Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench

OA 1493/2014

New Delhi, this the 1st day of May, 2014

Honble Shri Ashok Kumar, Member (A)
Honble Shri Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)

1. Indian Ordnance Factories Gaztted Officers
Association through its President, Shri Brajesh
Kumar Singh,
S/o Late Shri Ram Datt Singh,
Serving as Junior Works Manager,
Small Arms Factory, Kanpur,
Resident of 330, C-Block, Swaraj Nagar,
Panki, Kanpur-208020

2. Iftikhar Jilani, Aged 47 years
S/o Shri A.R.Khan
R/o C-8/5, New Type-III
Ordnance Factory Estate
Raipur Dehradun-248008

3. Man Mohan Garg, Aged 50 years
S/o Late Shri Prem Chand Garg,
R/o 46-type-III, North Estate
Ordnance Factory, Muradnangar-201206

4. Rishi Raj, Aged-49 Years
S/o Late Shri Jograj
R/o C-1/11, New Type-III
Ordnance Factory Estate
Raipur, Dehradun-248008

5. Shashi Bhushan Chaubey, Aged 46 years
S/o Shri Srikrishna Chaubey
R/o ET-24, Middle Road
Armapur Estate, Kanpur-208009

6. S.K. Mohd. Israil, Aged-53 Years
S/o Seikh Dada Miyan
R/o 59-B Type-III, Sector-3
Ordnance Factory Chand-442501.

7. Vivek Mungikar, Aged 50 years
S/o Shri Vallabh Mungikar
R/o House No.2-1-467, Street No.6,
Nallkunta, Hyderabad-500044.

8. Beeran Singh, Aged 50 Years
S/o Shri Ratan Lal
R/o 21-Type-V Bunglow, North Estate
Ordnance Factory, Muradnagar-2011206.
Applicants

(Advocate: Shri M.K.Bhardwaj)

Versus

UOI & Ors. through:

1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.

2. The Director General,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K. Bose Road,
Kolkata-700001 (W.B.)

3. The Secretary,
DOP&T,
North Block, New Delhi. . Respondents.

(By Advocate: Shri Rajinder Nischal)

Order (oral)

By Honble Sh. Ashok Kumar, Member (A) :-



MA has been filed under rule 4(5) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together on the
ground that the grievances of the applicants are the same and the same identical remedy is being
sought by the applicant in this OA. Having considered the MA and the arguments of Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj,
counsel for the applicant, MA is allowed.
2. The grievance of the applicants is against the alleged arbitrary order of the respondents not
giving them the Grade of Rs. 5400/- in PB-III, as given to other similarly placed persons appointed as
Supervisor/Chargeman (Technical) vide OM dated 19.05.2009. Applicant has sought the following reliefs
in the OA :-
To declare the action of the respondents in not granting the Grade Pay of Rs.5400 and 6600 PB-3 to the
applicants as given to similarly placed persons vide order dated 30.07.2011 and 02.04.2012 as illegal and
arbitrary.

To direct the respondents to grant Grade Pay of Rs.5400 and 6600 in PB-3 as 2nd & 3rd financial
upgradation to the applicants under MACP from due date with all arrears of pay.

To declare the OM/MACP dated 19.05.2009 as unconstitutional to the extent the same deny the next
promotional scale attached to the promotional post as 1st, 2nd & 3rd financial upgradation as illegal,
arbitrary and unjustified.

To allow the O.A. with costs.

Pass such other direction or directions order or orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and ends of
justice.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant, Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, argued that the issue involved in this
mater has been decided by this Tribunal in OA 988/2014 vide order dated 21.03.2014. The operative
part of the said order reads as under:-
7. In another O.A. No. 864/2014 Shri Om Prakash & Others v. Secretary (NCERT) decided by this
Tribunal, the following directions were issued.

3. In our considered view, once an order has been passed by this Tribunal and it has also been
upheld at the level of Supreme Court, there is no question of waiting for an approval from any Govt.
department for implementation of the same. The respondents, therefore, should have considered the
representations of the applicants on merits.

In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with the direction to
the respondent to consider the representations of the applicants in the light of the judgment of Punjab
and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 19387/201 (supra) as upheld by the Apex Court in CWP NO.
19387/2011 (supra) as upheld by the Apex Court in SLP (CC) No. 7467/2013 (supra) and decide their
cases under intimation to them. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.


Learned counsel states that repeated representations have been filed by the applicants through the
Association on 23.05.2011 and the earlier representation dated 31st October, 2013 is placed at
Annexure A-12. Individual representation was also made by the applicant on 22.11.2013 for grant of
MACP in the hierarchy on promotional basis. Counsel for the applicant submits that since the statutory
period for remedy is not yet over, hence in terms of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 in Section 20, the respondents be directed to dispose of the long pending matter and to take a
final decision after considering the afore-noted Order of this Tribunal in OA 988/2014(supra).
Shri Rajinder Nishcal, counsel for the respondents was also heard. He submitted that the pending
representation of the applicant will be disposed of expeditiously.
We agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties and accordingly direct the
respondents to consider the applicants representation in the light of the related instructions and the
scheme of MACP, and while doing so shall also keep in view the afore-noted order of this Tribunal.
Respondents shall thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order to be communicated to the applicants
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any consequential
action arising out of the aforesaid decision taken by respondents on the representation shall be
regulated within a further period of eight weeks from the date of decision.
OA is disposed of with afore-noted direction.

(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)