07/11/SH NEWS

The next date of hearing on the upgradation of Grade Pay of LDC in CAT Jabalpur will be decided after submission of the documents sought by the CAT. The date of next hearing on the SLP filed against MACP on promotional hierarchy in Supreme Court is 09/08/2017

Flash message

Saturday, May 31, 2014

DRAFT COMMON MEMORANDUM OF PENSIONERS & DRAFT SECTIONAL MEMORANDUM ON POSTAL PENSIONERS 

Please  click here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0rqvSYMJv2IbjMxM0ZwRUdFa3M/edit
Extension of last date of submission of Memoranda to 31/07/2014
Please Click here:
http://7cpc.india.gov.in/news.html
Revision of format for OBC Caste Certificate 
Please click here:
http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02adm/36036_2_2013-Estt-Res_30052014.pdf

Recommendation of Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Compassionate Appointment - DoPT Called for Information

CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02est/41013_1_2013-Estt-D-.pdf

Administrative Tribunals (Procedure for appointment of Members) Amendment Rules, 2014

http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02adm/A-11013_17_2012-AT-21032014.pdf
Mahendra Kumar Dubey S/o Sh. R.D. Dubey Vs Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH

OA No.1798 of 2014
New Delhi, this the 22nd day of May, 2014

HONBLE SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE SHRI SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A)

Mahendra Kumar Dubey, aged 58 years,
S/o Sh. R.D. Dubey,
Working as Programme Executive,
In Doordarsan Kendra, Delhi
r/o 7.94, Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi.
.Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri  Yogesh Sharma)

versus
1.            Union of India through the Secretary,
                Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
                Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.            The Chief Executive Officer,
                Prasar Bharti, PTI Building, Parliament Street,
                New Delhi-110001.

3.            The Director General,
                All India Radio, Akashvani Bhawan,
                New Delhi-110001.

4.            The Director General,
                Directorate General of Doordarsan,
                New Delhi-110001.
5.            The Director, Doordarsan Kendra,
                Prasar Bharti, Doordarsan Kendra,
                Doordarsan Bhawan, Coppernicus Marg,
                New Delhi-110001.

.Respondents
ORDER (ORAL)
SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) :

                The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
(i)            That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2013 and order dated 12.7.2010 (Annex.A/1 & A/2), declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not granting financial upgradation under ACP/MACP scheme to the applicants in the hierarchical pay scale/grade pay of the post, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequentially pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to grant the benefits of first financial upgradation under AC scheme w.e.f. 11.8.2003 in the scale of Rs.8000-13500 and second financial upgrdation MACP scheme w.e.f. 11.8.2011 to the applicant in the scale of PB-III + GP 6600 as per hierarchical grade pay, in the light Honble Tribunal judgment date 31.05.2011 passed by the Honble Chandigarh Bench in OA No.1038/CH/2010 in the case of Rajpal Vs. Union of India, upheld by the Honble High Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2011 and benefit of judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar & Ors. Versus Union of India, in OA No.904/2012 decided by the CAT Principal Bench New Delhi vide judgment dt. 26.11.2012, with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances with interest.
That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order, declare the OM/MACP scheme dated 19.05.2009 as unconstitutional only to the extent the same deny the next promotional scale attached to the promotion post as 1st, 2nd & 3rd financial upgradation, and also granting financial upgradation in the same Grade Pay, as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant.
2.            According to the applicants counsel, this case is squarely covered by the Order of this Tribunal in OA No.988 of 2014  Pradeep Kumar and others vs. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and others dated 21.3.2014. The relevant part of the said Order reads as under:-
3.            According to the Applicants, the case is squarely covered by an Order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.1038/CH/2010 Rajpal son of Shri Tilak Ram v. Union of India & others where it was held as under:-
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the documents on record.
12. There is no dispute that the applicant is holding the post of Photocopier, which is an isolated post, having no avenues for promotion.  It is also not disputed that the post held by the applicant had been declared equivalent to the post of LDC/Hindi Typist etc. by the Tribunal as well as the High Court by judicial pronouncements in matters of grant of ACP, which have attained finality and stands implemented also.     Accordingly, applicant was granted Ist ACP (under the old ACP) w.e.f. 9.8.99 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. 
13. It has also been settled that the ACP would be granted on completion of the required years of service in the hierarchy of posts for the posts of LDC/Hindi Typists, and not in the next higher scale in the recommended scales.   The same principle would have to be applicable in regard to grant of MACP to the applicant.   The only difference is that while  in case of ACP two financial upgradations were granted  on completion of 12 and 24 years of service, in case of MACP, three upgradations on intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. 
14. The respondents have placed reliance on para 13 of the MACPS, which reads as under:
13. Existing time-bound promotion scheme, including insitu promotion scheme, Staff Car Driver Scheme or any other kind of promotion scheme existing for a particular category of employees in a Ministry/Department or its offices, may continue to be operational for the concerned category of employees if it is decided by the concerned administrative authorities to retain such Schemes, after necessary consultations or they may switch-over to the MACPS.  However, these Schemes shall not run concurrently with the MACPS.
Reliance has further been placed on  decision  taken  in the second meeting of the Joint Committee on MACPS held under the Chairmanship of the joint Secretary  DoPT was circulated.   Item No.3 of the Agenda for the said meeting reads as under:
The MACP Scheme provides for placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay after 10,20 and 30 years of service.  On the other hand the earlier ACP Scheme provided for placement to higher pay scale of the next promotion post in the hierarchy of the pay scale after 12 and 24 years of service taken from date of induction in service.
15. Be that as it may, the principle enunciated and settled by the Tribunal/High Court for grant of ACP   cannot be changed and the same principle would apply for grant of MACP to him. The only difference is of number of years required to be completed.  We find no justification to take a different view in the matter.
16.   For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 9.8.2010, (Annexure A-1)qua the applicant, fixing his pay in PB-1 with grade pay of FR 2400/- under the second MACP,  and the order dated  10.8.2010 (Annexure A-2 ) are hereby quashed and set aside.  Consequently,  the respondents are directed to grant second financial   upgradation to the applicant   under the  MACPS   from  due date fixing  his pay  in the hierarchy of posts decided in his case earlier and to pay the resultant arrears without interest, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
 17. The OA stands disposed of in the above terms.  No costs.
4.            The respondents have challenged the aforesaid order before the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP NO.19387/2011 decided on 19.10.2011. The Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that there was no infirmity in the aforesaid order passed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal. The relevant observations of the said order are extracted hereunder:
Upon implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the scale of Rs.3050-4590/- was kept in pay band-I, Rs.5,200-20,200/- with grade  pay of Rs.1,900/-, the scale of Rs.4,000-6,000/- was also kept in pay band-I with grade pay of Rs.2,400/- and the scale of Rs.5,500/-9,000/- was kept in pay band-II in pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800/- with grace pay of Rs.4,200/- increased to Rs.4,600/-. In terms of MACP Scheme, respondent no.1 was granted the lower scale by keeping in pay band-I of Rs.5,200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs.2,400/-.  This was done in terms of order dated 09.08.2010.  Accordingly, respondent No.1 approached the CAT contending that he is entitled to be granted the scale of Rs.5,500-9000/- towards the 2nd Financial Upgradation at par with the post of Hind Typist and LDC.  Such claim of respondent No.1 has been upheld by the CAT in the impugned order dated 31.05.2011.
5.            Later on the Honble Supreme Court has also dismissed the petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC No.7467/2013) filed by the Government and upheld the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.19387/2011 (supra).
6.            The learned counsel for Applicants has also submitted that this Bench allowed O.A. No.904/2012 - Sanjay Kumar, UDC & others v. Union of India & others vide order dated 26.11.2012 following the directions given by the Chandigarh Bench. The relevant part of the said Order reads as under:-
7.            In our considered view, the present OA is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of Chandigarh Bench, as upheld by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
8.            In fact, the respondents have wrongly interpreted the terms and conditions mentioned in the MACP Scheme, issued by the Deptt. of Personnel & Training, in the case of the applicants. By the said Scheme, the eligible government servants are to be placed in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay and not merely in the next higher scale of pay as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.  In the hierarchy after the scale of UDC, the next scale is that of Assistant. Therefore, the respondents should have given the next higher grade pay and pay band attached to the next promotional post  in the hierarchy, namely, the Assistants carrying the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 and the grade of Rs.4200/-. 
9.            In view of the above position, this OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant scale of pay of Rs.9300-34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- attached to the said promotional post of Assistant/OS from the due date to the applicants.
10.          The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within the period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the other conditions mentioned in the MACP Scheme.
7.            In another O.A. No.864/2014 - Shri Om Prakash & others v. Secretary (NCERT) decided by this Tribunal, the following directions were issued:-
3.            In our considered view, once an order has been passed by this Tribunal and it has also been upheld at the level of the Supreme Court, there is no question of waiting for an approval from any Govt. department for implementation of the same. The respondents, therefore, should have considered the representations of the applicants on merits.
4.            In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with the direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants in the light of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.19387/2011 (supra) as upheld by the Apex Court in SLP (CC) No.7467/2013 (supra) and decide their cases under intimation to them. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
8.            In view of the above position, we dispose of this Original Application with the same directions as given by us in O.A. No.864/2014 (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.
4.            He has also submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid Order, this Tribunal again disposed of OA No.864/2014  Shri Om Prakash and others vs. Secretary (NCERT) and others decided on 12.3.2014. the relevant part of the said order is also reproduced as under:-
2.            The applicants have, therefore, filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:-
(a)          To declare the action of the respondents in not granting the scale of Rs.9300-34800 (PB-2) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 as given to similarly placed persons to the applicants as illegal and arbitrary.
(b)          To direct the respondents to grant scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 as 1st financial upgradation to the applicants under MaCP from due date with all arrears of pay.
(c)           To declare the OM/MACP dated 19.05.2009 as unconstitutional to the extent the same deny the next promotional scale attached to the promotion post as 1st, 2nd & 3rd financial upgradation as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
3.            In our considered view, once an order has been passed by this Tribunal and it has also been upheld at the level of the Supreme Court, there is no question of waiting for an approval from any Govt. department for implementation of the same. The respondents, therefore, should have considered the representations of the applicants on merits.
4.            In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with the direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants in the light of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.19387/2011 (supra) as upheld by the Apex Court in SLP (CC) No.7467/2013(supra) and decide their cases under intimation to them. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
5.            In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with the direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicant in the light of the aforesaid judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.19387/2011 (supra) as upheld by the Apex Court in SLP (CC) No.7467/2013 (supra) and decide his case under intimation to him. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
6.            Along with the copies of this OA, the Registry shall also send copies of the OA to the respondents for their consideration.

