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

2022 Supreme(Gau) 518

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
R.M. CHHAYA, SOUMITRA SAIKIA, JJ.
The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board - Appellants
Versus
Shri Ramesh Chandra Boro – Respondent
WP(C) No.4768 of 2020
Decided on : 28-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. B. Pathak, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Choudhury, Advocate.

Point of Law : Respondent would not be entitled to any upgradation in pay as held by Tribunal.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Tenure of service - Benefit of MACP in Grade Pay - Power of High court to issue certain writs - Respondent was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk with petitioner Board in North Eastern Region. record indicates that on completion of tenure of service, respondent was granted benefit of 1st MACP in terms of Government of India’s Office Memorandum - Respondent on basis of such benefit accrued was granted benefit of 1st MACP in Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- instead of Grade Pay of Rs.2,500/- It was grievance of respondent that he should have been granted Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-in Pay Band of Rs.5,200 – 20,200/-. However, same was denied - Certain anomalies on implementation of MACP Scheme have been brought to notice of Joint Committee in various meetings of Joint Committee, Union of India and DoP&T to consider same as they deem it appropriate and take a decision in accordance with law (Para 6).

Findings of the Court: Having considered submissions made and on perusal of impugned judgment & order passed by Tribunal, it is found that Tribunal has heavily relied upon judgment of Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in (supra) and its own judgment in (supra) and on that very basis, Tribunal has been pleased to allow Original Application filed by respondent - Respondent would not be entitled to any upgradation in pay as held by the Tribunal. In light of aforesaid, even direction issued by Tribunal to consider case of respondent/original applicant deserves to be interfered with.

Result : Writ petition allowed

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment & order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No.040/00189/2015, the petitioners/respondents before the Tribunal has preferred this writ petition.

2. The following notes of the facts can be culled out from the record of this petition. The sole respondent herein was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 28.09.1996 with the petitioner Board in North Eastern Region. The record indicates that on completion of tenure of service, the respondent was granted benefit of 1st MACP in terms of the Government of India’s Office Memorandum No.35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19.05.2019. The respondent on basis of such benefit accrued was granted the benefit of 1st MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- in Pay Band-1 of Rs.5,200 – Rs.20,200/-instead of Grade Pay of Rs.2,500/-in the Pay Band-1 of Rs.5,200 – 20,200/-with effect from 01.09.2008. It was the grievance of the respondent that he should have been granted Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-in the Pay Band of Rs.5,200 – 20,200/-. However, the same was denied.

3. The petitioners herein filed their written statement and contended before the Tribunal that the respondent herein is not entitled to such benefits under the Scheme. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, by the impugned order, allowed the Original Application by relying upon the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in Original Application No.1038/CH/2010 in the case of Raj Pal -Vs-Union of India & Ors., which was affirmed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Apex Court and also relying upon the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati passed in Original Application No.75/2013 in Rajini Kanta Deka -Vs-Union of India & Ors., which was also came to be affirmed by the High Court of Meghalaya. The Tribunal was pleased to direct the petitioners herein to decide the present issue in accordance with the aforesaid decisions after examining the case of the respondent and if found similarly situated, similar benefits be granted to the respondent. The Tribunal also provided in the impugned judgment & order that the respondent would be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-which is the Grade Pay of the promotional post of UDC. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is preferred.

4. Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

5. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken this Court to the factual matrix arising out of this petition and has submitted that the respondent is not entitled to the financial benefits, as prayed for in the Original Application. Mr. B. Pathak further contended that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. -Vs-M.V. Mohanan Nair, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 421 as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 20.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4751/2020. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the judgments, which are relied upon by the Tribunal is not a good law and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) contended that the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in Raj Pal (supra) and Rajini Kanta Deka (supra) is not a good law and the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the same and has come to the conclusion that the respondent would be entitled to Grade Pay Rs.2,400/-and also the benefit of upgradation of pay. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Pathak has contended that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment & order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment & order

    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