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

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 15875

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjay Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dept Of Atomic Energy – Respondent
O.A./484/2020



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH (Circuit Sitting at Vijayawada)

OA No. 020/484/2020 th HYDERABAD, this the 19 March, 2025 Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member Hon’ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member Between:

Sanjay Singh, S/o Shri Layak Singh, aged 44 years, Scientific Officer 'F', ESS, BARC, Anu Vihar, Mekarasi Hills Maduturu Sub P.O., Visakhapatnam-531011(AP).

R/o F No. 201 DNo. 24-2-12/3, Sri Balaji Paradise, Vinayak Nagar, VUDA Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-530026 Andhra Pradesh. ...Applicant (By Advocate Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar)

And

1. Union of India, rep by its Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy [DAE], Anushakti Bhavan, C. S. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 (Maharashtra).

2. Director, BARC Trombay, Mumbai-400 085 (Maharashtra)

3. Project Director, BARC Anu Vihar, Mekarasi Hills, Maduturu Sub P.O.

Visakhapatnam - 531011 (AP). ...Respondents (By Advocate:Mr.V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.PC for CG)

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon’ble Dr.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

By this original application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

“To declare Office Memorandum No.4/4/2011- SCS/Vol.VI/5157 dt.03-08-2020 issued by the 1 Respondent to the extent of contrary to the spirit and letter of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 18.01.2007 in respect of W.P. (C) Nos. 29358, 29710 & 31525 of 2004 as arbitrary, illegal and void and being contrary to the presidential Order dated 03.02.1999 in its true spirit and by nullifying the same direct extend the two additional increments as contemplated by the Presidential order and as directed by the judicial dicta with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts, in a nutshell, are that the applicant joined Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), DAE, GOI, Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, on 18.08.1999, as Scientific Officer 'C' in the pay scale of 8,000-275-13,500/- as per the V Pay Commission Recommendations, and promoted to Scientific Officer 'D' w.e.f. 01.08.2002 (10,000-325-15,200), then to Scientific Officer 'E' w.e.f. 01.08.2007 (12,000-375-16,500), and then to Scientific Officer 'F' w.e.f. 01.07.2014 (14,300-400-18,300). He belongs to Group-A Cadre. The Cabinet, in its meeting held on 26.10.1998, approved grant of two additional increments for Scientists / Engineers (recruitees /promotees) in pay scales of Rs.10,000-15,200/-, Rs.12,000-16,500/-, Rs.14,300-18,300/- and Rs.16,400- 20,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996, after their normal pay fixation. Accordingly, the Department issued an OM No. 1/2/99-SCS/113 dated 03.02.1999. The same /similar scheme was also implemented in Department of Space (DOS). The DAE and DOS, did not consider these two additional increments as part of pay for all purposes. Aggrieved by the stand of DOS, some Scientists / Engineers from DOS, challenged the decision in WP(C) Nos. 29358, 29710 and 31525 of 2004, before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, and in WP No. 207/2012, before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand. While deciding the WP (C) Nos. 29358, 29710 & 31525 of 2004, the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 18.01.2007, Para 7, has observed, as under:

"The engineers working in grade SD, SE, SF, SG etc. may have the required minimum qualification or might have acquired higher qualification. The additional increments granted to them as per paragraph 2 of Ext.P1 are not the qualification that they possess but ‘to attract, retain, inspire and motivate the scientists / engineers to give their best contributions’, as discernible from that order. Paragraph 1 of Ext.P1 specifically deals with special pay. Necessarily, the additional increments so granted will not come within the expected payments like special pay or pay granted in lieu of his personal qualifications. It is on the other hand a payment sanctioned for the post held by the writ petitioners substantively and it is a payment to which the

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