(SHEKHAR AGARWAL)                                             (G. GEORGE PARACKEN)
       MEMBER (A)                                                                     MEMBER (J)


/ravi/     

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Confederation/JCM (Staff Side) should consult DoP&T to avoid litigation for granting MACP on promotional hierarchy-Readers.

Dear friends,

You are aware that several cases have been filed in various courts on the issue of granting MACP on promotional hierarchy so far and got positive verdict. But except in the case of the staff of Chandigarh CAT none of these decisions have been considered by the DoPT for implementation. In this context, we have been receiving comment/letter from the readers regularly. The comments on the subject, received from Shri L L Satya Narayana, New Delhi is published below:

-TKR Pillai

Sir,

I would like to bring the following few points for your kind notice:
This is regarding implementation of judgment on MACP in the hierarchy of promotions.
On MACP, the Hon'ble High Court had given stay in UOI Vs Sanjay Kumar & Ors(WP(C) No. 4662/2013).
Even though, DOP&T is a party in many CAT Cases, the point is not bring to the notice of the Hon'ble CAT.
So many cases are filed or being filed on this issue in the Hon'ble CAT.
Employees of the different departments are filing different cases. Instead it should be settled at JCM level.
When we status through RTI, DOP&T is giving reply that the Judgment given by the CAT, Chandigarh is personal to the applicant.
How can DOP&T say the judgment is personal to a particular applicant? 
It shows the malicious attitude of the DOP&T. DOP&T is expecting that every affected party go the CAT and bring the order for implementation. 
It is requested that the Associations, Confederation and JCM may consult at DOP&T to avoid these litigations.

Regards
L L Satyanarayana
DPA Grade_B
National Crime Records Bureau,
East Block-7, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi - 110 066

GRANTING MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY-CASE NO. 1493/2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench


OA 1493/2014
New Delhi, this the 1st  day of May,  2014

Honble Shri Ashok Kumar, Member (A)
Honble Shri Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)


1.            Indian Ordnance Factories Gaztted Officers
                Association through its President, Shri Brajesh
                Kumar Singh,
                S/o Late Shri Ram Datt Singh,
                Serving as Junior Works Manager,
                Small Arms Factory, Kanpur,
                Resident of 330, C-Block, Swaraj  Nagar,
                Panki, Kanpur-208020

2.            Iftikhar Jilani, Aged 47 years
                S/o Shri A.R.Khan
                R/o C-8/5, New Type-III
                Ordnance Factory Estate
                Raipur Dehradun-248008

3.            Man Mohan Garg, Aged 50 years
                S/o Late Shri Prem Chand Garg,
                R/o 46-type-III, North Estate
                Ordnance Factory, Muradnangar-201206

4.            Rishi Raj, Aged-49 Years
                S/o Late Shri Jograj
                R/o C-1/11,  New Type-III
                Ordnance Factory Estate
                Raipur, Dehradun-248008

5.            Shashi Bhushan Chaubey, Aged 46 years
                S/o Shri Srikrishna Chaubey
                R/o ET-24, Middle Road
                Armapur Estate, Kanpur-208009

6.            S.K. Mohd. Israil, Aged-53 Years
                S/o Seikh Dada Miyan
                R/o 59-B Type-III, Sector-3
                Ordnance Factory Chand-442501.
7.            Vivek Mungikar, Aged 50 years
                S/o Shri Vallabh Mungikar
                R/o House No.2-1-467, Street No.6,
                Nallkunta, Hyderabad-500044.

8.            Beeran Singh, Aged 50 Years
                S/o Shri Ratan Lal
                R/o 21-Type-V Bunglow, North Estate
                Ordnance Factory, Muradnagar-2011206.  Applicants

(Advocate: Shri M.K.Bhardwaj)

                                                Versus
UOI & Ors. through:

1.            The Secretary,
                Ministry of Defence,
                South Block, New Delhi.
2.            The Director General,
                Ordnance Factory Board,
                10-A, S.K. Bose Road,
                Kolkata-700001 (W.B.)
3.            The Secretary,
                DOP&T,
                North Block, New Delhi.                        .  Respondents.    
(By Advocate: Shri Rajinder Nischal)
                                       
 Order (oral)
By Honble Sh. Ashok Kumar, Member (A) :-

                MA has been filed under rule 4(5) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together on the ground that the grievances of the applicants are the same and the same identical remedy is being sought by the applicant in this OA.  Having considered the MA and the arguments of Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, counsel for the applicant, MA is allowed.
2.            The grievance of the applicants is against the alleged arbitrary order of the respondents not giving them the Grade of Rs. 5400/- in PB-III, as given to other similarly placed persons appointed as Supervisor/Chargeman (Technical) vide OM dated 19.05.2009.  Applicant has sought the following reliefs in the OA :-
To declare the action of the respondents in not granting the Grade Pay of Rs.5400 and 6600 PB-3 to the applicants as given to similarly placed persons vide order dated 30.07.2011 and 02.04.2012 as illegal and arbitrary.
To direct  the respondents to grant Grade Pay of Rs.5400 and 6600 in PB-3 as 2nd & 3rd financial upgradation to the applicants under MACP from due date with all arrears of pay.              
 To declare the OM/MACP dated 19.05.2009 as unconstitutional to the extent the same deny the next promotional scale attached to the promotional post as 1st, 2nd & 3rd financial upgradation as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
To allow the O.A. with costs.
Pass such other direction or directions order or orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and ends of justice.
3.            Learned counsel for the applicant, Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, argued that the issue involved in this mater has been decided by this Tribunal in OA 988/2014 vide order dated 21.03.2014. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-
7.            In another O.A. No. 864/2014  Shri Om Prakash & Others v. Secretary (NCERT) decided by this Tribunal, the following directions were issued.

