Facts
The applicant, Vijay Kumar Sharma, was initially appointed as a Sectional Engineer/Junior Engineer in the Beas Satluj Link (BSL) Project on 23.04.1973.
Source reference: no citationAfter being declared surplus upon the project's completion in 1985, he was redeployed to CPWD as a Junior Engineer on 29.05.1985, with pay protection.
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 2He was granted the personal/protected pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 with effect from 01.01.1986, which was later revised to Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 01.01.1996.
Source reference: p.8-9, para. 10The Government introduced the ACP Scheme on 09.08.1999, under which the applicant was granted the second ACP in the scale of Rs. 10000-15200 with effect from 09.08.1999.
Source reference: p.5, para. 3; p.8, para. 8The MACP Scheme was introduced on 01.09.2008, and the applicant became entitled to the third MACP upon completion of 30 years of service, which the respondents granted in PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs. 7600/- with effect from 01.09.2008.
Source reference: p.5, para. 3A similarly situated ex-BCB employee, Surjeet Singh, was granted higher ACP/MACP benefits based on a Tribunal order dated 05.04.2019, which was implemented by the respondents on 11.02.2020 and 30.07.2020.
Source reference: p.6, para. 4; p.8-9, para. 10The applicant submitted representations seeking identical treatment, which were rejected by the respondents on 03.06.2021, stating that Surjeet Singh's case was specific and not a precedent.
Source reference: p.3, para. 1(i); p.6, para. 5; p.8-9, para. 10Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the applicant's claim for ACP/MACP benefits, similar to those granted to Surjeet Singh, on the ground that Surjeet Singh's case was not to be taken as a precedent, was legally sustainable.
Source reference: p.3, para. 1(i), 1(ii)2. Whether the respondents' action of linking the applicant's ACP/MACP benefits to the scale of the post rather than his personal/protected pay scale was in accordance with established legal principles for ex-BCB employees.
Source reference: p.6, para. 6; p.9, para. 113. Whether the applicant, as an ex-BCB employee, is entitled to the grant of first and second ACP in the scale of Rs.10000-15200 and Rs.12000-16500, revised to Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs.7600/-, and third MACP in PB-4 with Grade Pay Rs.8700/-, with all consequential benefits, similar to Surjeet Singh.
Source reference: p.3-4, para. 1(iii)Law Applied
The court primarily applied the principle that ex-BCB employees constitute a distinct class for whom ACP/MACP benefits must be linked to their personal/protected pay scale, not the scale of the post.
Source reference: p.9, para. 11; p.10, para. 12This principle was established in O.A. No. 336/HP/2010 (H.C. Sharma’s case) and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Source reference: p.7, para. 6; p.10, para. 12The court also relied on the principle that similarly situated individuals cannot be denied benefits granted to others without compelling reasons, and administrative stipulations cannot override binding judicial pronouncements, as seen in Surjeet Singh v. UOI & Others, O.A. No. 060/326/2017, and K.S. Jandu & Others v. UOI & Others, O.A. No. 431/CH/2006.
Source reference: p.7, para. 7; p.10-11, para. 13Reasoning
The court found the respondents' argument that the applicant was rightly granted the second ACP directly on completing 24 years of service untenable, given the established legal position for ex-BCB employees.
Source reference: p.10, para. 12Relying on O.A. No. 336/HP/2010 (H.C. Sharma’s case), upheld by the Supreme Court, the court reiterated that ex-BCB employees' ACP/MACP benefits must be linked to their personal/protected pay scale, not the scale of the post.
Source reference: p.10, para. 12Since the applicant was granted the personal pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 with effect from 01.01.1986, his entitlement to ACP/MACP should have been calculated based on this, disregarding any upgradation in a lower scale prior to the fixation of his correct personal scale.
Source reference: p.10, para. 12The court further held that the respondents' contention that the benefit granted to Surjeet Singh was "in personam" and not a precedent was unsustainable.
Source reference: p.10-11, para. 13The order in Surjeet Singh's case was based on the same legal principles applied in prior ex-BCB employee cases, and denying similar benefits to the applicant, who was admittedly similarly situated, amounted to hostile discrimination and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p.10-11, para. 13The administrative stipulation in the office order dated 30.07.2020, attempting to declare Surjeet Singh's case as non-precedential, was deemed incapable of overriding binding judicial pronouncements.
Source reference: p.11, para. 13Holding
The court allowed the Original Applications, holding that the applicant's case was squarely covered by the decisions in Surjeet Singh v. UOI & Others, K.S. Jandu & Others v. UOI & Others, and O.A. No. 336/HP/2010 (H.C. Sharma’s case), all upheld by higher courts.
The impugned orders dated 03.06.2021 and 30.07.2020 (to the extent they denied parity with Surjeet Singh) and the orders dated 15.02.2023 (in OA No. 429/2023 and O.A. No. 430/2022) were quashed.
Source reference: p.11, para. 15The respondents were directed to grant the applicants ACP/MACP benefits based on their personal/protected pay scale, mirroring the benefits given to Surjeet Singh, including re-fixation of pay and arrears.
Source reference: p.11, para. 15This exercise was to be completed within three months from the receipt of the order.
Source reference: p.11, para. 15Original Court PDF
Vijay Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Others [no citation]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in