Judgment:
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 5838 of 2005 filed before the High Court of Kerala was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA N0. 31/08.
2. The applicant, a retired Group-D employee of BSNL and an ex- serviceman, is approaching this Tribunal for the second time for fixation of his pay in the re-employed post after granting one increment each for his completed year of service in Army..
3. According to the applicant, after rendering 20 years of service he retired from Army on 31.10.1983, at the time of retirement he was drawing a pay of Rs. 810/- which consequent on the revision of pay on implementation of the IVth CPC w.e.f. 1.1.1986, would be Rs 1049.40. He was re-employed as a Group-D in the Telecommunciation department at Mavelikkara Sub division. On re-employiment his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 750/- which is the minimum of the scale. The grievance of the applicant is that his pay should have been fixed after granting 20 increments for the service rendered in the Army. Aggrieved by the denial of grant of increments, he approached the Tribunal through O.A. 477/91 which was allowed by Ext.P-1 order. The Review filed by the respondents was dismissed. Thereupon the respondents filed Appeal before the Supreme Court which upheld the relief on fixation of pay by order dated 13.11.1997 (Ext. P-2). The applicant retired from civil service on 31.10.2002. Since none of his representations for implementation of the order of the Tribunal in O.A. 477/91 affirmed by the Apex Court was considered, he filed this O.A. to refix his pay after granting 20 increments -one each for his completed year of service in military and for grant of consequential arrears of pay and pension.
4. The respondents opposed the T.A by filing reply statement. They submitted that on re-employement in a Group-D post on 2.3.1987, his pay was fixed at Rs. 750/- in the scale of Rs. 750-940. At the time of retirement from military service, he was drawing a pay of Rs. 675.30 and that his pension was fixed at Rs. 223.00. They denied any hardship in the case of the applicant. They asserted that the pay of the applicant was fixed in accordance with the principles laid down in the orders in O.A.3/89 and O.A. 477/91 confirmed by the Supreme Court in Appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. According to the applicant, he was drawing Rs. 810/- as his pay at the time of retirement from the Army and that the corresponding pay w.e.f. 1.1.1986 was Rs. 1049.40. Therefore, there is hardship if his pay is fixed at the minimum of Rs. 750/- and that his pay should have been fixed by granting increment for each year of service rendered in the military. In the absence of supporting materials the learned counsel for the applicant was therefore, directed to give the complete service particulars of the applicant from the date of appointment in the Army till the date of his retirement incorporating various pay scales and other allowances received from time to time. The respondents counsel was directed to produce all relevant rules and regulations issued on the subject from time to time based on which the applicant's pay was fixed. We further directed the respondents to produce the judgments, service book of the applicant fixing his pay. The applicant has not furnished any material as directed by us. The respondents have produced the rules and regulations and the service book of the applicant as directed.
6. We notice that the applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal through O.A. 477/91 praying for the very same reliefs as in the present O.A. which was allowed by the Tribunal following the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3/89 and connected cases. The order of the Tribunal was partly upheld by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7691-92 of 1997 by judgment dated 13.11.1997. Therefore, in our view this Application is hit by res judicate. The applicant is stopped from approaching this Tribunal with the very same reliefs which were earlier agitated before this Tribunal and attained finality through O.A. 477/91.
7. In view of the above we dismiss this T.A. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.