ORDER

By Kumar Rajesh Chandra, AM:- By way of filing this Original Application, the applicant is not challenging any particular order but is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents in revising the pension of the applicant to his detriment by snatching the benefit of promotion granted to the applicant way back under re-structuring policy meant for the cadre of Artisan staff. The applicant also prayed to restrain the respondents to initiate any recovery or revise his pension and asked for direction to release the amount of leave encashment immediately along with interest in delayed payment.

2. The case of the applicant is that the applicant is an ex- serviceman and has served in Indian Army on the post of Upholsterw.e.f. 17.03.1976 and after rendering his services has retired fromArmy Services on 28.04.1998. Thereafter, the applicant through proper channel was appointed under ex-serviceman quota in thepresent department on the same post of Upholster w.e.f.01.04.2003. The applicant after reaching the age of superannuationhas retired on 30.11.2016. however, the applicant’s retiral dueswere delayed and were released in the month of October, 2017 i.e. after a delay of 11 months. The applicant and his wife has made several representations, but to no avail. The applicant’s leave encashment has been withheld due to the proposed revision of the pay of the applicant. The applicant after knowing about the inaction on the part of the respondents has preferred series of representations raising his objection which is marked as Annexure A-5. The applicant has also received certain communications from the department authorities either in response to his representations or public grievance raised by applicant’s wife. Copy of all such documents showing the same are marked as Annexure A-6. A bare perusal of the same would show that, it has been accepted by the respondents that, the process of reviewing his earlier promotion granted as HS-I under the restructuring scheme notified by Govt.

of India vide notification dated 20.05.2003 is already taken place and a decision has been taken by the DPC to review the same. All the actions have been initiated behind the back of the applicant and no opportunity of hearing has been granted to him.

3. The respondents have filed their reply to the Original Application, wherein it has been submitted by the respondents that the applicant joined on the post of Upholster under ex-serviceman quota on 01.04.2003 with basic pay Rs. 3050/-. During 6th Pay Commission, his basic pay was revised to Rs.

6060/- with grade pay Rs. 1900/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, in August 2010 a fresh pay fixation proforma was raised by grantinghim promotion as Upholster (HS) w.e.f. 20.05.2003. Therefore,his basic pay was refixed to Rs. 4000/- in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 from the date of promotion i.e. 20.05.2003.Thereafter, his basic pay was revised to Rs. 7820/- w.e.f.01.01.2006 along with grade pay of Rs. 2400/- as per 6th CPC. Further, his basic pay has been refixed to Rs. 8370/- with gradepay of Rs. 2800/-. Further, in terms of the policy dated18.03.2011 his basic pay was re-fixed to Rs. 12710/- with gradepay of Rs. 4200/-. Accordingly, on implementation of 7th PayCommission, his basic pay was re-fixed to Rs. 43600/- w.e.f.01.01.2016. The applicant got superannuated on 30.11.2016. Later on, this matter was brought into notice when a Misc.

Application No. 910/2017 with Contempt Petition was filed by Shri Kannan and 5 others in which seeking direction of Hon’ble Tribunal for furnishing relevant record pertaining to review DPC proceeding. Hence all related documents pertaining to DPC of Artisan cadre was forwarded. From these documents it was revealed that Artisan Cadre employees under probation period was granted promotion benefits under one time relaxation clause is in violation of rules and policy. Then, HQ vide letter dated13.02.2018 directed to review all the cases wherein one time relaxatio