CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI 61/35, : Copemicus Marg, New Dethi Date : 08/06/2015, Principal Bench, New Delhi To ve E.J. Verghese, Counsel for applicant, 435, Lawyerrs Chamber, Supreme Coutt, New Delhi. 2.Shri B.L. Wanchoo, counsel for the respondents, CAT Bar Room New Delhi. Regn No. : OA 574/2012 Sh. Durga Dutt Saini Applicant(s) Versus vol Respondent(s) Sir, | am directed to forward herewith a copy of Judgment/Order dated: 20/05/2015 passed by this Tribunal in the above mentioned case for information and necessary action ifany. Please acknowledge the receipt Yours faithfully, Section Biticer (J) For P@pcipal Registrar Encl. As above. paere OOO8 Cemrat Aamnstreuve tmunar Principal Bench, New Delhi 7 a open HOW No.574/2012 This the 20" day of May, 2015 ae Hon'ble Shri Ashok Kumar, Member (A) Hon‘ble Shri Raj Vir Sharma, Member(3) 1. Durga Dutt Saini, Aged, 52, Assistant Accounts Officer, Group “B” (Gazetted) O/o PAO (Ors.) RRRC Delhi Cantt-110010:- Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. E.J.Verghese) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance South Block Govt. of India New Delhi-110011 2. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence (Finance) South Biock Govt. of India: New Delhi-110011 3. The CGDA West Block-V, West Block V, RK, Puram, New Delhi-110066 Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. B.L. Wanchoo) Order (oral) The applicant is aggrieved by the rejection of the grade pay of | Rs, 5400/- in the grade of Assistant Accounts Officer instead of granting him the grade pay of Rs. 4800/-. The relief sought by. the applicant the OA is as Follows:~ “(a) Allow the Application of the Applicant under sectionBA60/- to the appicone we oe it — Dn Ca imat on 14/08/2008 48-3 opfned by, — (©) Grant the cost. And (d) any other: relief, if any;- this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and ‘proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The matter was heard today. Learned counsel Mr. Verghese who. argued on behalf of applicant has referred to Annexure A-2 which is Gazette Notification’ dated 29" August, 2008 containing the recommendation of 6% CPC and particularly to para (x) (C) “C) In-the IA 8AD and all organized accounts cadres, posts of Section Officers and Assistant Audit /Accounts Officers: will be merged and placed in PB-2 with grade pay of. Rs.4800 as recommended by the Commission: In’ modification of sixth | CPC's recommendations, Audit/Accounts Officers (AOs) wil be placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs. 5400 and Senior AOS will be placed in PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.5400'; 3. The second document on which applicant has relied upon during arguments is thé’ Press, Note” dated 44.08.2008 containing the “Implementation of the recommendations” of the 6 cpc. Para-Il (v) reads as follows :- Government. has continued the ‘present position of granting Group A scale to Group B officers after 4 years. of service and these officers would be placed in PB-3 instead of PB-2 recommended by the: Sixth cpc. This would benefit Group. B officers of the Railways, Accounts Services, CSS, CSSS and DANICS & DANIPS: 4. yt was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant’ that Govt. cannot ignore the decision ‘of the 6" CPC taken at the level of the cabinet where under the applicant who belongs to the Group ‘B’ Officer has completed four years of service and has to be placed in PB=3 instead of PB-2. : 5. According to the learned counsel on behalf of respondents this Jestinn with the (9,/O-BgGGIE te tne app Hess gal 2 * Cabinet on 14/08/2008 Wn 48-3 opfrant by nes | ——s 4. (©) Grant the cost. And (d) - any. other. relief, if any,- this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. fy 2... The matter was heard today. Learned counsel Mr. Verghese who argued ‘on behalf of applicant has referred to Annexure ‘A-2. which is Gazette Notification’ “dated 29%" August, 2008 containing the recommendation of 6" CPC and particularly to para (x) (C):- “CC) In the IA. 8AD and all organized accounts cadres, posts of Section Officers and Assistant Audit /accounts Officers ‘will be merged and placed in PB-2 with grade pay . of . Rs.4800- as recommended by the Commission. In: modification of Sixth . GPC’s recommendations, Audit/Accounts Officers (AOs) wil be placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs. 5400 and Senior AOS will be placed in PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.5400%,- Se 3, The second document on which applicant has relied upon