Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11579 OF 2015
Jayashree Anil Satheye ....Petitioner
Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents
Appearances :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rajeev N. Kumar, for Petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Neel Helekar a/w. Ms. Yogita S. Tembe for Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
2. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging communication dated April 18, 2015 thereby rejecting her request for grant of benefit of bunching under Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (Revised Pay Rules of 2008). She has further prayed for Writ of Mandamus for fixation of her pay in accordance with Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) by granting benefit of bunching as provided under the Proviso to the said Rule.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was an employee of Currency Note Press at Nashik having appointed on the post of Junior Hindi Translator on July 17, 1984. She was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Official Languages) on October 20, 1993 on formation of Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited, the Petitioner’s services were absorbed in the corporation with effect from 1 September 2008. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (Official Languages) in July 2014.
4. On implementation of recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 2006 Petitioner’s pay was revised under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In July 2012, Petitioner noticed that her pay was fixed almost equal to Dr. P. D. Chaturvedi, who was 12 years junior to her. Therefore she made representation dated April 18, 2013 for grant of bunching increments under Rule 7 of the Revised Pay Rules 2008 so as to maintain proper difference between her basic pay and that of Dr. Chaturvedi. It is averred that upon examination of the Petitioner’s representation dated April 18, 2013, her case was recommended by the Manager (HR) vide letter dated May 20, 2013. The representation was however returned by the Deputy General Manager on June 3, 2013 to be decided at the level of the Currency Note Press. The Petitioner thereafter made several representations. She also served a notice dated February 24, 2015 through her advocate. Finally her advocate received response dated April 18, 2015 by which it was communicated that Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the bunching increments.
5. We have heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Anjali Helekar the learned counsel appearing for Respondent.
6. To understand the concept of ‘bunching’, it would be necessary to reproduce Rule 7 of Central Pay Commission (Revised Pay) Rules 2008.
7. Revised Pay Rules 2008 were notified for implementing recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC). As per those recommendations, the concept of ‘pay scales’ which was prevalent up to 5th Pay Commission regime was replaced with the concept of ‘Pay Band + Grade Pay’. Thus, multiple pay scales were compressed into single Pay Band. The hierarchical difference of posts which was earlier identifiable by different pay scales, become identifiable by different Grade Pays. Thus, though different hierarchical posts in an organization may be granted same pay band, their hierarchy become identifiable by different Grade Pay applicable to different posts. The recommendations of the 6th CPC was made applicable from January 1, 2006.
8. Under Rule 7 of the Revised Pay Rules 2008, the revised pay in the recommended Pay Band is to be determined by multiplying existing basic pay as on January 1, 2006 by factor of 1.86. However, there were cases where the revised basic pay, after multiplying earlier basic pay by factor of 1.86, fell below the minimum of the revised pay band. To illustrate, posts carrying prerevised pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 was granted revised pay band PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay Rs.5400/- as per the Revised Pay Rules, 2008. An employee drawing basic pay of Rs. 6500/- on 31-12-2005, was to be granted revised pay by multiplying Rs. 6500 with the factor of 1.86. So his/her revised basic pay would be arrived at Rs. 12090, which falls below the basis level of Rs. 15600 in the revised Pay Band of Rs. 15600-39100. To take care of such a situation, Rule 7(1) (A)(ii) provided that if the minimum of the revised pay band is more than amount arrived after multiplying factor 1.86, the pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the revised pay band. Thus in the illustrated case, though the revised basic pay of the employee is arrived at Rs. 12090, we would be granted revised basic pay of Rs. 15600.
9. However, this system of placing employees at the minimum level of the Pay Band (whose revised pay fell below the minimum of the pay band) created an anomalous situation in certain cases, where junior as well as senior employees started drawing same revised pay. This concept is known as ‘bunching’, where junior and senior employees are bunched at the same level of pay. To take care of such a situation resulting in bunching of pay, a Proviso is added to Rule (1)(A)(ii) making provision for grant of additional increments so as to ensure that the senior employee draws more pay than his junior counterpart.
10. Following illustration would make the concept of bunching further clear: Pre-Revised pay: 6500 – 200 - 10500 Revised Pay Band: PB[3] – 15600-39100 + Grade Pay 5400/- Employee Basic Pay as on 01.01.2006 Revised pay after multiplying by factor
1.86 Revised pay as per 6th CPC Junior Employee 6500/- 12090/- 15600/- Senior Employee 8300/- 15440/- 15600/-
11. Thus, in the above illustration, though the senior employee in the above illustration was nine stages above his junior counterpart as on 01.01.2006 (meaning thereby that he had earned 9 increments because of putting in 9 additional years of service on a post over his junior), both start drawing same basic pay of Rs.15600/- upon re-fixation of their pay in the 6th CPC scale. To take care of this situation, the Proviso to Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) makes a provision for grant of one increment for every two stages of bunching. Thus, in the above illustration, senior officer will be given four additional increments while fixing his revised pay in the 6th CPC Pay Band.
