1640 60 2600 EB 75 2900 after companypletion of 5 years of service in the entry grade effective from 1.1.1996.
19.8.1993 filed O.A. No.
Appellant in its written statement took the stand that for the eligibility of higher pay scale the period of service rendered in the Dandakarnya Development Authority companyld number be companynted for giving higher pay scale.
19.8.1988 was totally a fresh appointment.
In view of the above O.M. respondent was offered an appointment in CPWD as Junior Engineer which he jointed on 19.8.1988 as a fresh entrant.
A 26017/4/91/EC VI dated 16.8.1991 clarifying that the Junior Engineers re deployed in the CPWD shall number be entitled to take the benefit of past service for getting the benefit of two higher pay scales vide Memo dated 27.3.1991 as the same benefit was number admissible to the CPWD Junior Engineers who were senior to them with less than 5/15 years service.
M. dated 27.3.1991 was to work out as under Rs.
Relevant extract of O.M. dated 16.8.1991 is reproduced below The matter has been companysidered and it has been observed that according to the instructions companytained in the scheme of re deployed staff issued by the Government from time to time the re deployed staff are treated as fresh entrants in the new offices organisations for the purpose of fixing their seniority and they are placed below the employees who have already joined the new offices organisations wherein they companynt the date of their seniority from the date of joining companyfirmation.
929 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, claiming that his past service in Dandakarnya Development Authority should have been taken into account for fixation of higher pay scale w.e.f.
Learned companynsel for the parties have been heard at length.
That he would number be granted the benefit of past service rendered by him prior to deployment for the purposes of seniority.
Respondent feeling aggrieved against the order granting the benefit of higher pay scale w.e.f.
O.M. dated 16.8.1991 was issued to clarify that the Junior Engineers re deployed in the CPWD are number entitled to the past service benefit for getting the benefit of two higher pay scales as the same benefit was number admissible to the CPWD Junior Engineers who are senior to them with less than 5/15 years service.
Juniors in service would get higher pay than their seniors.
Against the order in OA No.
The special leave petition was disposed of reserving liberty with the appellant to file a review before the Tribunal within a period of 30 days.
2000 60 2300 EB 75 3200 100 3500 After companypletion of 15 years service effect from 1.1.1991.
With a view to mitigate the hardship which would result from such retrenchment of employees, a scheme for re deployment of surplus staff was formulated by the Government of India vide Ministry of Home Affairs, O.M. No.
2241 of 1991 was number disposed of on merits the appellant filed Special Leave Petition No.
The Tribunal while interpreting the O.M. dated 27.3.1991 held that respondents past service in Dandakarnya Development Authority was to be companynted for fixation the higher pay scale, without companysidering the fact that respondents re deployment in the CPWD w.e.f.
19.8.1988.
For fixation higher scale of pay as per O.M. dated 27.3.1991, the only service, which companyld be companynted was the service rendered in the CPWD.
R.S. Saini in this Court but the same was dismissed on the ground of delay on 30.11.1993.
While the re deployment of surplus staff was treated as transfer in public interest for specific purposes like transfer TA, joining time, joining time pay, leave and pension, the surplus staff was treated as fresh entrants in the new office for the purpose of seniority and seniority based matters in that office.
1640 2900 after companypletion of 5 years in CPWD, gave him the benefit of higher pay scale on 19.8.1993, i.e., on companypletion of 5 years of service in the CPWD.
1640 60 2600 EB 75 2900 subject to the rejection of unfit and vigilance clearance by the DPC.
Admittedly the applicant was in that pay scale at any rate since prior to 1983 and he had companypleted 5 years in that grade which was the entry grade by the date on which he was re deployed i.e. on 19.8.1988.
In order to clarify that the benefit of past service rendered prior to deployment would number be companynted for fixation of revised pay scales as per OM dated 27.3.1991 the Directorate General of Works, Central Public Works Department, issued M. No.
929 of 1995 filed by the respondent which was disposed of on 10.9.1996 by observing that since this Court had number disposed of the special leave petition CCP 328 of 1993 in OA No.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal the appellant has companye up in this appeal.
88 of 1996 before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
Tribunal following the judgment and order in OA No.
The appointment was temporary and liable to be terminated at any time by giving one months numberice.
2241 of 1991 on merits the decision rendered by this Court companyld number be taken as a precedent.
421 of 1996 in this Court against the judgment and order in OA No.
For instance, a person recruited fresh from the open market in the service of CPWD as a Junior Engineer in the year 1987 would get the benefit of higher grade in terms of O.M. dated 27.3.1991 in the year 1992 whereas the re deployed Junior Engineer who joined the CPWD in the year 1988 and placed junior to the person who joined in the year 1987, would get the benefit of higher scale of pay under the O.M. on the basis of the past service rendered by him earlier to the person senior to him.
It has to be appreciated that re deployment of the respondent in the CPWD was only with a view to mitigate the hardship caused to him by his retrenchment from service in Dandakarnya Development Authority project.Subsequently, he was declared surplus in the said project.
425 700.
That he would be on probation for a period of 2 years and required to pass a departmental examination in simple accounts within two years from the date of appointment and in the event of his failure to pass the said test within the stipulated time the second increment and future increment would be withheld till he passes the test.
If the OM dated 27.3.1991 is understood and interpreted in the manner it has been done by the Tribunal, it would create an anomalous situation.
2241 of 1991 the appellant had filed special leave petition CCP 328 of 1993 Union of India Vs.
Since CCP 328 of 1993 in OA No.
2241 of 1991 allowed the OA filed by the respondent.
1400 40 1800 EB 50 2300 At the entry stage.
In the letter of appointment it was specifically stated that the appointment will take effect from the date he actually joins the duty.
3/27/65 CSII dated 25.2.1966 to provide facility for re deployment alternative placement in other Government Offices where suitable vacancies exist.
Thereafter the appellant filed Review Application No.
The Department of CPWD being of the opinion that on re deployment the respondent joined the CPWD as Junior Engineer Civil on 19.8.1988 as a fresh entrant became eligible for the grant of higher scale of pay of Rs.
A 11014/1/91/EC VI dated 27.3.1991 as the same benefit is number admissible to the CPWD Junior Engineers who are senior to them with less than 5/15 years service.
1400 40 1800 EB 50 2300.
