Kendriya Vidyalaya v. Swaminathan S. And ORS

\L\% NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR w.P.(S) No. 1037 of 2013 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Hqrs.,18, lnstitutional Area Shahid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi through Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyaiaya Sangathan Regional Office, Raipur Kendriya Vidyaiaya No.2, Raipur Campus Sec-iv, Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar P.S.

Civil Lines RaipurDistrict Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

', 1.

Swaminathank S. Slo Shri D. Sadasivam, aged about 50 years, at present, RIO 751, 'A' Construction Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.) .

Union of india, The Secretary, Ministry of HRD, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 3.

The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan GCF State, Jabalpur (MP) ---- Respondents Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Petitioners None For Respondent Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board Per Navin Sinha, Acting Chief Justice 05/03/201 5 1.

Despite sufficient opportunities for appearance to Respondent No.1, no one appears on his behalf and neither is he present in person. 2.

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, in Original Application No.464/2008 dated 19-5-2011 has erred by directing

W7 grant of pay~scale at Rs.5500-9000 under the ACP Scheme to Respondent No.1 from 9~8-1999.

It is submitted that O.M. dated 9-8-1999 was issued by the Department of Personnet and Training, primarily applicable to Centrai Government Employees.

Respondent No.1 had joined the Petitioner institution, an autonomous body, on 27-1-1994. He was not an employee of the Central Government.

The Petitioner by a resolution adopted O.M. dated 9-8-1999 with effect from 12-10-2000, Respondent No.1 is entitled to the benefits of the ACP Scheme from the latter date and not the former which may be available to employees working under the Central Government only. The-Tribunal has erred in granting the benefit to Respondent No.1 from 9-8~ 1999'

instead of 12-10-2000.

,No other issue has been urged for our consideration.

4.

We have considered the submission.

The Tribunal has'opined that the order passed by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the earlier application filed by Respondent No.1 had attained finality after the writ petition filed against it had been withdrawn.

We have gone through the earlier order in Original Application No.216/2004. No counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Petitioner.

The Tribunal in any event only noticed the claim ofthe Respondent No.1 that he fulfilled the conditions of O.M. dated 98-1999 for grant of ACP.

Directions were issued to consider the representation within a period of three months.

There was no direction by the Tribunal to grant ACP from any particular date. The benefit of the ACP Scheme has not been denied to Respondent No.1, but only that it had to be granted from the date that the Petitioner adopted the Scheme. 5.

In conclusion, we find it difficult to uphold the impugned order granting the benefit of ACP Scheme to the Respondent No.1, an employee of the Petitioner, an autonomous organisation, from 9-8-1999.

We hold that

\égé Respondent No.1 is entitled to the benefit of the same only from 12-10-2000. The order under challenge is set aside.

The writ petition is allowedi Sdli SdlChief Justice R sam KOShy Gopal Acting Jadge