SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 4522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Anjana Dutta – Respondent
W.P.(C) 8297 of 2018, CM APPL. 8436 of 2020
Decided On : 12-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC for Union of India.
Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. Tanmay Vashishtha, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation of the designation and pay scale of the respondent in the context of the restructuring of the EDP cadre.

Headnote:

Pay Scale - Central Administrative Tribunal - IV CPC, V CPC - Rs.2375-3750, Rs.7500-12000 - The court discussed the pay scale granted to the respondent, the re-designation as 'Civilian Programmer', and the implications of the restructuring of the EDP cadre. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration based on relevant government orders and a previous judgment.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent was initially appointed as 'Civilian Assistant Programmer' and was granted various pay scales over the years. She filed a petition seeking correct pay scale and ACP benefits, which was rejected by the petitioners. The Tribunal allowed the OA and directed the petitioners to grant the respondent the appropriate pay scale and benefits.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal did not consider the designation of the respondent as 'Civil Programmer' and the effect of the post being an isolated post. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent was entitled to the designation of 'Programmer' with a scale of Rs.2375-3750 and the implications of the restructuring of the EDP cadre.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal did not correctly consider the designation given to the respondent and the effect of the post being an isolated post. It directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue based on relevant government orders and a previous judgment.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging the order dated April 5, 2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.3379/2012 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein by stating as under:

    "11. In our view, the respondents made a mistake while granting her the scale of Rs.2375-3500 instead of Rs.2375- 3750, which was applicable to all Programmers. This was the first mistake. Based on this, again they placed the applicant in the replacement scale of Rs.7450-11500 after the V CPC whereas the Programmers in the EDP cadre were all granted Rs.7500-12000. The error was, therefore, compounded.

    There is no ground for denying the applicant the scale of Rs.2375-3750 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and Rs.7500-12000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It is clear that all the IV CPC recommendations were implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and, therefore, the grant of revised pay scale to the applicant from 11.09.1989 is also clearly incorrect.

    12. In the above background, we allow the OA and quash and set aside order dated 19.01.2010 with a direction to the respondents to grant to the applicant pay scale of Rs.2375- 3750 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and Rs.7500-12000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances as well as grant the ACP benefits to the applicant from the due dates, i.e., 1st ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.10500-15200 (as this is the pay scale of Senior Programmer in the hierarchy) and the second upgradation w.e.f. 02.05.2007 (on completion of 24 years of service) in the next promotional pay scale of Rs.12000-16500 in the EDP structure. This order of the Tribunal should be implemented by the respondents within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs."

2. The facts as noted from the petition are that the respondent was appointed as `Civilian Assistant Programmer' in Automated Data Processing Cell of Central Ordinance Depot on May 02, 1983 through the Union Public Service Commission in the pay scale of Rs.650-1200. It is a conceded fact that the post of the respondent was an isolated post.

3. When the 4th Central Pay Commission (`CPC', for short) recommendations were implemented, the pay of the respondent was fixed at Rs.2,180 in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 by replacing/substituting the pay scale of Rs.650-1200. On implementation of 5th CPC recommendations, the respondent was granted pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. January 01, 1996, which was replacement scale of Rs.2000-3500.

4. Pursuant to the 4th CPC recommendations, the pay structure and designations for all the Electronic Data Processing (`EDP', for short) posts were re-organized to bring rationalization in all Central Government as well as semi-Government organizations. As a result of such restructuring and based on Seshagiri Committee's Report, vide letter dated July 26, 2006, of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, the respondent was re-designated as `Civilian Programmer' w.e.f. September 11, 1989 and she was granted the pay scales of Rs.2375-3500 (pre-revised) w.e.f. September 11, 1989 and Rs.7450- 11500 (revised) w.e.f. January 01, 1996. The pay scale of Rs.7450- 11500 was the revised/substituted scale of Rs.2375-3500.

5. Suffice to state, the respondent initially in the year 2008, filed the Original Application being O.A. 670/2008 seeking a direction against the petitioners herein to correctly fix her pay in the pay scale of Rs.2375-3750 w.e.f. January 01, 1986 and then fix her pay in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 w.e.f. January 01, 1996 with all consequential benefits. She had also sought that after fixing her pay correctly, she be granted the benefits of two Assured Career Progression Scheme (`ACPs', for short) due to her w.e.f. August 09, 1999 and May 02, 2007, in the next promoti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top