounts) in the cadre of IDAS in Jr. Time Scale is made partly from GP B Officers i.e. Sr. Accounts Officers and partly by direct entry of I.D.A.S. through U.P.S.C. The direct entrants discharge their duties as ACDA I/C (Appendix-I) to para 367 of office Manual Part-I) for a period of 2 to 3 years. Thereafter they are promoted as Dy.

20

Controller of Defence Accounts in the pay scale of 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3 ( revised wef. 01.01.2006) whereas the ACsDA in Jr. Time Scale of IDAS promoted from the post of Sr. Accounts Officer are placed in the pay scale of 1560039100 with grade pay of Rs. 5400/-in PB-3 despite having put in more than 30 to 35 years of service and despite the fact that they are straightway given the charge of Group Officers with duties and responsibility quite higher than those of Sr. Accounts Officers, they having already served as Accounts Officers/Sr. Accounts Officer for more than 6 to 8 years. It is contrary to the direct entrants who are to serve as probationers in the Department for two years and function as ACDA I/C of various sections in the Department for a period from 2 to 3 years. The pay scales of Sr. AO & ACDA in the cadre of IDAS are same w.e.f. 01.01.1986. On promotion the fixation of pay is done in the same pay scale instead of the next higher STS Pay scale, despite the fact, that Sr. Accounts Officer after promotion to A.C.D.A. are directly given the charge of Group Officer having 3 to 4 Accounts Officers/Sr. Accounts Officer under him and the duties and responsibilities as a Group Officer are manifold higher than that attached to the post of AOs/Sr. AOs. This forced the aggrieved officers to knock at the doors of the Honble courts and get court orders in their favour. Various cases have been decided in favor of the similarly situated employees like Sh. T.R. Krishnamurthy Vs UOI & ors. (OA 35 of 2009) before Honble C.A.T., Madras Bench which has also been upheld in Honble High Court of Madras., Sh. K.S. Rangaswamy Vs UOI & ors. (OA No. 2356/93) allowed on 28.11.1994 by Honble C.A.T. Principal Bench, New Delhi, Sh. P.D. Makkar Vs UOI & ors. (OA 1100/89) allowed on 25.7.1991 by Honble C.A.T. Principal Bench, New Delhi, Sh. P.K. Jain Vs UOI & ors. (OA No. 57/88) allowed on 25.7.1991 and in Sh. S. Bakirathan Vs UOI & ors. (OA 426/1988) allowed.

Above persons who were also deprived of STS pay scale and the Honble Tribunals have decided their claims in their favour by

21

granting them STS scale on promotion from Sr. Accounts Officers to ACDA in the cadre of IDAS, and all the consequential retirement benefits have been given to those officers. Applicant no. 1 & 2 submitted representations dated 20.03.2013 claiming similar relief but their claim has been rejected stating that benefit extended to Shri T.R. Krishnamurthy & other officers were specifically based orders/directions of the various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal and Honble High Courts in OAs/WPs filed by them and the benefit of the same cannot be extended to other officers automatically. This is clearcut violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constituion of India. Impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 has virtually accepted the claim of the applicants but it has been told that the due benefit cannot be granted because the applicants did not approach the Honble High Court or Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, meaning thereby the applicants are entitled to the said benefit but they could not be granted benefits because they did not went to the Honble High Court or Honble Central Administrative Tribunal. As per law laid down by Honble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India reported as 1997 (3) SCT 341, applicants are also entitled to same benefits and it is the duty of respondents to grant the them similar benefit being similarly situated otherwise the action of respondents will amount to violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

Hence the present OA. Place:-Chandigarh Dated:- 12.08.2013 (JAGDEEP JASWAL & N K BHANDULA) ADVOCATES COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT