Shankar Ram And ANR v. Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WP.CT/59/2023 Shankar Ram and another Vs.
Union of India and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Ms. Vinita Devi ... for the petitioners Mr. Tulsi Lall ... for the Union of India Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the Administration November 23, 2023 [SR] Item No.1 1.
We have heard Mr.Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tulsi Lall, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel for the Administration.
2.
The writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 25th September, 2023 in OA/351/00510/2017 in which the writ petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to grant the first Financial Upgradation under the MACP Scheme to the applicant as PB-2 Rs.9300-34800/- with G.P. Rs.4200/- and to grant first financial upgradation at the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- instead of Rs.4200/- by modifying the order No.1370 dated 12.04.2013. 3.
Indisputably, similarly circumstanced employees had approached the Tribunal by filing OA/351/00396/2017 and
the said application was disposed of by the Tribunal on 18th November, 2001 in which, inter alia, it is held that :- "6. The issue that cropped up for determination is whether the upgraded Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- ought to be made effective from 01.01.2006 when the Pay Commission's recommendation was effected for all the Central Government employees or it should be effected from the date when the Ministry of Human Resource Development issued its order agreeing to extend the Grade Pay to PETs i.e. on 20.01.2016.
7. We have already noticed that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has in no clear terms observed that an anomaly, which has arisen during revision of pay scales is to be corrected, the date of effecting of such correction would be from the date of anomaly has arisen and not from the subsequent date when the correction was made.
We have further noted that the PETS of other UTs are enjoying Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f 01.01.2006 and, therefore, there is no reason why the present applicants or the members of the applicant's association would be put to a greater disadvantage as compared to their counterparts in other UTs.
Accordingly, we would dispose of the O.A with a direction upon respondent no.1 to consider the grievance of the applicants in the light of the decision rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court and to grant the benefits w.e.f the 01.01.2006 as granted to the PETs of other UTs, if nothing stands in the way, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The O.A accordingly stands disposed of. No costs." 4.
For the sake of brevity, we may reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajbir Singh and others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others decided on 31.01.2009 reported in (2009) 156 PLR 206.
"9. Irrespective of our aforesaid determination (on a perusal of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners), we have no hesitation to uphold the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so as to conclude, that in
case of an anomaly, which had arisen during the revision of pay scales, the correction thereof, to be with effect from the date when the anomaly had arisen. In other words, if a pay scale wherein the anomaly had arisen was released from 1.1.1986, it is bound to be corrected from 1.1.1986, and not with effect from the date when the anomaly was discovered, or prospectively with effect from a date of the choice of the employer. Even the learned counsel for the respondents acknowledges the correctness of the aforesaid proposition. The basis of our conclusion recorded hereinabove arises out of a simple premise. Once it is acknowledged that a mistake has been committed, whereby an anomaly has arisen, the mistake has to be remedied in such a manner, that the aggrieved party does not have any adverse effect of the mistake/anomaly.
This would be possible if an anomaly in pay scales is corrected retrospectively with effect from the date when the anomalous pay scale was introduced. On the other hand, if the mistake/anomaly is corrected from a future date, the concerned individual will have to suffer the effect of the anomaly, from the date it had arisen, till the date it was remedied. The latter determination would be iniquitous and unacceptable in law as it would not be able to stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which postulates equality before the law and equal protection of the laws."
5.
The aforesaid decision clearly shows that an anomaly, which has arisen during revision of pay scales is to be corrected, the date of effecting of such correction would be from the date of anomaly has arisen and not from the subsequent date when the correction was made. The said finding stands applicable as the petitioners are in any way responsible for the anomaly and they cannot suffer for the mistake committed by the respondent authorities. 6.
It is manifestly clear from the pleadings that the writ petitioners are similarly placed as the applicants in OA/351/00396/2017 and it is trite law that a person similarly circumstanced shall be entitled to similar benefits.
7.
In fact the order passed on 18.11.2021 in the previous application has been affirmed by the High Court on 20th September, 2023 in WP.CT/7/2023 in which the order of the Coordinate Bench has held that - "We do not find that the Physical Education Teachers in the other UTS stand on the different pedestal that of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and, therefore, the uniformity or similar treatment is a hallmark of the Constitutional ethos which cannot subverted at the level of the executive fiat.
The Tribunal ultimately held that the decision to give effect from 20.1.2016 is an act of discrimination with the similarly circumstanced people holding that the identical post in the other UTs and directed the equal treatment to be extended to the Physical Education Teachers in these islands.
We, therefore, do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs." 8.
The said order has attained finality.
9.
The petitioners being able to establish that they are similarly placed and circumstanced to the applicants in OA/351/000396/2017 are entitled to similar benefits and there was no requirement for fresh consideration by the respondent no.4. The Tribunal has also arrived at a finding that the present writ petitioners are similarly circumstanced to the applicants in OA/351/000396/2017.
10.
Under such circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition by allowing the prayer "b" & "c" of the OA/351/000396/2017.
The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from date.
11.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 12.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
( Soumen Sen, J. ) ( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )