Union of India and ors. Vs. Shri Ram Kishan Verma and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....petitions dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 4000-6000 as..........the correctness of the order passed by the central administrative tribunal, jodhpur, dated 21.3.2000 in o.a. no. 22/99 filed by ram kishan verma, order dated 21.8.2000 in o.a. no. 21/1999 filed by jepa ram sangar and the order dated 21.8.2000 in o.a. no. 20/1999 filed by guru prasad dahiya respectively.(3). the tribunal allowed the original application filed by the first respondent in all the three writ petitions and quashed the order dated 5.1.99. the tribunal has further directed that the first respondent would continue to draw their pay in the scale of rs. 4000-6000 and if any recovery has been made in pursuance of order dated 5.1.99 the same shall be refunded to the applicants with interest at 12% per annum compounding annually.(4). mr. vinit kumar mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in the report of the vth pay commission, nowhere it is mentioned that the hindi typists are to be placed in the scale of rs. 4000-6000 and this pay scale was granted on the assumption that they are at par with ldcs and udcs of the postal department. he further submits that the matter was examined on the directorate level and it wasnoticed that the pay scale of rs......

Judgment:

ORDER

LAKSHMANAN, CJ.

(1) Heard Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Malik learned counsel for the respondents.

(2). These writ petitions were filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated 21.3.2000 in O.A. No. 22/99 filed by Ram Kishan Verma, order dated 21.8.2000 in O.A. No. 21/1999 filed by Jepa Ram Sangar and the order dated 21.8.2000 in O.A. No. 20/1999 filed by Guru Prasad Dahiya respectively.

(3). The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the first respondent in all the three writ petitions and quashed the order dated 5.1.99. The Tribunal has further directed that the first respondent would continue to draw their pay in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and if any recovery has been made in pursuance of order dated 5.1.99 the same shall be refunded to the applicants with interest at 12% per annum compounding annually.

(4). Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in the report of the Vth Pay Commission, nowhere it is mentioned that the Hindi Typists are to be placed in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and this pay scale was granted on the assumption that they are at par with LDCs and UDCs of the Postal Department. He further submits that the matter was examined on the Directorate level and it wasnoticed that the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 was given by mistake and the correct pay scale For which they are entitled to be placed at is Rs. 3200-4900- It is further submitted that because LDC/UDC of the Circle/Regional office and SBCO are redesignated as Postal Assistant, they were eligible to draw upgraded scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and since the post of Hindi Typist was already merged with LDCs, the Hindi Typist of this office was given pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 as recommended by the Vth Pay Commission from 1.1.1996 treating him at par with the LDCs of Circle/Regional Offices. However, recently, the Director General Posts, New Delhi vide letter dated 5.1.1999 has reduced Ihe pay scale of Hindi Typist and placed them in the replacement scale of Rs. 3200-4900 and accordingly the pay scale of the first respondent was reduced.

(5). We are unable to countenance the submissions made by Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur.

(6), It is not in dispute that the first respondent was given the same scale as that of Postal Assistants right from the date of their appointment. The post of Hindi Typist was merged in the clerical cadre in terms of the letter dated 26.10.87 wherein it was provided that interse seniority of the incumbent of Hindi Typist in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks should be fixed at the bottom of the LDCs with reference to the years of recruitment. Thus, it is seen that the cadre of Hindi Typist stood merged with the cadre of LDCs. It was further clarified by letter dated 1.7.97 that the post of Hindi Typist was merged with LDCs in Circle Office in 1997.First the cadre of Hindi typist was merged with that of LDCs in 1987 and later in 1994 and the post was redesignated as Postal Assistants, in our opinion, they should be allowed to draw the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 as have been made applicable to the post of Postal Assistants. We see no reason to accept the explanation offered by Mr. Mathur in this regard.

(7). Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for reducing the pay scale of Hindi Typist from Rs. 4000-6000 to Rs. 3200-4900 and to effect recovery.

(8). It is stated by Mr. Malik that during the pendency of the matter before the Administrative Tribunal, the first respondent was receiving the salary in the pay scale of Rs, 4000-6000. There is no question of any refund by the first respondent to the Department and consequently, no question of payment of interest at 12% per annum compounding annually also would arise.

(9). At this juncture, our attention was drawn to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in O.A. No. 45/99 etc. batch dated 18.7.2000 wherein similar original applications filed by other affected persons were dismissed by the said Tribunal.

(10). In view of our decision on merits, as stated above in these writ petitions, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has no relevance for our purpose.

(11). All the three writ petitions fail and are dismissed.