ups_01119 — It is a settled law that Tribunals and Courts cannot ordinarily enter into the administrative domain and make suggestion or pass orders that encroach in areas of legitimate administrative considerations or impose consequent costs that have a bearing on their budgets. In this OA 18 retired / ex-retired employees pray for fixation of pay which was not agreed and hence the OA is dismissed

UPS

It is a settled law that Tribunals and Courts cannot ordinarily enter into the administrative domain and make suggestion or pass orders that encroach in areas of legitimate administrative considerations or impose consequent costs that have a bearing on their budgets. In this OA 18 retired / ex-retired employees pray for fixation of pay which was not agreed and hence the OA is dismissed — This chunk is discussing the adjustment of pay scales by the government in response to the Sixth Pay Commission, specifically focusing on the S-24 scale, which was higher than S-21, but adjusted diff... — Facts: There are 18 retired employees who retired prior to 1-1-2006. Their main prayer is fixation of their pay and grant of pensionary benefits as desired by them in Sixth Pay Commission scales of pay. They have submitted a to l grounds which are noted in the judgment to support their contention. Tribunal heard both sides. It is a settled law that Courts cannot intervene in administrative domain unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or that discrimination has been practised within a class of employees or classes have been created without any basis in fact and law. Based on the Pay Commission recommendation, the Government selectively maintained the difference between S-21 - S-23 rank and the rank of S-24 by which S-24 pay scale granted by the Fifth Pay Commission was upgraded to PB-4 pay scale listed by the Sixth Pay Commission. It is not disputed by the Government that S-24 pay scale is fixed on par with S-21 - S-23. That does not constitute a barrier to Government to selectively improve the status and salary of those lying in S-24 scale so long as no negative impact falls upon the persons in the lower scale. The only requirement under Fundamental Rules is that, when a person occupies a position and discharges higher responsibility than his substantive position, he can make a claim for additional pay and which can be considered by department. That does not mean pulling down the high pay scale of post with higher responsibilities for which the department has chosen to make a different arrangement with higher pay to the Sixth Pay Commission. All pay scales cannot be lumped together as joint administrative grade which has no meaning in proper context. It is seen that no nebulous classes of employees have been created within these categories of pay scales which were not existing earlier. In the new scheme S-24 scale which was higher than S-21, adjusted it differently in the new scheme. There is also no distinction between those who retired prior to 1-1-2006 and those retired subsequent to 1-1-2006 except in the manner set out by Sixth Pay Commission. Respondents are at liberty to higher pensions to S-24 or equivalent. Difference in fixation of pay scale cannot become a basis for characterizing the decision of Respondents as arbitrary. Responding by different categories of employees cannot be given equal treatment in pay or pension. In the present case, the petitioners seek the sympathy of the Tribunal on the ground that they had been in their substantive posts from which they retired. Yet, their pension difference have become quite substantial and may merit consideration. That however, cannot be a basis for seeking adjudication before the Tribunal, in the manner the Applicants have sought. As pointed out by Respondents, it is a settled law that Tribunals and Courts cannot ordinarily enter into the administrative domain and make suggestion or pass orders that encroach in areas of legitimate administrative considerations or impose costs that have a bearing on their budgets.

UPS

It is a settled law that Tribunals and Courts cannot ordinarily enter into the administrative domain and make suggestion or pass orders that encroach in areas of legitimate administrative considerations or impose consequent costs that have a bearing on their budgets. In this OA 18 retired / ex-retired employees pray for fixation of pay which was not agreed and hence the OA is dismissed — This chunk is discussing the adjustment of pay scales by the government in response to the Sixth Pay Commission, specifically focusing on the S-24 scale, which was higher than S-21, but adjusted diff... — Facts: There are 18 retired employees who retired prior to 1-1-2006. Their main prayer is fixation of their pay and grant of pensionary benefits as desired by them in Sixth Pay Commission scales of pay. They have submitted a to l grounds which are noted in the judgment to support their contention. Tribunal heard both sides. It is a settled law that Courts cannot intervene in administrative domain unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or that discrimination has been practised within a class of employees or classes have been created without any basis in fact and law. Based on the Pay Commission recommendation, the Government selectively maintained the difference between S-21 - S-23 rank and the rank of S-24 by which S-24 pay scale granted by the Fifth Pay Commission was upgraded to PB-4 pay scale listed by the Sixth Pay Commission. It is not disputed by the Government that S-24 pay scale is fixed on par with S-21 - S-23. That does not constitute a barrier to Government to selectively improve the status and salary of those lying in S-24 scale so long as no negative impact falls upon the persons in the lower scale. The only requirement under Fundamental Rules is that, when a person occupies a position and discharges higher responsibility than his substantive position, he can make a claim for additional pay and which can be considered by department. That does not mean pulling down the high pay scale of post with higher responsibilities for which the department has chosen to make a different arrangement with higher pay to the Sixth Pay Commission. All pay scales cannot be lumped together as joint administrative grade which has no meaning in proper context. It is seen that no nebulous classes of employees have been created within these categories of pay scales which were not existing earlier. In the new scheme S-24 scale which was higher than S-21, adjusted it differently in the new scheme. There is also no distinction between those who retired prior to 1-1-2006 and those retired subsequent to 1-1-2006 except in the manner set out by Sixth Pay Commission. Respondents are at liberty to higher pensions to S-24 or equivalent. Difference in fixation of pay scale cannot become a basis for characterizing the decision of Respondents as arbitrary. Responding by different categories of employees cannot be given equal treatment in pay or pension. In the present case, the petitioners seek the sympathy of the Tribunal on the ground that they had been in their substantive posts from which they retired. Yet, their pension difference have become quite substantial and may merit consideration. That however, cannot be a basis for seeking adjudication before the Tribunal, in the manner the Applicants have sought. As pointed out by Respondents, it is a settled law that Tribunals and Courts cannot ordinarily enter into the administrative domain and make suggestion or pass orders that encroach in areas of legitimate administrative considerations or impose costs that have a bearing on their budgets.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text