during arguments is the Press. Note dated 14.08.2008 containing the “{mplementation of the recommendations” of the 6 cpc, Para-II (vy) reads as follows :- “Government, has continued the present position of granting Group A scale to Group B officers after 4 years of service and these officers would be placed in PB-3 instead of PB-2 recommended by the.Sixth CPC. This would benefit Group. B officers of the Railways, Accounts Services, CSS, CSSS and DANICS & DANIPS: 4. Tt was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that Govt. cannot ignore the decision of the 6 CPC taken at the level of the cabinet where under the applicant. who belongs to the Group “B’ Officer has completed four years of service and has to be placed in PI instead of PB-2. . 5. ‘According to the learned counsel on behalf of respondents this ncn im eainenitation with the ()/“Ministry of Finance vide.note dated 04.01.2011, a copy of which is at. Annexure A-II. However, the Ministry of Finance with the approval of the FA and Additional Secretary (MOD) did not agree to_ the proposal.” The respondents, therefore, expressed their inabllity to agree with the request of the applicant. ’ . “+6. Weshave considered the arguments of both the parties: Admittedly, the ‘applicant is a Group “B” Officer and has completed more than four years of service working as Assistant Accounts Officer ~a category-under _-Sr9unB" +7. We find that, in w of the decision of the Cabinet on Implémentation of the recommendations of the 6° GPC reproduced above as contained therein’ in ‘para (il) (v), the argument of the, respondents’ counsel that they are unable to implement the decision on account of the _disagreement - with. the’ proposal_by the Ministry of Finance does not __appear__convincing. The decision to implement the 6” CPC recommendations was taken thé competenit level of Govt. it is not proper that the Ministry should take a decision to the contrary and thus deny benefits of the decision taken by the Cabinet. 8. in view of above, we are inclined to grant the reliefs sought by the} applicant and accordingly allow the OA. Respondents shall take steps to’ applicant and accordingly allow the ¢ grant consequential’ benefits to the applicant within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Member (3) ‘Member (A) Isaiitay GtSsp91 9 Seventh CBC \ of the CSS to GP 4600 wef, 01.01.2006. T herefore, Senior Auditors/Senior Accountants Should also be upgraded to GP 4600/- to restore the parity provided by the VICPC. Analysis and Recommendations 11.62.17 The Commission notes that VI CPC had observed that the government has never conceded the principle of party between Assistants of CSS and Senior Auditors/Aceourtane in various organised Accounts Dey Commission, therefore, recommends normal Auditors/Accountants. Assistant Audiv/Accounts Officers (AAOs), Audit/Accounts Officers (AOs) and Senior Audit/Accounts Officers (SA0s) 11.62.18 Their hierarchy is as under; i Ba Sucre J ee |_Name of Post Existing Demanded | __Rationale given _ Senior Audit? Prity with Deputy Secretaries of Accounts Officers _| GP 5400 (PB-3) GP 7600 __| Central Secretariat Service Audit/Accounts Parity with Under Secretaries of Officers __| GP. 5400(PB.2) GP.6600_| Central Secretariat Service Parity with posts in Department of Upgradation afier | Revenue/Department of Posts Assistant Audit/ four years to GP | where GP 5400 (PB-2) is granted [Accounts Officers | GP 4800 5400 (PB-2) _| after four years 11.62.19 It has been pointed out that when an‘AO is promoted as SAO after 8 considerable Period, the promotional benefit is just one increment in the same OP $400, Ie has been stated that the promotional channel available to SAOs and AQs is induction to the indian Audit and Accounts Services (IAAS). The prescribed eligibility criteria are 5 years of ‘combined regular Service as SAO or AO and age below 53 years atthe time of induction. Ithas alse been stated SAOs and AQs each year. Analysis and Recommendations 11.62.20 As far as the demands of above listed sub cadres on the grounds of parity with other cadres is concerned, the Commission has already expressed its views earlier in the Chapter. However. the Commission notes that SAQs are the feeder cadre for induetion into JA&AS. ft is also noted that both SAOs and the entry level pay of |A®AS is OP 5400 (PB-3). There is no scope therefore for enhancing the pay scales of AAOYAG and SAO. which are feeder cadres for AOISAO and IAAS. respectively, In this backdrop, the Comm jon recommends replacement pay levels for AAOs, AOs and SAOs. 836 Index