IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9042 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.454/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF STATISTICS & PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISATION (FOD) EAST BLOCK-6, LEVEL 4-7, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110 066. 3. THE DIRECTOR, NOW UPGRADER DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISTATION (FOD), TRIVANDRUM-695 522. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENTS: --------------- K.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, INVESTIGATOR, NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISATION (FOD) MINISTRY OF STATISTICS & PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, 3RD FOOR, BLOCK C-1, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-37. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9042 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.454/2006, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are the writ petitioners. The respondent herein was the applicant. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The applicant was a candidate for selection to the post of Investigator in the National Sample Survey. The selection including the competitive examination was held by the Staff Selection Commission, Bangalore. The applicant came out successful and he was listed as Rank No.19 in the list of candidates belonging to OBC. Since there was some dispute regarding the caste certificate produced by him, his appointment was delayed. But, candidates having rank Nos. 18, 20, 21 and 22 were advised for appointment on 9.9.1996. Finally, the Staff Selection Commission cleared the candidature W.P.(C) No.9042/2009 2 of the applicant and nominated him for appointment to the post of NSO and he joined the post on 16.9.1997. Earlier there was some dispute regarding his seniority position and the same was settled by the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.307/1997. The Tribunal directed to appoint the applicant according to his seniority position in the rank list among the 4 OBC candidates appointed on 9.9.1996, notionally and grant him various service benefits. The said decision of the C.A.T. has become final and it has been implemented also. But, the date of drawal of increment of the applicant was not modified and therefore his juniors among the OBC candidates, who happened to join earlier, were drawing higher pay. Claim of the applicant for removing the above disparity was rejected by the competent authority. Therefore, the present Original Application was filed. 3. The Original Application was resisted by the writ petitioners contending that the applicant should have agitated this claim also in the earlier Original Application. Further, since he joined only on a later date, his increment was also delayed and therefore, there is nothing wrong with his juniors drawing W.P.(C) No.9042/2009 3 higher pay. The Tribunal overruled the objections of the respondents and allowed the Original Application by Ext.P2 order directing to notionally fix his pay from 9.9.1996 and grant him arrears from 1.9.1997. Challenging the said order of the C.A.T., this writ petition was filed. 4. The main ground canvassed against the order of the C.A.T., the ground D, which reads as follows: “The Hon'ble Tribunal ought to have found that Government of India's order 26(2) (c) under F.R.22 stipulates that “if a senior joins the higher post later than the junior, for whatsoever reasons, whereby he draws less pay than the junior in such cases, senior cannot claim stepping up of pay at part with the junior.” This is not a case where the petitioner failed to join duty in the post in time after appointment. It was a case, he was wrongly denied appointment in time and only after considerable delay, his candidature was cleared and he was actually appointed. Therefore, the rule relied on by the writ petitioners has no application to the facts of this case. We find that by the W.P.(C) No.9042/2009 4 impugned order, justice has been done to a senior, who happened to draw lower pay compared to his juniors. So, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the C.A.T. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps