Union of India & Ors. v. JP Phogat

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 7271/2021 & CM No.22920/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking stay on the operation of the impugned order]

2. This is a writ petition directed against the order dated 30.07.2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [in short “Tribunal”], in OA No.1012/2018, [in short „OA‟].

2.1. The OA was preferred by the respondent against the communication dated 08.09.2017 issued by the petitioners to the Director, Dattopant Thengadi National Board for Workers Education and Development. Via this communication, the petitioners sought to withdraw their earlier communication dated 17.07.2015. 2021:DHC:2256-DB

2.2. The respondent, being aggrieved, approached the Tribunal via the aforementioned OA, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned order i.e. order dated 30.07.2019.

3. In order to adjudicate upon the writ petition, the following broad facts are required to be noticed. i. The Central Board for Workers Education Officers Association [in short “CBWE”], being dissatisfied with the pay scales, on account of the anomaly contained therein, moved the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal via OA No.566/2007. The said OA was allowed, vide order dated 27.09.2007. ii. The petitioners implemented the aforementioned order of the Tribunal, vide Office Memorandum [in short “OM”] dated 28.05.2008. Consequently, revised pay scales were granted to officers of the rank of education officers and above. iii. The petitioners, parallelly, assailed the aforementioned order of the Tribunal dated 27.09.2007, passed in OA No. 566/2007, in the Calcutta High Court. This petition was numbered as W.P.C.T. 85/2010. The petitioners were not able to obtain an order staying the operation of the order of the Tribunal dated 27.09.2007. iv. While W.P.C.T. 85/2010 was pending adjudication, some retired employees of CBWE moved the High Court for implementation of the OM dated 28.05.2008. This application was numbered as CAN 4818/2013. v. The Calcutta High Court, vide order dated 17.12.2013, observed that the retired employees i.e. the applicants in CAN 4818/2013, were entitled to financial benefits in terms of the OM dated 28.05.2008, and that the same could not be withheld. A direction was issued by the Calcutta High Court to the concerned authority to take appropriate steps towards payment, in terms of OM dated 28.05.2008. Furthermore, a direction was issued that arrears should also be paid to the said applicants. vi. Evidently, in 2014, the petitioners attempted to reduce the pay of some employees who were retiring and to recover excess payment from others. This action of the petitioners was challenged in another OA i.e. OA 350/0067/2014, once again, before the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal. This OA was also allowed by the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 04.02.2015. vii. The petitioners complied with the order of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal dated 04.02.2015 subject to the payees furnishing an undertaking qua entitlement of the petitioners to recover the excess payments, in case they were to succeed in W.P.C.T. 85/2010, which is, pending before the Calcutta High Court. A similar approach was followed in other cases based on communication dated 17.07.2015. Consequently, retirement benefits, including pension, based on revised pay scale, was granted to the concerned persons between July 2015 and January 2017. viii. This was sought to be reversed by the petitioners, via the communication dated 08.09.2017, as indicated above. ix. The respondent, who was appointed as education officer, on 19.06.1984, and reached the rank of Deputy Director [albeit on ad hoc basis], retired on 28.02.2017. The respondent was impacted by the communication dated 08.09.2017, issued by the petitioners, as his pay scale, at the time of retirement, as well as of those who were similarly placed, was sought to be altered to their detriment. It is this, which propelled the respondent to move the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 30.07.2019, allowed the OA. The operative directions that the Tribunal issued via the impugned order read as under.

5.2. A bare perusal of the aforesaid letter would show that the petitioners were aware of the fact that OA 350/0067/2014 had been filed by retirees and thus, bearing this fact in mind, consciously extended the same benefit to the retirees as was being accorded to those employees who were in harness.

6. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

6.1. Besides this, Mr. Goyal had fleetingly drawn our attention to an interim order dated 03.12.2019, passed by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, whereby, the operation of the order dated 05.11.2018, passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal has been stayed. Because, the complete sets of papers have not been filed, it is not known, as to what, exactly, was portrayed by the petitioners before the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, a perusal of an extract of the petition, which is appended on page 155 of the paper book, appears to indicate that OA 566/2007 related to those, who were in service. It appears, what was sought to be conveyed to the Court was that, retirees did not stand on the same footing, as those in service, since excess payments made would be difficult to recover; which is, precisely, the argument that Mr. Goyal has advanced before us.