3.            In our considered view, once an order has been passed by this Tribunal and it has also been upheld at the level of Supreme Court, there is no question of waiting for an approval from any Govt. department for implementation of the same.  The respondents, therefore, should have considered the representations of the applicants on merits.
In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with the direction to the respondent to consider the representations of the applicants in the light of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 19387/201 (supra) as upheld by the Apex Court in CWP NO. 19387/2011 (supra)  as upheld by the Apex Court in SLP (CC) No. 7467/2013 (supra) and decide their cases under intimation to them.  The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  There shall be no order as to costs.
 Learned counsel states that repeated representations have been filed by the applicants through the Association on 23.05.2011 and the earlier representation dated 31st October, 2013  is placed at Annexure A-12. Individual representation was also made by the applicant on 22.11.2013 for grant of MACP in the hierarchy on promotional basis. Counsel for the applicant submits that since the statutory period for remedy is not yet over, hence in terms of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in Section 20,  the respondents be directed to dispose of the long pending matter and to take a final decision after considering the afore-noted  Order of this Tribunal in OA 988/2014(supra). 
Shri Rajinder Nishcal, counsel for the respondents was also heard.  He submitted that the pending representation of the applicant will be disposed of expeditiously.
 We agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties and accordingly direct the respondents to consider the applicants  representation in the light of the related  instructions and the scheme of MACP, and while doing so shall also keep in view the afore-noted order of this Tribunal.  Respondents shall thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order to be communicated to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  Any consequential action arising out of the aforesaid decision taken by respondents on the representation shall be regulated within a further period of eight weeks from the date of decision. 
OA is disposed of with afore-noted direction.
(Raj Vir Sharma)                                                 (Ashok Kumar)
Member (J)                                                           Member (A)

/sarita/
GRANTING MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY-CASE NO. 988 OF 2014, MA NO. 872 OF 2014

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH

OA No.988 of 2014
MA No.872 of 2014
New Delhi, this the  21st day of March, 2014

HONBLE SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE SHRI SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A)

1.            Pradeep Kumar, AE (C)
                S/o Sh. Mahatma Singh,
                R/o Flat No.115, Plot No.29,
                Swastik Kunj, Sector-13,
                Rohini, Delhi-110085.

2.            Mulkh Raj, AE (C)-P
                S/o Sh. Ram Rakha,
                100/18, Deol Nagar,
                Nakodar Road, Jallandhar,
                Punjab.

3.            Ashok Kumar Doharey, AE (C)-P,
                S/o Shri Late Prasad Dohare,
                R/o Flat No.494, Sector-E/2,
                Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

4.            Prakesh Singh, AE (C)-P,
                s/o Sh. Pat Ram Singh,
                R/o H.No.149A, Dilshad Garden,
                Delhi-110095.

5.            P.K. Gupta, AE (C)-P,
                S/o Late Shri Viswanath Prasad,
                R/o Chhoti Khagaul, Near Haveli,
                Khogaul, Patna 801105.

6.            A. Kalam, AE (C)-P,
                S/o Sh. Abdul Hafiz,
                R/o 19/10, Sector-1,
                Pushp Vihar, M.B. Road,
                New Delhi-17.

7.            Manoj Kumar, AE (C)-P,
                S/o Sh. Rameshwar Sinha,
                R/o Q. No.1348, Type-IV, Sector-12,
                R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022.

8.            Kedar Mandal, AE (C)-P,
                S/o Late Sh. Sukdeo Mandal,
                R/o Chanakya Vihar Colony,
                Barari, P.O. Barai, Distt. Bhagalpur,
                Bihar-812003.

9.            S.K. Sharma, AE (C)-P,
                s/o Late Shri L.P. Verma,
                R/o 149/8, Dr. Gupta Market,
                Flat No.301, Kishangarh,
                Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70.

10.          R.B. Singh, AE (C)-P,
                s/o Late Sh. Raja Ram Singh,
                R/o Karanpur, PO Bariya,
                Distt. Patna, Bihar,

11.          S. Khan, AE (C)-P,
                S/o late Sh. Rashid Khanr,
                Flat No.301, Zeenat Apartment,
                Sama Pura, Rajabazar,
                Patna, Bihar-800014.

12.          D.P. Sharma, AE (C)-P8
                S/o late Shri Ram Kuber Singh,
                R/o Q. No.136, Type-IV, Sector-3,
                Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-49.

13.          Sh. S. Khalko, AE (C)-P8
                S/o late Sh. Ahlad Khalko,
                R/o Vill. Chtarkota, (Barkotol),
                P.O. Pali, PS- Ratu,
                Ranchi, Jharkhand.

14.          Ajay Sahdev, AE (C)-P8
                S/o Late Sh. O.P. Sahdev,
                R/o H.No.B-111, Sector-30,
                1st Floor, Noida-201301.

15.          R.R. Gupta, AE (C)-P8
                S/o Late Sh. Ram Bachan Gupta,
                R/o Nain Bhawan, Kilburn Colony,
                P.O. Binoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002.

16.          Deepak Gupta, AE (C)-P8
                S/o Sh. I.C. Gupta,
                R/o Flat No.12, Shubham Apartment,
                Plot No.37, I.P. Ext. Patparganj,
                Delhi-92.


