Ernakulam CAT case : Reply filed by Association to the counter reply to Ministry of Finance

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH

C.P./180/00137/ 2016

IN

O.A./180/00289/2013

All India Association of Inspector of Posts &

Assistant Superintendent of Posts and others        : Petitioners/Applicants 

            Vs.

Ashok Lavasa                                                        :  Respondent/Respondemt

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS

I, Niranjan Kumar, S/o. Sri. Suresh Prasad Sah, aged 34 years, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Kerala Circle (presently working on deputation as Deputy Manager, Centre for  Excellence in Postal Technology, Mysore) residing at Quarter No. III/3, PTC Campus Staff Quarters, PTC Mysore, Karnataka-570 010 having come down to Ernakulam do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. I am the 3rd petitioner in the above Contempt petition. I am conversant with the facts of the case. I am swearing this affidavit for and behalf of the petitioners 1 and 2 also. I am authorised to do so. 

2. It is submitted that an affidavit has been filed by the respondent seeking to close the above Contempt Petition (Civil) stating that Annexure P-1 Order has been fully complied with. It is submitted that the above statement is one made knowingly to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal. In Annexure P-1 Order this Hon'ble Tribunal had considered the legal and factual position relating to the need for reckoning the functional parity between the Inspector Posts and the analogous post under CBDT and CBEC and accordingly directed the respondent No.1 (respondent herein) to send Annexure A-19 Order along with the representation made by the 1st Applicant Association, the recommendations made by the Department of Posts thereon along with copies of the relevant portion of the 4th, 5th and 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations regarding the pay of Inspector (Posts) to the Member-Secretary of the 7th CPC requesting to making appropriate recommendations. It has been further directed that Respondent No.1 shall also submit an explanation before the 7th CPC as to why despite the Cabinet Resolution accepting the recommendations in paragraph 7.6.14 of the report of the 6th CPC, the officials in the Finance Ministry took a different view and also under what authority the said official made such notings in Annexure A-22 file Note. In the event the 7th Pay Commission has reached the final stage of its proceedings and is not in a position to include this matter in its report, then the Finance Secretary/ 1st respondent shall at his level consider the matter as directed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 381/2010 keeping in view the detailed proposal with justification submitted by the Department of Posts, the detailed observations made by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the earlier O.A and also the above order and shall pass a detailed speaking order addressing all these points within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. Admittedly, the 7th Central Pay Commission was already finalised in October, 2015 before the implementation of Annexure P-1 Order. Therefore, the respondent herein is duty bound to consider the matter as directed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 381/2010 keeping in view the detailed proposal with justification submitted by the Department of Posts, the detailed observations made by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the earlier O.A and also Annexure P-1 Order and to pass a detailed speaking order addressing all these points within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. The copy of Annexure P-1 Order was admittedly received by the respondent in May, 2016. However, no orders passed by the respondent till date. The acceptance of the recommendations of the 7th CPC by the Cabinet Committee for approval of the Government has nothing to do with the above direction and therefore, the deliberate action of the respondent herein in not passing speaking Order regarding the entitlement of the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to the Inspector Posts with effect from 01-01-2006 is contumacious and is liable to be proceeded under the Contempt of Court Act. 

3. All other averments made in the affidavit is devoid of any force or merit. The respondent herein did not comply with the positive directions contained in Annexure P-1 Order of this Honourable Tribunal and the attempt to defeat and defy the directions of this Honourable Tribunal and the conduct of the respondents in attempting to overreach the Orders of this Honourable Tribunal is an instance of defying the lawful authority of this Honourable Tribunal and is a clear interference with the course of justice. The respondents have rendered themselves liable to be proceeded under the Contempt of Court Act by employing subterfuge and attempting to get the CCC (P) closed by relying on the orders issued by the Government accepting the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission with effect from 01-01-2016, which has nothing to do with the entitlement of the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to Inspector Posts with effect from 01-01-2006.  

All the above facts are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Dated this the 29th day of January, 2016

DEPONENT

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the deponent on this the 29th day of January, 2016 in my office at Ernakulam.

ADVOCATE