w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M. Lakshmanan v/s General Manager, Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. ALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28111UP1995PTC018405

Company & Directors' Information:- B D K ALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U27106KA1973PTC002355

    Original Application No. 745 of 2009

    Decided On, 19 November 2010

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. K. ELANGO
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. R. SATAPATHY
    By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

    For the Applicant: P.V.S. Giridhar, Sai Associates, Y. Kavitha, Counsels. For the Respondents: S. Seethalakshmi, Counsel.



Judgment Text

K. Elango, Judicial Member.

1. Brief facts leading to the filing of the application is as set out hereunder: The applicant has entered into the services of the respondent department as Fire Engine Driver (FED) Gr.II during 1988. Later on he was promoted as Gr.I FED in 1995 and again he was promoted as Supervisor during 1999. The, respondent has introduced a scheme called ‘Four Grade Structure’ w.e.f. 02.05.2002. Subsequently, the respondent clarified that the scheme would come into effect from 08.11.1996 by modifying the earlier order. Since the applicant was working as FED as on 08.11.1996, he is eligible for the benefit of the scheme. Infact, the said benefit was extended to the persons who are juniors than him whereas the applicant was denied with the said benefit. The applicant’s representation was rejected and hence, the present applicant seeking relief as stated therein.

2. The respondents filed a reply denying all the averments raised in the application. The reply proceeds to the effect that the scheme is not applicable to the applicant and his juniors are rightly entitled to the benefit of the said scheme since they were eligible to avail the said benefit and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the application.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused tile relevant materials available on record.

4. From the records it is seen that the scheme was introduced wherein it is specifically indicated that tile ‘Four Grade Structure’ is applicable only to the existing Fire Engine Drivers and those who have retired/expired in the grade of FED. The applicant was already promoted as Supervisor w.e.f. the year 1999. Merely because the applicant was holding the post of FED Gr.I on 08.11.1996, he cannot avail the benefit of the said scheme since the scheme is applicable only to the existing and retired/expired FEDs. Further, the applicant having enjoyed the benefit of further promotion as Supervisor, cannot claim additional benefit under the scheme.

5. As far as the next contention to the effect that the applicant’s juniors by name N. Kaliyaperumal and R. Ponnuswamy have availed the benefit of the said scheme, the reply proceeds to the effect that they were holding the post of FED at the relevant point of time and

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

they come within the ambit of the scheme. Hence, there is no discrimination on the part of the respondents in extending the said benefit to them. 6. For the reasons stated above, the application is dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.
O R