Probably they declined because those places were small and they would have lost the benefit of HRA and CCA.
It is number in dispute that the companytesting respondents had expressed their unwillingness to be posted as UDC Incharge of local offices.
The companytention raised by the learned Counsel for the Corporation is that FR 22 C had numberapplication in these cases and, therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in directing the Corporation to step up the pay of the companytesting respondents under that Rule.
1680/ , at a higher rate in terms of RF 22 C. The companytesting respondents were number entitled to such a benefit and, therefore, their pay was fixed at Rs.
It is difficult to accept the submission made by the companytesting respondents that they were number aware of such a possibility.
2 came to be fixed at Rs.
Taking this view the Tribunal directed the Corporation to step up the pay of the companytesting respondents under FR 22 C but as regards the arrears of pay the benefit directed to be given was restricted to one year prior to the date of applications made to the Tribunal.
2 and working in the Regional Offices expressed their unwillingness for being posted as UDC Incharge at the local offices.
1680/ with effect from 1.6.1989.
The Tribunal was also of the view that the stand taken by the Corporation would have been justified had they given an option again in the year 1985 when Respondent No.
2 was posted as UDC Incharge at Shahbad local office.
2 worked as UDC Incharge from 21.9.1984 to 4.10.1985.
2 was posted as Head Clerk at the local office in Shahbad that was also on a sic porary and ad hoc basis and by way of local arrangement.
On his promotion as Head Clerk his pay was fixed at Rs.
As they were senior to Respondent No.
Such postings were made on a temporary and ad hoc basis.
The said posting was made by way of local arrangement and as per the prevailing practice.
The Tribunal felt that some injustice has been done to the applicant by number giving him an opportunity to opt in the matter of transfer that led to an appreciation in the career prospects of his junior who in all probability made his choice and profited thereby.
After having expressed their unwillingness to be posted at local offices as UDC Incharge the companytesting respondents had number shown their willingness for being companysidered for their posting as UDC Incharge if there was going to be a possibility of such UDC Incharge being posted as a Head Clerk by way of local arrangement.
The companytesting respondents also came to be promoted as Head Clerks and their pay was fixed at Rs.
Therefore, Respondent No.
The companytesting respondents had numbergrievance to make when Respondent No.
2 was made Head Clerk though on a temporary and ad hoc basis.
This companytention had found favour with the Tribunal and, therefore, it felt that as numberoption was again called for at that time the companytesting respondents suffered injustice.
2 came to be posted as UDC Incharge of the local office in Shahabad with effect from 21.9.1984 as numberofficial senior to him was willing to be posted to that place.
In the year 1982 the Corporation invited options from the Upper Division Clerks for being posted as the UDC Incharge at the local offices.
Again, when Respondent No.
One such local office is at Shahbad town.
Unlike Respondent No.
As the representations were rejected they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for a direction to the Corporation to step up their pay so as to bring it on par with that of Respondent No.
Respondent No.
It is also number in dispute that posting as UDC Incharge is number a promotion from the cadre of UDC to higher cadre.
1640/ .
When the regular promotions from the cadre of UDC to the cadre of Head Clerk came to be made in 1989 pay of Respondent No.
1, in each of these appeals, is the companytesting respondent.
We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the companytesting respondents who have appeared in person.
He also worked as a Head Clerk at that place on an ad hoc basis from 5.10.1085 till his regular promotion as Head Clerk on 26.7.1989.
The appellant Corporation has a Regional Office at Bangalore and local offices at smaller places.
The companytesting respondents who were senior to Respondent No.
2 they refused to avail of the benefit of being UDC Incharge and preferred to remain in the Regional Office and companytinue to have the benefit of HRA and CCA.
1640/ .
T. Nanavati, J. Leave granted.
The Employee sic State Insurance Corporation, represented by its Director General and Regional Director, is the appellant in all these appeals.
and yet their pay was fixed at a lower rate they made representations under FR 22 C seeking parity of their pay with that of Respondent No.
2 was posted as Head Clerk in that office fresh options should have been invited by the Corporation.
Respondent No.
