MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT ON WRIT PETITION FILED IN
HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH/ ERNAKULAM.
Dear friends,
Shri Umesh Chandrakar of Bhubaneswar has informed that three SLP
have been filed by DOPT in Supreme Court recently vide SLP No.10435
of 2014, 10436 of 2014 & 10791 of 2014 after dismissing the case by
Punjab & Haryana High Court on November, 2013.
The writ petition filed by the Government in Ernakulam Bench of Kerala
High Court also dismissed.
Copy of the judgments of High Court of Punjab
& Haryana & Kerala High Court Ernakulam Bench are given below:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.24278 of 2013
Date of Decision: November 07, 2013
Union of India and another .................Petitioners
versus
Smt.Reeta Devi and another ..............Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, for the petitioners.
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition
Nos.24253, 24278 and 24279 of 2013 as common questions of
law and facts and involved in these cases.
For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil
Writ Petition no.24278 of 2013.
The order dated 22.05.2013 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in OA
No.12/CH/2013 is under challenge in this writ petition. Vide
the said order, the Tribunal has accepted the claim of 1st
respondent for the grant of MACP w.e.f. 1.9.2008.
A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal
unveils that the OA was allowed following an earlier decision
dated 9.5.2013 rendered in OA No.821/CH/2012 which, in turn,
was allowed on the basis of yet another decision dated
31.05.2011 passed in OA No.1038/CH/2010 (Raj Pal versus
CWP No.24278 of 2013 & connected cases [2]
Union of India and others.
It is not in dispute that the order passed by the
Tribunal in Raj Pal's case (supra), was challenged before this
Court in CWP No.19387-CAT of 2011 which was dismissed by a
Co-ordinate Bench vide a self-speaking order dated
19.10.2011. The Special Leave Petition preferred by Union of
India against that order was also declined by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court though being barred by limitation.
For the reasons already assigned by this Court in
Raj Pal's case (Supra) we do not find any merit in this writ
petition.
Dismissed.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
[SURINDER GUPTA]
JUDGE
November 07, 2013
Mohinder J
IN THE KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL
B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
MONDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/3RD ASHADHA, 1935
OP (CAT).No.
2000 of 2013 (Z)
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 816/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
======================
PETITIONERS:
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION
DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL & TRAINING, NEW DELHI-110011
2. THE PRPINCIPAL REGISTRAR
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
PRICIPAL BENCH
61/35, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW
DELHI-110001
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
CENTRAL ADMINITRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, KALOOR,
KOCHI-682017
BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG
OF INDIA
RESPONDENT:
----------------------
M.V MOHANAN NAIR
S/O.M.R.VISHWANATHAN NAIR, PHOTO
COPIER
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
COHCIN-682017, R/A.LAKSHMI GEETH, P
O MARAVANTHURUTHU
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DIST-686608
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
THIS OP
(CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-06-2013, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP
(CAT).No. 2000 of 2013 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1:-
TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO 816/2012 ALONG WITH ITS
ANNEXURES FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIOENRS IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO
816/ OF 2012
EXT.P3:-
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/1/2013 IN OA NO 816/2012 OF THE CERNTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL , ERNAKULAM
EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY FO
THE MACP SCHEME NO 35034/3/2008-ESTT(D) DATED
19/5/2009
EXT.P5:-
TRUE COPY OF THE OLD ACP SCHEME
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL
// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE
SD
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
....................................................................
OP(CAT) No.2000 of 2013
....................................................................
Dated
this the 24th day of June, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
Raj Pal, Ved Prakash and
the respondent herein-
M.V.Mohanan Nair are Photocopiers in different Benches of
the Central Administrative Tribunal and are borne in the
same seniority list.
2. Raj Pal, at an earlier point of time, raised the issue as
to
parity for
Photocopiers with Hindi Typists, Lower Division
Clerks etc. That
went in his favour. The challenge to that
was also turned
down by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court. Thereafter,
issues came regarding the application
for ACP Scheme.
That also was agitated before the Central
Administrative
Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High
Court by Raj Pal.
Ultimately, that issue also went in his
OP(CAT) 2000/13 favour. We have perused the elaborate judgment
by the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP
No.19387 of 2011
(O & M).
3. Later, when Ved Prakash raised the same issue, the
Department,
essentially, conceded that the question raised
by Ved Prakash is
covered in his favour by the ratio in Raj
Pal's case and Ved
Prakash's claim was conceded and
ordered on consent.
4. The
respondent, a Photocopier in
the Central
Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, raised claim at
par with what was
granted to Ved Prakash and Raj Pal. The
establishment
contented that Ved Prakash was senior to Raj
Pal, and therefore,
entitled to treatment at par with Raj Pal;
however that, the
respondent herein is junior to both of
them, and
therefore, disentitled to treatment at par. The
Tribunal pointedly
addressed this issue and noticed that
OP(CAT)
2000/13 Raj Pal was decided not on any question of
seniority but
because, grant of
higher pay scale was to be on the basis of
the incumbent
having completed the requisite years of
service under the
MACP Scheme. Thus, the Central
Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench noticed that Raj
Pal was not decided
on any ground of seniority; nor was
Ved Prakash given
the benefit of Raj Pal's case on any
principle of
seniority. The crux of the issue as noticed by
the Ernakulam Bench
of the Tribunal was that grant of
higher pay scale
was purely on the basis of the incumbent
having completed
the requisite years of service under the
MACP scheme. The Tribunal applied that principle in the
case of the
respondent herein also and has accordingly,
allowed the
original application, also noticing that in terms
of the
pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court of
India in
Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, [2000 (1)
SCC 644], the
decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the
Tribunal has to be
duly respected OP(CAT) 2000/13
5. Having regard to the aforesaid, we do not see that the
Tribunal has acted
contrary to the provisions of the MACP
Scheme. We also do
not see that Ved Prakash and Raj Pal
were wrongly
applied in deciding the case of the
respondent. We,
therefore, see no jurisdictional error or
legal infirmity in
the impugned decision of the Tribunal,
warranting interference at
the instance of
the
establishment, that
too, in exercise of authority under
Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
In the result, this
original petition is dismissed in limine.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Just yesterday,i.e. on 8.8.2014 the Supreme Court of India in SLP(Civil)(CC) 8271 of 2014 and SLP(Civil) No.10791 of 2014 has condoned delay in filing the SLPs, Issued notice and also stayed the operation of both of the above judgments of High Court of Kerala and High Court of Punjan and Haryana,Chandigarh. Similarly, two more SLPs bearing No.10435 and 10436 of 2014 are scheduled to be listed on 22.8.2014 and further likely to be tagged with the cases listed yesterday before the Supreme Court of India. It would therefore, be advisable if final verdict of Supreme Court in these cases is awaited before filing any other case of similar nature before any other court. Otherwise, it will only be wastage of hard earned money.
ReplyDelete