1

Item No. 50 (C-5)

O.A. No. 503/2019

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A. No. 503/2019

This the 3rd day of July 2023

Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)

Beer Singh, Aged 42 Years, A,

S/o Sh. Gokul Singh,
Working As Principal in KVS,
Posted in KV, Rewari (Haryana),
R/o 1375, Sector 4, Rewari (Har.)
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)

Versus

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Through the Commissioner
18, Institutional Area
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi

2. The Assistant Commissioner (Estt. I),

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
18, Institutional Area
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Nag)
 2
Item No. 50 (C-5)

O.A. No. 503/2019

O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A):-

In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has

sought the following relief(s):-

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased

to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated
12.2.2018 (Annex.A/1), declaring to the effect that the
same is illegal, arbitrary and against the law of land and
consequently, pass an order directing the respondents
treat the applicant appointed notionally from the date of
appointment of similarly situated persons of the same
panel to the post of Principal only for the purpose of
notional fixation of pay and notional seniority and
consequently, fix the pay and seniority of the applicant
notionally from 2012 i.e. from the date of appointment of
similarly situated persons of the same select panel, with
all consequential benefits including the arrears of
different of pay and allowances from the date of joining
of the post.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit
and proper may also be granted to the applicant along
with the costs of litigation.”
 3
Item No. 50 (C-5)

O.A. No. 503/2019

2. The applicant had earlier filed an O.A. before the

Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal which was decided in line with

the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal

in a bunch of O.As. with the leading one being O.A. No.

4037/2012 on 23.09.2015 by way of a common order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant, during the course of

arguments, has brought to our notice that another applicant

in one of these O.As. that is, O.A. No. 1414/2013, had

approached this Tribunal agitating his grievance that

despite the Tribunal's directions, necessary benefits of

notional fixation of seniority and pay etc. had not been

extended in his favour by the respondents on the plea that

the order of the Tribunal was silent on the issue of fixation

of pay/ back wages.

4. The relevant O.A., vide which the issue was agitated, is

O.A. No. 520/ 2019 titled G. Prince Denness Christy Vs.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another decided on

10.01.2023. Since the learned counsel has emphatically

argued that the present applicant is identically placed and

hence, the O.A. should be disposed of on the lines of O.A.

 4
Item No. 50 (C-5)

O.A. No. 503/2019

No. 520/2019, it would be appropriate, for a holistic

understanding of the issue, to reproduce the order dated

10.01.2023 in O.A. No. 520/2019 verbatim:-

“This is the second round of litigation in the matter. The

applicant had agitated his grievance earlier vide O.A. no. 1414/2013
before this very Bench of the Tribunal. The same was disposed of
with a direction to provide a select list of Principals in accordance
with para 9 of the judgment which is reproduced below :
“9. In the circumstances, the Original Applications
are disposed of with direction to the respondent –
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to re-examine the issue
of preparation of select list for the post of Principal,
keeping in view the law declared by the Apex Court in
R.K. Sabharwal’s case (supra) and Office Memorandum
No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (SCT) dated 1.7.1998 (Annexure A-
6 (colly.)) (ibid), within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is made
clear that anyone of the SC/ST/OBC categories, who
have availed any relaxation, viz. age limit, experience
qualification, permitted number of chances in written
examination, extended zone of consideration, etc.,
would not be adjusted against UR vacancies. Before
taking final decision in the matter, the Official
respondent would given an opportunity of hearing to
all private respondents also. No costs.
A copy of this Order be kept in each case file.”
2. Pursuant to such orders, the applicant was appointed as
Principal w.e.f. 31.03.2016 and his pay was fixed accordingly.
However, the benefit of notional fixation of pay w.e.f. 31.03.2016
which is the date of appointment pursuant to the directions of this
Tribunal has not been extended to the applicant.
3. Aggrieved, he has filed the present O.A. seeking the following
reliefs :
“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously
be pleased to pass an order of quashing the
impugned order dated 20.7.2018 (Annex.A/1) ,
declaring to the effect that the same is illegal,
arbitrary and against the law of land and
 5
Item No. 50 (C-5)

O.A. No. 503/2019

consequently, pass an order directing the

respondents treat the applicant the applicant
appointed notionally from the date of
appointment of similarly situated persons of the
same panel to the post of Principal only for the
purpose of notional fixation of pay and notional
seniority and consequently, fix the pay and
seniority of the applicant notionally from 2012
i.e. from the date of appointment of similarly
situated persons of the same select panel, with all
consequential benefits including the arrears of
different of pay and allowances from the date of
joining of the post.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble
Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be
granted to the applicant along with the costs of
litigation.”
4. The issue at stake is very limited. It is not disputed that the
applicant has been given appointment as a Principal retrospectively,
the relevant retrospective date being 31.03.2016. This appointment
was given pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2015 passed by this
Tribunal in the aforequoted earlier O.A. However, the persons
admittedly junior to the applicant in the hierarchy have been
accorded promotion to the post of Principal w.e.f. Oct. 2012. What
the applicant seeks is parity with his juniors and fixation of his pay
on notional basis along with all consequential benefits w.e.f. the date
his juniors have been promoted.
5. Learned counsel draws attention to the representation the
applicant has preferred on this issue before the Commissioner, KVS
which is placed at Page 13 (Annexure A-2). Moreover, included in the
representation, is a table containing the name of such juniors along
with their relevant dates of joining and the pay and allowances
enjoyed by them. However, the representation of the applicant has
been rejected on a very limited ground that the Tribunal had only
directed to give appointment to the applicant as Principal but had
passed no orders with respect to fixation of his pay for back wages.
6. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the applicant’s
appointment as Principal, even though on the directions of this
Tribunal, all the benefits associated in accordance with the rules,
should have automatically been extended to the applicant. On the
other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the
decision of the respondents was to be taken purely within the
confines of the directions passed by the Tribunal. The directions were
 6
Item No. 50 (C-5)

