All India Defence Estate Employees Association Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 11418 of 1995.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.92 and 21.01.93 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A.No.788/JK/89 and R.P.No. 4 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.92 and 21.01.93 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A.No.788/JK/89 and R.P.No. 4 of 1993)
Petitioner: All India Defence Estate Employees Association
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 11418 of 1995.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.92 and 21.01.93 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A.No.788/JK/89 and R.P.No. 4 of 1993)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.92 and 21.01.93 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A.No.788/JK/89 and R.P.No. 4 of 1993)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 27, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri, Advocate, for the appellant
Mr. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushila Shukla, Mr. Harish Chander, Ms. Kanupriya Mittal and C.V.Subba Rao, Advocates, with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Civilians in Defence Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 – Rule 7 read with F R 22-C. Pay- Fixation of – Technical Assistants civilians in Defence Services – Promotion of Office Superintend-ent Grade II – Benefit of one increment. If available. Held that promotees being civilians in defence services were governed by specific Rule 7 of the Rules of 1986 and not by general rule under FR 22-C. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
1. This appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal deserves to be dismissed as we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct.
2. The only question raised before the Tribunal was whether appellant nos.2 & 3 were entitled to the benefit of one increment under Fundamental Rule 22-C on their promotion from the post of Technical Assistant to the post of office Superintendent Grade-II in 1988. The Tribunal held that appellant nos.2 & 3 were governed by Rule 7 of the Civilians in Defence Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 and not by the Fundamental Rule 22-c. We are also of the opinion that the appellant nos. 2 & 3 being civilians in defence services the specific rule applied to them and not the general provision contained in FR 22-C. Moreover, the two cadres of Technical Assistant and office Superintendent Grade-II stood merged with effect from 01.01.86 and the two Pay-scales attached to their cadres also merged with effect from the same gate. Therefore, there could not have been any promotion within the cadre in the year 1988. That being so the situation of granting benefit under Fundamental Rule 22-C did not arise at all because there were no. promotion to a higher post or to a post carrying higher duties. As the claim of the appellants was misconceived it was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
2. The only question raised before the Tribunal was whether appellant nos.2 & 3 were entitled to the benefit of one increment under Fundamental Rule 22-C on their promotion from the post of Technical Assistant to the post of office Superintendent Grade-II in 1988. The Tribunal held that appellant nos.2 & 3 were governed by Rule 7 of the Civilians in Defence Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 and not by the Fundamental Rule 22-c. We are also of the opinion that the appellant nos. 2 & 3 being civilians in defence services the specific rule applied to them and not the general provision contained in FR 22-C. Moreover, the two cadres of Technical Assistant and office Superintendent Grade-II stood merged with effect from 01.01.86 and the two Pay-scales attached to their cadres also merged with effect from the same gate. Therefore, there could not have been any promotion within the cadre in the year 1988. That being so the situation of granting benefit under Fundamental Rule 22-C did not arise at all because there were no. promotion to a higher post or to a post carrying higher duties. As the claim of the appellants was misconceived it was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
