Giving a big blow to the Chandigarh administration, the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has cancelled the notification of the year 2015, under which the newly recruited employees were kept on fixed salary during the probation period and they were not given grade pay, annual increment and other allowances.
CAT has termed this notification illegal and ordered the administration to pay all such employees their dues, in which they should be given regular salary and all allowances, and the fixed salary given earlier should be deducted from it. This entire payment will have to be made within 3 months of receiving the copy of the order.
This was the case
About 15 employees had filed a petition in the tribunal. All of them were recruited in 2016 on the post of clerk and steno typist, who were appointed on the basis of the advertisement published on 6 October 2015.
However, when they received the appointment letter, a condition was added under Clause 4 that during the first two years of probation period, they would be given only ‘Fixed Emoluments’ (minimum salary), which would not include grade pay, annual increment or other allowances (except travelling allowance).
Objection of employees
The petitioners said that due to this rule, they were losing not hundreds but thousands of rupees every month. They were getting less salary than those people who were working on the same posts on contract basis. They also told that this rule was brought by the Punjab Government on 15 January 2015 by amending the Punjab Civil Service Rules, which was adopted by the Chandigarh Administration on 10 July 2015.
Administration’s defense and CAT’s comment
The administration, while presenting its side, said that they had implemented this rule on the basis of the instructions of the Punjab Government. But the tribunal clarified that that rule of the Punjab government has already been declared illegal, and on the same basis the order issued by the Chandigarh administration also becomes null and void.
CAT also said that the administration could not present any valid law in its favor, while the petitioners gave strong arguments citing the Supreme Court and previous tribunal orders. Citing the Dr. Vishwadeep Singh case, CAT said that this case is completely similar to it and the petition is allowed.
