Jammu and Kashmir High Court Quashes Tribunal Order; Directs Implementation of ACP and MACP Benefits for MES Employees, Holding Commander Works Engineer’s Actions Unlawful

Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir quashed the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and set aside the communication issued by the Commander Works Engineer, Jammu, dated 03-08-2015. The court upheld that the petitioners are entitled to the 1st ACP, 2nd ACP, and 3rd MACP in their respective pay scales, with arrears. The court criticized the Commander Works Engineer’s actions as “vindictive” and “contemptuous,” ruling that the Commander had no authority to overrule a final decision made by the court.

Facts:
The petitioners, employees of the Military Engineering Service (MES), were initially classified as “Valvemen” in a semi-skilled category. They contended that they should have been classified as skilled workers and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 16-10-1981. This classification was confirmed by earlier judgments of this court and upheld by the Division Bench, following which the petitioners were placed in the skilled worker category and their arrears were paid.

However, in 2015, the Commander Works Engineer, Jammu, issued a communication directing all Garrison Engineers under his command to treat the placement of the petitioners in the skilled worker category as part of their 1st ACP and to recover benefits that had been erroneously granted.

Issues:
The primary issue was whether the petitioners, working as Valvemen, were entitled to the pay scales under the ACP and MACP schemes and whether the Commander Works Engineer had the authority to classify them as semi-skilled, contrary to the judgments passed by the court.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the issue of their classification had been conclusively decided in their favor in previous judgments, which held that they were entitled to the skilled worker pay scale. They challenged the communication issued by the Commander Works Engineer as arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of natural justice, contending that it attempted to undermine a final court judgment.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents contended that, as per recruitment rules, the petitioners should be classified as semi-skilled workers. They argued that the court’s earlier decision was passed without considering these rules and that the communication issued by the Commander Works Engineer was in accordance with those rules.

Analysis of the Law:
The court emphasized the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” a central theme in its previous judgments concerning the petitioners. The court held that its earlier decisions must be followed and that the Commander Works Engineer had no authority to revisit or challenge the court’s findings.

Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to its previous judgments, including those in the cases of Amar Nath and Ram Dass, which had conclusively settled the issue in favor of the petitioners. These judgments were based on the court’s interpretation of the pay scale entitlements under the principle of equal pay for equal work, overriding the recruitment rules cited by the respondents.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court reasoned that the Commander Works Engineer’s actions were an unlawful attempt to circumvent its final judgment. It stated that the judgments passed by this court are binding and that no subordinate authority has the power to review or alter those decisions. The court found that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter in its proper legal context.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the order of the Tribunal and the communication issued by the Commander Works Engineer. It directed the respondents to grant the petitioners the 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, the 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, and the 3rd MACP in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800, along with arrears.

Implications:
The judgment reaffirms the binding nature of court decisions and underscores the principle that administrative authorities cannot override judicial determinations. It also highlights the importance of equal pay for equal work, ensuring that the petitioners receive the financial benefits they are entitled to under the ACP and MACP schemes.