Union of India v. Dr. O P Nijhawan

1. The Union of India (UOI) has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) in Original Application No. 1750/2012, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the original application and granted to the respondents/ applicants the relief for reckoning the special pay of Rs.2,000/- admissible from 01.01.1996 and Rs.4,000/- admissible from 01.01.2006 (as enumerated in the OM dated 13.05.2009) for purpose of computation of pension and pensionary benefits. The relief has been extended in respect of all those who fall in the same categories without their having to approach the Tribunal. 2014:DHC:3342-DB

2. The respondent applicants were serving as Scientist ‘G’ in the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), Ministry of Defence, from where they retired prior to the 5th Pay Commission report being implemented. The Scientist ‘G’ in the DRDO were drawing pay in the scale of Rs.5900-7300 along with Scientist/Engineers-H working in the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) as also the Department of Space (DOS). The 5th Pay Commission sought to create parity between the Scientist of the aforementioned groups with the Joint Secretaries to Govt. of India. The Commission recommended a replacement scale of Rs.5900-7300 and Rs.5900-6700 with a revised pay scale of Rs.18400-22400. Since the pay scale of Rs.5900-6700 had been associated with the post of Joint Secretary/equivalent, the Scientists in the aforementioned three Scientific Departments, i.e. DRDO, DOS and DAE made a case for suitably compensating the Scientists/Engineers in the pay scale of Rs.5900-7300 (pre-revised).

3. The Government, after considering all other relevant factors decided to grant a special pay of Rs.2000/- p.m. to these categories of Scientists in the replacement pay scale of Rs.18400-22400 in lieu of a higher pay scale followed by a review from 01.01.1996. Consequential orders were issued by the said three Departments with prior approval of the Cabinet.

4. On the plea of scientists, the CAT in OA No.1153/2002 vide order dated 14.05.2003 directed the petitioner to take an appropriate decision for grant of special pay of Rs.2,000/- p.m. as a part of the pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996 for computing all allowances as a part of pay with all consequences. In other words, the special pay was directed to be reckoned for calculation of pension and other retrial benefits. The special pay of Rs.2,000/- p.m. was revised to Rs.4,000/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as a consequence of the acceptance of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.

5. Other similarly placed Scientists approached the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, who were also granted relief as granted by the Principal Bench in OA No.1153/2002. The same benefit was extended to the applicants of OA No.268/2007 vide order dated 23.04.2007 by the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal on 14.05.2003 was assailed by the petitioner herein in WP (C) No.1710/2007 before this Court. The said petition was dismissed. The challenge to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench order dated 23.04.2007, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. (C) No.267/2008 was similarly dismissed. Similar orders were passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal to seek implementation of the said orders. OA NO. 2509/2010 was preferred before the Tribunal, wherein it directed extension of the benefit to the applicants in the said OA. Several other similar original applications were preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which were similarly disposed of.

6. The petitioner, in the meantime, preferred an SLP to assail the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.03.2007 in OA No.184/2006 as upheld by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The said SLP, being SLP No.4842/2009 was, however, dismissed.

7. With this background, the respondents in the present petition approached the Tribunal to seek implementation of the earlier orders of the Tribunal as referred to above. The Tribunal after detailed consideration of the submissions of the parties and several decisions of the Supreme Court allowed the original application, as aforesaid. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows: “21. In conclusion we would like to take a case leaf out of the case of Girdhari Lal vs. Union of India (supra). The Government itself has extended the benefit of the decisions cited vide the order dated 13.5.2009 to the Scientists falling within the eligible categories without making a distinction of the date of retirement or between those who came to this Tribunal and those who did not. We have also seen that admittedly the concession of including the special pay as a part of the emoluments to be reckoned for pension and post retrial benefits has been given as a measure of exception and there has been no change in rules which continue to hold good. Further, the Government reserves the right of taking recourse to legal remedies as the matter of law has been left open. We, therefore, respect this position emerging and only hold that the respondent authorities should provide the benefits of the OM dated 13.5.2009 irrespective of the fact that whether the eligible persons have come to this Court or not. It has to be appreciated that where all the eligible persons come to this Court turn by turn, it would impose a serious efficiency burden upon functioning of this Tribunal and also cause harassment and expenses to the applicants. This, in short is also likely to be a wasteful exercise thereby exposing this Central Administrative Tribunal to directly unproductive and futile exercise. Hence the following directives are given: (1) The claim of the applicants are allowed for reckoning the special pay of Rs.2000/- admissible from 1.1.1996 andRs.4000/- admissible from 1.1.2006 in the respective grade pays as enumerated in the OM dated 13.5.2009 for pension and pensionary purposes. (2) It is further directed that those who fall within the eligible categories as cited above are to be allowed this benefit without their being required to approach this Tribunal. (3) This, of course, is a measure of exception and leaves the question of law undetermined. (4) There shall be no order as to costs.”

8. The orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. NO. 41011/2012, affirming the orders similarly passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and similar orders of the Bangalore Bench have been placed before us.

9. In the light of the aforesaid position, we fail to appreciate as to how it is open to the petitioner UOI to once again approach this Court to assail the order of the Tribunal which merely seeks to implement the earlier concluded decisions of the Tribunal which have been affirmed not only by this Court, but in respect whereof the SLP has also been dismissed.

10. We, therefore, find no merit in the present petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.

VIPIN SANGHI, J. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J JULY 18, 2014 B.S. Rohella