HISTORY OF 4 ADVANCE INCREMENTS FOR AUDITORS CASE

CONFEDERATION OF AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS ORGANISATIONS

15/1093, VASUNDHARA, PIN: 201012

(M) 09899983035

Ref: Conf AAEFO/ Judg/2 Date: September 9, 2010

Dear Comrade,

I have the pleasure to inform you that copy of judgment of SLP (Civil) No. 21453/2008 have been received by me yesterday in the evening. To refresh the memory of our comrades I am giving a brief history of the case and the basis on which applicants approached the judiciary to help you to understand the case and the implication of the judgment.

The scheme of payment of advance increments to the Upper Division Clerks (UDC) (now auditors/ accountants) was introduced in 1952 in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. The scheme was extended to Railways in 1961. Four advance increments were being granted to the UDC’s on passing Departmental Confirmatory Test.

The scheme of grant of four advance increments was stopped, with effect from 01. 01. 1973, with the implementation of the Third Central Pay Commission Report by the union Government.

Subsequently, as per demand of the staff side in the JCM (NC) the scheme of grant of four advance increment was replaced by introducing a scheme of qualification pay with effect from 01. 06. 1981 vide OM dated 25. 09. 1981.

Accounts Clerks of Railway Accounts had filed a case in Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench claiming grant of four advance increments for those who had passed the examination between 01. 01. 1973 and 31. 05. 1981. Their claim was upheld by the Bench. The Union Government challenged the decision of the CAT by filing SLP in the Supreme Court vide SLP (c) No/ 12443/1990 which was dismissed by the apex court by a reasoned order on 9. 12. 1994. The Supreme Court observed that “The Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any error in recording the finding that the scheme was operative prior to 1981. Even the Third Pay commission did not make any recommendation for discontinuance of the scheme or that the incentive should be stopped s the pay was b4ing revised.”

Consequently, the Railway Board issued an order on 23.01.1996 restoring the grant of four advance increments.

In this case in the Supreme Court, the respondents are Auditors of Southern Railway Audit who were similarly placed with the Railway Accounts Clerks. They initially approached the Chennai Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, Chennai Bench allowed the O.A.filed by the Auditors on the ground that:-

“Admittedly, both the clerks in the Railway Accounts Department and the Auditors in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department were getting the advance increments on the basis of passing of the Appendix II-A examination and the Departmental Confirmatory Examination respectively prior to the recommendation of the III Pay Commission. The above said benefit of advance increment was stopped for both the clerks in the Railway Accounts Department and the Auditors (applicants) in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department on the basis of the recommendation of the III Pay Commission w.e.f. 01. 01.1873. Obviously, the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal directed the Railways to continue the Scheme of advance increments instead of qualification pay scheme and the same has been upheld by the Supreme Court. If the benefit of Advance Increment has been restored to clerks in the Indian Railway Accounts Department on the basis of the Supreme Court decision, the Auditors (Applicants) who are similarly placed should also be entitled to the same benefit.”

The Madras High court dismissed the writ petition filed by the government challenging the decision of the CAT.

In the present case in the Supreme Court, the respondents (Auditors) have also mentioned that:-

“While higher pay scales for the staff in the organised Accounts Department vide OM dated 28. 2.2003, Union of India acknowledges the fact that “ pay scales of corresponding categories in various organized Accounts cadres have traditionally been on par, it has been decided that the dispensation approved in case of the Accounts staff of Railways may be extended to the corresponding categories in all the organised Accounts cadres”. It is specifically mentioned in the said OM that “In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned these orders issue after consultation with the CAG of India”. The said OM belies the averment made by the Union of India in the petition that there is no parity between the clerks in the Railway Accounts Department and the Auditors in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. “

Many of would be beneficiaries are bordering retirement on superannuation or already superannuated. Since this judgment of the apex court is of general nature we are requesting the Union Finance Minister to ensure implementation of this order expeditiously.

It is pertinent to mention here that some members at grassroots level could achieve something that could not be achieved by the leaders who are representing the IA&AD in JCM (NC). No meeting of the Departmental Council of IA&AD has been held since 2007 due to a decision taken by inept leadership to skip meeting till administration agrees to accommodate one person who is not eligible for membership of JCM according to the provisions of the scheme.

It is high time that employees and officers of IA&AD consider seriously whether adherence to a particular political party line is beneficial in a parliamentary democratic set up or accepting the realities we form our line of approach keeping the members’ interest over other factors. I hope members would take a correct decision and bring a change in the representative character of the Organizations to suit the orders of the day. A copy of Supreme Court judgment is enclosed for ready reference.

With greeting,

Yours fraternally,

Sd/-

(A.B.Sen)

Secretary General.