The denial of centrally governed financial benefits to an employee, while extending the same to similarly situated counterparts, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory action violating the constitutional mandate of equality, regardless of the departmental differences.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

In the present O.A. the applicant seeks protection under the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 16, 20, and 39(d), relating to equality before law, equal opportunity in public employment, protection against double jeopardy, and equal pay for equal work.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 03.11.1979 in the Department of Industrial Development (Now, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion). After qualifying a shorthand test, he was appointed as Stenographer Grade ‘D’ on an ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 01.01.1981 and subsequently on a regular basis w.e.f. 28.04.1982 through a departmental competitive examination.

2.1. Over the course of his service, the applicant served in various departments on deputation, including the Directorate General of Technical Development, Law Commission of India, and Election Commission of India, and was later reverted to the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion.

2.2. He was granted financial upgradations under the ACP scheme, including the 1st ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and 2nd ACP w.e.f. 28.04.2006. His pay was also revised as per applicable pay commission rules.

2.3. The applicant was promoted as Personal Assistant in 2010 but faced medical issues and sought re-nomination in the vicinity of Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. As a result of which he was debarred for regular promotion for three select list years (2007, 2008 & 2009).

2.4. He had earlier submitted a representation before the respondent no. 2 for stepping up of his pay to the level of his junior, which resulted in stepping up of his pay up to Rs. 13860 w.e.f. 01.07.2006.

2.5. Thereafter, he made multiple representations in 2013 seeking grant of 3rd ACP w.e.f. 28.04.2012 (due date). However, no action was taken, and his ACP was allegedly deferred.

2.6. The applicant contends that similarly placed employees in the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation were granted the 3rd ACP from the due date without application of the “Defer Period Rule,” whereas his case was treated differently. He alleges that this amounts to violation of Article 16 (equality in public employment) and also constitutes “double jeopardy” under Article 20, as he was denied both promotion and subjected to deferment of financial upgradation for refusal for promotion that too due to his medical conditions.

2.7. Due to the delay in granting the 3rd ACP, the applicant claims to have suffered significant financial loss. Having exhausted all available remedies, he has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-

(i) To grant 3rd ACP to the Applicant, CSL No. 170/1982 (Annexure 'C') in the hierarchy of post (as provided in the ACP Scheme). There is a huge gap in the Pay and Allowances of the Applicant and those of his similarly placed counterparts, viz., Smt. Baljeet Johar, PA and Smt. Jagmohan Kaur Vohra, PA in Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.

(ii) To grant arrears of revised pay from 28.04.2012 to 31.10.2013 (Date of Retirement);

(iii) To revise Last Pay Drawn and accordingly revise Basic Pension, Commuted Pension Amount, Gratuity Amount and any other consequentials, and pay arrears of all Retirement Benefits (as on 31.10.2013) and arrears of Monthly Pension (w.e.f. 01.11.2013);

(iv) To pass any other Order(s) as deemed fit and proper in view of the circumstances of the case;

(v) To