12. Having understood concept of ‘bunching’ under the Proviso to Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) of Revised Pay Rules 2008, we proceed to examine whether Petitioner has made out any case for grant of bunching increments.
13. It must be observed at the very outset that the Respondent have not recorded any reasons for rejecting case of the Petitioner vide communication dated April 18, 2015. The only reason recorded is rejection of case of Dr. P. D. Chaturvedi, Asstt. Dir. (OL), IG Mint, Mumbai. With a view to find out whether reasons were recorded atleast while rejecting case of Dr. Chaturvedi, we have gone through the Order dated June 10, 2014 passed by the Government of India, Department of Economic Affairs in the case of Dr. Chaturvedi. However, it appears that even in case of dr. Chaturvedi, no reasons are recorded while rejecting her case.
14. In ordinary course therefore, we would have been justified in remanding the case for reconsideration for recording of reasons in Petitioner’s case. However, keeping in mind the fact that the petition is pending since year 2015 and the Petitioner has retired from service on August 31, 2014, we proceed to examine her claim on merits, instead calling remanding the matter to Respondents to seek reasons for rejection of her claim.
15. For better understanding of Petitioner’s claim for grant of bunching increments, it would be necessary to examine what was her basic pay as on 31-12-2005 and how her pay has been fixed in pursuance of the Revised Pay Rules 2008. Petitioner was in the prerevised pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and he Petitioner’s basic pay as on 31-12-2005 was Rs. 8700/-. The post held by Petitioner was granted revised Pay Band of Rs. 15600-39100 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- w.e.f. 01-01-2006. In the revised Pay Band, Petitioner’s basic pay has been revised to Rs. 16190 w.e.f. 01-01-2006.
16. In support of her claim for grant of bunching increments, Petitioner has relied upon following ‘Self Generated Table’ at page No.35 of the petition: SELF GENERATED TABLE AS PE RULE 7(1)(A)(i)(ii)
FIXATION TABLE FOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (OL)
ON UPGRADATION TO GROUP A Pre-revised Scale (S – 12) Revised Pay Band + Grade Pay Rs.6500-200-10500 PB-3 Rs.15600-39100 + Rs.5400/- Pre-revised ** Pre-revised Basic Pay x
1.86 rounded to 10 (3) **Pay in the Pay Band Before bunching (4) Pay in the Pay Band After bunching Increment = 3% or Multiply by 1.03 rounded to 10 Rule7(1)A(ii) (5) Revised Basic Pay 6500 12090 15600 15600 5400 21000 6700 12470 15600 15600 5400 2100 6900 12840 15600 15600*1.03 = 16070 5400 21470 7100 13210 15600 16070 5400 21470 7300 13580 15600 16070*1.03 = 16560 5400 21960 7500 13950 15600 16560 5400 21960 7700 14330 15600 16560*1.03 = 17060 5400 22460 7900 14700 15600 17060 5400 22460 8100 15070 15600 17060*1.03 = 17580 5400 22980 8300 15440 15600 17580 5400 22980 8500 15810 15810 17580*1.03 = 18110 5400 23510 8700 16190 16190 18110 5400 23510 8900 16560 16560 18110*1.03 = 18660 5400 24060 9100 16930 16930 18660 5400 24060 9300 17300 17300 18660*1.03 = 19220 5400 24620 9500 17670 17670 19220 5400 24620 9700 18050 18050 19220*1.03 = 19800 5400 25200 9900 18420 18420 19800 5400 25200 10100 18790 18790 19800*1.03 = 20400 5400 25800 10300 19160 19160 20400 5400 25800 10500 19530 19530 20400*1.03 = 21020 5400 26420 ** Columns 2.[3] columns have been added to show intermediate stages of table generation. - In column(2) as pr Rule 7(1)(A)(i) all stages in column(1) from Rs.6500 to Rs.13500 are multiplied by 1.86. - In column(3) as per Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) 10 stages in column (2) less than minimum of PB[3] are fixed at minimum of PB[3] i.e. Rs.15600 and rest value are copied from column(2). - In column(4) as per Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) since 10 stages are bunched at Rs.15600 bunching benefit of one increment over pay in pay band for every two stages bunched is given. - In column(6) as per Rule 7(1)(A)(iii) grade pay is added to column(4) to get total pay. Based on Pay Fixation Rule 7 of CCS(RP) Rules 2008, also applicable for upgradation of posts, this table with bunching benefit worked out by myself (similar to Department of expenditure) in the manner recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission, is to be used in all organizations for pay fixation in all cases, whether the post is isolated or there are any number of juniors/seniors etc. in these scales.