17.          D.S. Deswal, AE (C)-P8
                S/o Sh. Mehar Singh Deswal,
                R/o 1284, Sector-45, Gurgaon,
                Haryana-133002.

18.          D.K. Pandit, AE (C)-P8
                s/o Late Shri Ram Mulan Pandit,
                R/o Q. No.N-198, Type-IV, Sector-8,
                R.K. Puram, New Delhi-22.

19.          Parveen Sharma, AE (C)-P8
                S/o Sh. Om Parkash Sharma,
                R/o H.No. 164, Pkt-E-18,
                Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi.

20.          R.C. Chaturvedi, AE (C)-P8
                s/o late Shri Lalmani Chaturvedi,
                R/o A-293, Gali No.11, West Vinod Kumar,
                Delhi-92.

21.          Paramjet Singh, AE (C)-P8
                S/o Sh. Gurumukh Singh,
                r/o 11/1403, Malviya Nagar,
                Jaipur, Rajasthan-302017.
.Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri  M.K. Bhardwaj)

versus

1.            Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.            The Director General,
All India Radio, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.

3.            The Chief Engineer (Civil),
Civil Construction Wing, AIR, Soochna Bhawan,
CGO Complex,
New Delhi-110003.                                         
.Respondents

ORDER (ORAL)
SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) :
MA 872/2014
                This MA has been filed by the applicants under Rule 4 (5) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking permission of this Tribunal to join together in a single Original Application.
2.            For the reasons stated therein, this MA is allowed.
OA No.988 of 2014
The applicants in this Original Application are aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents in not granting them the scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100 with Grades Pay of Rs.6600/- and 7600/- as 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations under MACP Scheme from due dates, as given to similarly placed persons/counterparts who were appointed as JE (Civil/Electrical) by following the same method of recruitment and the same rules as applicable to them. They have, therefore, made several representations to the Respondents to grant them also the same benefits but the Respondents have not considered them so far.
2.            They have, therefore, filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:-
(a)          To declare the action of the respondents in not granting the scale of Rs.15600-39100 (PB-3) with Grade Pay of Rs.6600 & 7600 as given to similarly placed persons vide order dated 25.10.2013 to the applicants as illegal and arbitrary.
(b)          To direct the respondents to grant scale of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6600  & 7600 as 2nd & 3rd financial upgradation to the applicants under MACP from due date with all arrears of pay.
(c)           To declare the OM/MACP dated 19.05.2009 as unconstitutional to the extent the same deny the next promotional scale attached to the promotion post as 1st, 2nd & 3rd financial upgradation as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
3.            According to the Applicants, the case is squarely covered by an Order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.1038/CH/2010  Rajpal son of Shri Tilak Ram v. Union of India & others where it was held as under:-
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the documents on record.
12. There is no dispute that the applicant is holding the post of Photocopier, which is an isolated post, having no  avenues for promotion.  It is also not disputed that the post held by the applicant had been declared equivalent to the post of LDC/Hindi Typist etc. by the Tribunal as well as the High Court by judicial pronouncements in matters of grant of ACP, which have attained finality and stands implemented also.     Accordingly, applicant was granted Ist ACP (under the old ACP) w.e.f. 9.8.99 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. 
13. It has also been settled that the ACP would be  granted on completion of the required years of service in the hierarchy of posts for the posts of LDC/Hindi Typists, and not in the next higher scale in the recommended scales.   The same principle would have to be applicable  in regard to grant of MACP to the applicant.   The only difference is that while  in case of ACP two financial upgradations were granted  on completion of 12 and 24 years of service, in case of MACP, three upgradations on intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. 
14.         The respondents have placed reliance on para 13 of the MACPS, which reads as under:
13. Existing time-bound promotion scheme, including insitu promotion scheme, Staff Car Driver Scheme or any other kind of promotion scheme existing for a particular category of employees in a Ministry/Department or its offices, may continue to be operational for the concerned category of employees if it is decided by the concerned administrative authorities to retain such Schemes, after necessary consultations or they may switch-over to the MACPS.  However, these Schemes shall not run concurrently with the MACPS.

Reliance has further been placed on  decision  taken  in the second meeting of the Joint Committee on MACPS held under the Chairmanship of the joint Secretary  DoPT was circulated.   Item No.3 of the Agenda for the said meeting reads as under:
The MACP Scheme provides for placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay after 10,20 and 30 years of service.  On the other hand the earlier ACP Scheme provided for placement to higher pay scale of the next promotion post in the hierarchy of the pay scale after 12 and 24 years of service taken from date of induction in service.
15. Be that as it may, the principle enunciated and settled by the Tribunal/High Court for grant of ACP   cannot be changed and  the same principle would apply for grant of MACP to him. The only difference  is of number of years required to be completed.  We find no justification to take a different view in the matter
16.   For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 9.8.2010, (Annexure A-1)qua the applicant, fixing his pay in PB-1 with grade pay of FR 2400/- under the second MACP,  and the order dated  10.8.2010 (Annexure A-2 ) are hereby quashed and set aside.  Consequently,  the respondents are directed to grant second financial   upgradation to the applicant   under the  MACPS   from  due date fixing  his pay  in the hierarchy of posts decided in his case earlier and to pay the resultant arrears without interest, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
 17. The OA stands disposed of in the above terms.  No costs.
4.            The respondents have challenged the aforesaid order before the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP NO.19387/2011 decided on 19.10.2011. The Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that there was no infirmity in the aforesaid order passed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal. The relevant observations of the said order are extracted hereunder:
Upon implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the scale of Rs.3050-4590/- was kept in pay band-I, Rs.5,200-20,200/- with grade  pay of Rs.1,900/-, the scale of Rs.4,000-6,000/- was also kept in pay band-I with grade pay of Rs.2,400/- and the scale of Rs.5,500/-9,000/- was kept in pay band-II in pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800/- with grace pay of Rs.4,200/- increased to Rs.4,600/-. In terms of MACP Scheme, respondent no.1 was granted the lower scale by keeping in pay band I of Rs.5,200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs.2,400/-.  This was done in terms of order dated 09.08.2010.  Accordingly, respondent No.1 approached the CAT contending that he is entitled to be granted the scale of Rs.5,500-9000/- towards the 2nd Financial Upgradation at par with the post of Hind Typist and LDC.  Such claim of respondent No.1 has been upheld by the CAT in the impugned order dated 31.05.2011.
5.            Later on the Honble Supreme Court has also dismissed the petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC No.7467/2013) filed by the Government and upheld the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.19387/2011 (supra).
6.            The learned counsel for Applicants has also submitted that this Bench allowed O.A. No.904/2012 Sanjay Kumar, UDC & others v. Union of India & others vide order dated 26.11.2012 following the directions given by the Chandigarh Bench. The relevant part of the said Order reads as under:-
7.            In our considered view, the present OA is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of Chandigarh Bench, as upheld by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
8.            In fact, the respondents have wrongly interpreted the terms and conditions mentioned in the MACP Scheme, issued by the Deptt. of Personnel & Training, in the case of the applicants. By the said Scheme, the eligible government servants are to be placed in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay and not merely in the next higher scale of pay as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.  In the hierarchy after the scale of UDC, the next scale is that of Assistant. Therefore, the respondents should have given the next higher grade pay and pay band attached to the next promotional post  in the hierarchy, namely, the Assistants carrying the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 and the grade of Rs.4200/-. 
9.            In view of the above position, this OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant scale of pay of Rs.9300-34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- attached to the said promotional post of Assistant/OS from the due date to the applicants.
10.          The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within the period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the other conditions mentioned in the MACP Scheme.
7.            In another O.A. No.864/2014  Shri Om Prakash & others v. Secretary (NCERT) decided by this Tribunal, the following directions were issued:-
3.            In our considered view, once an order has been passed by this Tribunal and it has also been upheld at the level of the Supreme Court, there is no question of waiting for an approval from any Govt. department for implementation of the same. The respondents, therefore, should have considered the representations of the applicants on merits.
4.            In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with the direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants in the light of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.19387/2011 (supra) as upheld by the Apex Court in SLP (CC) No.7467/2013(supra) and decide their cases under intimation to them. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
8.            In view of the above position, we dispose of this Original Application with the same directions as given by us in O.A. No.864/2014 (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.