O.A. No. 503/2019

with respect to giving appointment to the applicant as Principal

which has since been done and the benefits admissible w.e.f. the date
such appointment has been extended in his favour. He further points
out that it needs to be ascertained whether the applicant has sought
for the relief of notional fixation of pay/ back wages in the earlier
O.A. He goes on to argue that even if he had sought such a relief, the
Tribunal obviously did not pass any orders with respect to that.
Therefore, it is too belated a stage for the applicant to be demanding
the benefits w.e.f. Oct. 2012.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have dealt
with the matter strictly in accordance with the instructions contained
in the DoP&T O.M. dated 28.03.2006, a reference to which has been
categorically made in para 5 of the reply, the respondents have filed.
8. We have heard the learned counsel and also perused the
submissions and pleadings on record.
9. We find that the representation of the applicant while being very
detailed one also contains a factual matrix as also a comparative
chart. It has been disposed of vide a very cryptic and terse order
which is impugned in the O.A. The said order does not satisfy any
criterion of a reasoned order.
10. The claim has been rejected without examining any of the issues
raised by the applicant and by a single reason that the Tribunal
while disposing of the O.A., did not pass any order with respect to
fixation of pay. Are we to understand that the competent authority in
the matters of pay fixation shall take an appropriate decision/ action
only if a court of law so directs?
11. In the instant matter, once the Tribunal had directed the re-
examination of the issue and thereafter preparation of select list for
the post of Principal, it was quite obvious that pursuant to such a re-
examination, all the other consequential decisions should have been
taken. In the present case, such a re-examination led to appointment
of the applicant as a Principal. Therefore, a logical corollary was
that all other consequential benefits including but not restricted to,
re-fixation of the applicant’s pay, seniority and promotion be
accorded to him, if the applicant is entitled to the same, so as to
remove the anomaly with respect to juniors.
12. Therefore, we have no hesitation in allowing the O.A. and
quashing the communication dated 20.07.2018 vide which the
applicant’s claim for re-fixation of salary has been rejected. While
allowing the O.A., a further direction is given to competent authority
amongst the respondents to pass an appropriate order within a
period of eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
 7
Item No. 50 (C-5)

O.A. No. 503/2019

re-fixing the salary of the applicant so that it is brought at par with

his juniors who are said to have been promoted as Principal from
Oct. 2012. The benefit of such a re-fixation shall be on notional basis
w.e.f. Oct. 2012 and actual basis w.e.f. the date the applicant
assumed the position of Principal.
13. Pursuant to this re-fixation, all other consequential benefits shall
be awarded in favour of the applicant within a further period of eight
weeks’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
14. In case the applicant is held to be entitled for payment of any
financial arrears, the same shall be released in his favour
expeditiously. However, the applicant shall not claim any interest on
such a payment.
There shall be no orders as to costs. ”

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn a fine

distinction between the facts of this O.A. with the facts and

circumstances of O.A. No 520/2019. He has argued that

there is a clear recording in O.A. No. 520/2019 that

admittedly some juniors of the applicant had been accorded

promotion before him, whereas that is not the case in the

instant O.A. He further raises a strong legal objection,

submitting that what the applicant is seeking by way of this

O.A. is, in fact, a review of the first order, that is, in O.A. No.

4037/2012 and other connected OAs, or at best he seeks a

clarificatory order through the present O.A. The same would

be in contravention to the principles and provisions of law.

 8
Item No. 50 (C-5)

O.A. No. 503/2019

He submits that the Tribunal had not passed any order with

respect to fixation of pay or back wages in the earlier round

of litigation and this fact is material. It is to be accepted as a

conscious and well considered decision of the Tribunal not

to grant such a relief. Hence, the matter cannot be agitated

again.

6. Besides giving due weightage to the arguments

adduced by the respective counsel, we have carefully

compared the contents of the order in O.A. No. 520/2019

with the present O.A.

7. We have no doubt in our mind that the two OAs bear a

striking similarity. Moreover, a bare reading of para 8, i.e.

the para seeking relief, of each of the two O.As. indicates

that barring the date of the impugned order, each and every

word is same. Accordingly, we, unhesitatingly, hold that the

present applicant is identically situated as the applicant in

O.A. No. 520/2019.

8. We also find that some of the arguments put forth by

learned counsel for the respondents have also been dealt

 9
Item No. 50 (C-5)

O.A. No. 503/2019

with in the order passed in O.A. No. 520/2019. Judicial

propriety and discipline binds us to follow the order which

has been passed in O.A. No. 520/2019, there being no

difference in the facts and circumstances.

9. Therefore, the present O.A. is allowed. The impugned

order dated 12.02.2018 (Annexure A1) is quashed and set

aside. A further direction is given to competent authority

amongst the respondents to pass an appropriate order

within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order, re-fixing the salary of the applicant so

that it is brought at par with his juniors who are said to have

been promoted as Principal from October, 2012. The benefit

of such a re-fixation shall be on notional basis with effect

from October, 2012 and on actual basis from the date the

applicant assumed the position of Principal.

10. Pursuant to this re-fixation, all other consequential

benefits shall be awarded in favour of the applicant within a

further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this order.

 10
Item No. 50 (C-5)

O.A. No. 503/2019

11. In case the applicant is held to be entitled for payment

of any financial arrears, the same shall be released in his

favour expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, he shall

not claim any interest on such a payment.

12. There shall be no orders as to costs.

(Pratima K. Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)

Member (J) Member (A)
/dd/