17. Perusal of the above table would indicate that the Petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs. 8700/- during 5th CPC regime up to December 31,
2005. After coming into effect of the Rules of 6th CPC revised pay Rules 2008, her pay was fixed at Rs.16190/- w.e.f. January 1, 2006. This figure of Rs.16190/- is arrived at by multiplying her pre-revised pay of Rs.8700/- by factor of 1.86 as per Rule 7(1)(A)(i).
18. The above table shows that there has been no bunching in the case of Petitioner as her revised pay was not fixed at the minimum level (Rs.
15600) of the pay band of Rs.15600-39100. Her revised pay was fixed at higher level at Rs.16190/-.
19. The Petitioner has also produced following chart to show the fixation of her pay vis-a-vis her colleagues: S.No. Name Basic on 01.01.2006 as per Vth Pay Commission Pay in Pay Band + Grade pay on 01.01.2006 Pay in Pay Band + Grade pay on 01.07.2012 Date of Appointment in AD(OL)
1 Mrs. J. A. Sathaye 8700 21590 31910 20.10.1993 2 K. P. Srivastava 9700 23450 33980 23.06.1995 3 Y. P. Shukla 8300 21000 30410 01.01.1997 4 Surya Prakash 7700 21000 30570 08.04.2002
5 Dr.(Mrs.) P. D. Chaturvedi 7100 21000 30370 02.05.2005 As can be from the above table, even though I am senior to Dr. P. D. Chaturvedi by 12 years and the difference in our basic before 01.01.2006 was Rs.1600 (Rs.2976 with D.A. + DP), after pay fixation in VI Pay Commission the difference in pay is only Rs.590, which is less than even one annual increment. Also three employees are bunched at same of pay of Rs.21000. Although Mr. Surya Prakash is senior to Dr. P. D. Chaturvedi by 3 years and Mr. Y. P. Shukla is senior to Dr. Chaturvedi by 8 years, they have been fixed at same pay and that too at the minimum of pay scale PB-3 at Rs.21000, resulting in bunching.
20. Relying on the above chart, Petitioner has submitted that though she was senior to Dr. P. D. Chaturvedi by 12 years, her revised pay is fixed at Rs. 16190 + G. P. 5400 = Rs.21000/-, whereas the revised pay of Dr. Chaturvedi is fixed at Rs. Rs.15600 + G. P. 5400 = Rs.21000/-. The revised pay of Shri. Y. P. Shukla and Shri. Surya Prakash was also fixed at Rs.15600 +
(15600+G. P. 5400=Rs.21000) in respect of Shri. Shukla, Shri. Surya Prakash and Dr. Chaturvedi. However, we are not called upon to determine whether Shri. Shukla or Shri. Surya Prakash are entitled to grant of bunching increments under Proviso to Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) of Revised Pay Rules 2008. So far as Petitioner is concerned, there appears to be no bunching as her pay was fixed at higher level at Rs.16190 + G. P. 5400 = Rs.21590.
21. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has strenuously urged before us that though no bunching at the level of Rs. 15600 is noticed in case of Petitioner, there is admittedly bunching of pay in cases of her juniors Shri. Shukla and Shri. Surya Prakash at Rs. 15600 and therefore on grant of bunching increments to them, they would draw higher pay than Petitioner despite being junior to her. This submission cannot be countenanced. Firstly, no evidence is placed on record to show that Shri. Shukla or Shri. Surya Prakash are granted bunching increments. Secondly, there is no provision in the Rules to provide bunching increments to seniors (in whose case there is no bunching of pay), only because their juniors become entitled to grant of bunching increments. Thirdly, in the event of juniors drawing higher pay than senior, the senior employee can always claim benefit of ‘Stepping-up of Pay’. Therefore Petitioner is not entitled to grant of increments under Proviso to Rule & (1) (A) (ii) of the Revised Pay Rules 2008.
22. We are therefore of the view that there is no error in Petitioner’s pay fixation under the Revised Pay Rules of 2008. The impugned action of the Respondents does not warrant any interference at the instance of this Court. Writ Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.