(SHEKHAR AGARWAL)                     (G. GEORGE PARACKEN)
       MEMBER (A)                                               MEMBER (J)

/ravi/

ENHANCEMENT OF MONETARY CEILING FOR ISSUE OF SANCTIONS OF MEDICAL CLAIMS - CONFEDERATION WRITES TO GOVERNMENT

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0rqvSYMJv2IN1VZamRfUUZBdTQ/edit

Last date for submission of Memorandum to 7th CPC is 15.07.2014

URGENT/IMPORTANT

LAST DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDUM TO 7TH CPC EXTENDED

As per the request of the JCM National Council Staff side, 7th Central Pay Commission has granted extension of time upto 15.07.2014 (15th July 2014) for submission of memorandum by individual organizations other than JCM staff side. The following is the revised time schedule (Last date).

1.      JCM National Council Staff side                           :           30.06.2014
2.      All other Federations/Unions/Associations          :           15.07.2014

JCM National Council Staff side will be submitting a common memorandum before 30.06.2014 on the common demands of the Central Government Employees. The Copy of the JCM Staff side memorandum will be placed in the website.

All affiliated organizations of the Confederation are requested to prepare their sectional memorandum well in advance and be ready to submit it before 15.07.2014 to the 7th CPC. New Pay scales demanded by the JCM Staff side will be available in the common memorandum of the JCM Staff side.

Confederation National Secretariat meeting will be held on 31.05.2014 at ITEF Head Quarters (Rajouri Garden) at 2 PM as already notified to finalise the common memorandum. (Please note the time change from 11 AM to 2 PM). All National Secretariat members are requested to attend the meeting.



(M. Krishnan)
Secretary General
Confederation

Tuesday, May 27, 2014


Shri Arun Jaitley Assumes Charge as Minister of Finance 

Press Information Bureau 
Government of India
Ministry of Finance 

27-May-2014 16:32 IST

Shri Arun Jaitley Assumes Charge as Minister of Finance 

The newly appointed Union Minister of Finance, Shri Arun Jaitely assumed charge of his office here today. 

After assuming the charge, the Finance Minister was briefed on the key initiatives and policy issues by the Secretaries of the different departments of the Ministry of Finance. 

The Finance Minister also held a meeting with the senior officials of the Ministry to have a first hand information regarding the ongoing issues and the forthcoming challenges facing the Indian economy among others. 

Later during his brief media interaction, the Finance Minister Shri Jaitely said that his priorities would be to tackle inflation, boost economic growth and follow the path of fiscal consolidation among others. 


Source: PIB News

Our comment:

On 21st April 2014, The Hindu has reported that Shri Arun Jaitley demanded to raise the income tax slab from Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. Now Shri Jaitely is the Finance Minister. And the Central Government employees are waiting for his announcement of raising of IT ceiling to Rs. 5 lakhs. Report on this respect published by the Hindu is given below:

Bharatiya Janata Party leader Arun Jaitley on Sunday demanded that the Income Tax ceiling be raised from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh, which he claimed would benefit thirty million people.
“Direct Tax should be reduced. If the Income Tax limit is raised from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs, 3 crore people will save Rs. 24 crore which will lead to a small impact of 1 to 1.5 per cent of the National Tax Fund,” the BJP leader said.
Mr. Jaitley claimed that the Vajpayee government kept the rate of interest at 7 to 8 per cent, which Congress-led UPA raised to 13-14 per cent. “Due to this, trade and industry are running under a loss and closing down, and production has become costly.” That was why countries like China and Thailand were moving ahead of India.
“The savings of Rs. 24 crore in the pockets of ordinary person by reducing the ceiling on Income Tax will lead to increased purchase, which in turn will lead to increased VAT and Excise Duty, thereby increasing revenue,” Mr. Jaitley said.
Speaking on Amritsar’s development, Mr. Jaitley said the economy of the constituency was dependent on tourists and small businesses.


Grant of MACP on Promotional Hierarchy-hearing postponed to 04th Sept 2014

Dear members/friends,

The hearing on the appeal filed by the Government, against the principal CAT order for granting MACP on hierarchical basis to Shri Sanjay Kumar and 18 UDCs of Defense Department, has been postponed to 04th Sept. 2014. 

TKR Pillai
General Secretary

Saturday, May 24, 2014

PACKING OF PARCELS--- IPO RULES AMENDED

A parcel wrapped with cloth should invariably either be packed in a carton or be covered with paper or plastic wrapper over the cloth wrapping so that the bar code sticker can be properly affixed on the parcel for track and trace purpose”. 

To view the Gazette notification click here:
http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2014/159543.pdf