BISHNUDEO ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have put to challenge a judgment and order dtd. 13/5/2019, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Original Application No. 050/00336/2015, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The petitioners had claimed before the Tribunal their entitlement of pay-band of Rs.5200.00 20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1900.00 instead of pay band of Rs.5200.0020200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800.00. They had also claimed scale of Courier, a Group-C post, from the date with effect from which they were made to work against the said post, though their substantive appointment was against the post of Relieving Unskilled (RUS/Hamal), which was a Group-D post.

(2.) Short facts relevant for adjudication of the present case are not in dispute. The petitioners No. 1 was appointed on 12/11/1993 and petitioner No. 2 on 6/4/1990 on compassionate ground against the post of RUS (Hamal), which was at the said point of time a Group-D post. It is the petitioners' case that they were asked to work against the post of Courier, which was a Group-C post, on officiating basis since 1994. This is also not in dispute that the petitioners received pay-scale admissible for the post of RUS (Hamal).

(3.) It was with the implementation of the recommendations of 6th Pay Revision Commission (PRC in short) that Group-D posts were merged with Group-C posts with effect from 1/1/2006. Post of RUS (Hamal) a Group-D Post was, thus, merged with the post of Courier (Group-C) with effect from 1/1/2006.