2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 17907
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rishi Kumar Satnami And Ors – Appellant
Versus
M/o Defence – Respondent
O.A./860/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH Circuit Sitting Indore Original Application No.200/00860/2017 Indore, this Friday, the 20th day of December, 2024 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SMT MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Rathram (deceased) represented through Legal Heir
1a. Rishi Kumar Satnami, age 46 years, S/o Late Rathram
1b. Santosh Kumar Satnami, Age 41 years, S/o Late Rathram
1c. Smt. Janki Bai, age 58 years, W/o Late Rathram All R/o House No. 1469/1 Uday Nagar, Vehicle Factory Road, Jabalpur – 482009 MP - Applicant (By advocate- Shri J B Singh V e r s u s
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production, New Delhi 110001
2. Director General Ordnance (Co-ordination & Services)
Directorate of Ordnance 10-A, SK Bose Road Kolkata – 700001
3. The General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur – 482011
4. The Principal Controller of Accounts (Factories), 10-A, SK Bose Road Kolkata – 700001
5. Chairman and Managing Director, Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Limited, Kalpi Rd, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 208009 - Respondents (By Advocate – Shri D S Baghel)
O R D E R(Final)
By Mallika Arya, AM:-
This Original Application has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of Respondent no. 3 in not paying arrears of higher pay and allowances and consequential retirement benefits based on the second ACP and third MACP benefits granted to the applicant
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Durwan in 24/10/1977 under Respondent No.3. He was subsequently promoted to Jamadar Durwan in 1998 and to Subedar Durwan on 01/07/2005 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, vide Factory order dated 01/07/2005 (Annexure A/1). Consequent on merger of the pay scale of Durwan, Jamadar Durwan and Subedar Durwan into a single scale of pay in PB-I with GP Rs. 1800/- from 1/1/2006 on the basis of the recommendation of 6th CPC, the earlier promotions given to the applicant were wiped out. However, after implementation of the revised pay scale, applicant was granted the benefit of first, second ACP and third MACP from 1/9/2008 in GP Rs. 1900/-, Rs.2000/- and Rs.2400/- respectively vide factory order dated 04/2/2010 (Annexure A/2). These benefits were subsequently revised by granting first ACP in GP Rs.2400/-, Second ACP in GP Rs.4200/-in PB-2 and third MACP in GP Rs.4600/-in PB-2 from 01/1/2006 and 1/9/2008 respectively vide Factory Orders dated 6/10/2014 (Annexure A/3 & A/4). However, applicant has not been given the financial benefits consequent on placing him in these higher pay bands with higher grade pay till date. Applicant retired from service on 30/4/2017 with pay in PB-1 with GP Rs.2400 whereas it should have been in PB-2 with GP Rs. 4800/- as per orders of Respondent No.3. When the arrears of pay and allowances of the said revised ACP and MACP benefits were not paid to the applicant, he made a representation on 3/8/2015 and 28/2/2016 (Annexure A/5 and A/6). In reply to these representations, officials under Respondent No.3 replied that the matter had been taken up with Respondent No.2 for proper action and as and when the reply is received from them, necessary action would be taken on subject matter as informed vide letter dated 08/3/2016 (Annexure A/7). However, when no positive response was received from the Respondents, applicant again represented on 20/10/2015 requesting to release the arrears of pay and allowances and the higher pensionary benefits (Annexure A/8). Despite completing 4 years after passing the above order, respondents have not issued any order releasing the arrears of higher pay and allowances and refixation of pension and other retirements benefits. Respondent No.4 vide their office order dated 12/06/2014 and 17/11/2014 (Annexure A/9 and A/10) have denied the benefits to applicant, which is contrary to existing instructions/policy on the subject matter under dispute. Respondent No.3