Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.V.Latha vs Union Of India on 4 August, 2015
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 180/00540/2014
TUESDAY, this the 4th .day of August, 2015.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.U.SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K.V.Latha, aged 46 years, w/o P.V.Satheesh,
Senior Hindi Translator,
O/o the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Revenue Buildings, I.S.Press Road, Cochin,
residing at C-46, Income tax Residential Complex,
Panampilly Nagar. Cochin-682 036 ..... Applicant
[By Advocate Mr. Shafik M..A.]
versus
1. Union of India, represented by Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi -110 001.
2. The Director of Income tax, (RSP & HR),
Central Board of Direct Taxes, Official Languages Division,
6th Floor, Mayur Bhavan, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi -110 001.
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, (CCA),
Central Revenue Buildings, I.S.Press Road, Cochin. . . . . Respondents
[By Advocate Mr.N.Anil Kumar, Sr..PCGC(R) ]
This Original Application having been heard on 15.06.2015, this Tribunal on
04-08-2015 delivered the following:
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR.U.SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Applicant is a Hindi Translator working under the respondents. As per Annexure A/1 administrative order the scale of pay of Hindi Translators was revised to Rs. 5500-9000. Bombay Bench of this Tribunal following an earlier order of Calcutta Bench has allowed an OA filed by similarly situated employees. Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the order of the Calcutta Bench vide Annexure A/4 judgment directing to pay the scale of pay Rs.5500 -9000 to the applicants in the OA w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Seeking parity, applicant made Annexure A/7 representation praying for granting her the benefits of the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal as confirmed by the Apex Court in Annexure A/4 judgment and in other cases. As there was no response from the respondents, applicant is seeking following relief :
(i) To declare that the Applicant is entitled to get the scale of pay of Rs.
5500-9000 with effect from 1.1.1996 as per A-1 OM;
(ii) To direct the Respondents to immediately refix the pay of the Applicant with effect from 1.1.1996 in the scale of pay of Rs. 5500 -9000 and to refix the pay, ACP benefits and all other consequential refixations and to draw arrears with 18% penal interest.
(iii) To direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits of fixation of pay and arrears on such re-fixation of pay with 18% penal interest;
(iv) To issue such other appropriate orders or direction this Honb�ble court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case; and
(iv) To grant the costs of this Original Application.
2. Respondents filed a statement on 11.08.2014 and a reply statement on 10.11.2014. They referred to Annexure R/1 O.M. issued by the Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell), Ministry of Finance which reads:
'The upgraded pay scales were approved for those posts notionally with effect from 1.1.96 with the actual financial benefits being allowed with effect from 11.2.2003. It has come to notice of this Department that these pay scales have been extended to similarly designated posts in some organizations outside the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS). It is clarified that the upgraded pay scales approved by the Government are specific to the posts in CSOLS and cannot be extended to similarly designated posts elsewhere. All the concerned departments who have extended these scales unilaterally and un-authorisedly to such posts are directed to withdraw these scales and place these posts in the otherwise applicable pay scales.
It is further directed that responsibility for this lapse may be fixed'.
Therefore the respondents further state that the authority competent to take a decision on the grievance of the applicant has not been made a party in this OA and that respondent no.3 as the Cadre Controlling Authority had forwarded the representations of the applicant to the appropriate authority in time for appropriate directions.
3. We have heard both sides. The short question involved in this case is whether the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable to the applicant's case also or not. Applicant is relying on Annexure A/1 OM issued by the Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell), Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India. It reads as follows:
'New Delhi dated the 14th July, 2003.
Office Memorandum Sub: Extension of higher pay scales of Rs. 5500-9000, Rs. 6500-10,500 and Rs. 7500 - 12000 to the posts of Junior Hindi Translator, Senior Hindi Translator and Assistant Director of CSOLS respectively with effect from 1.1.1996 - regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's D.O. of even number dated the 17th June, 2003 on the subject cited above and to say that the issue of extension of higher pay scales of Rs. 5500 -9000, Rs. 6500-10,500 and Rs. 7500 - 12000 to the posts of Junior Hindi Translator, Senior Hindi Translator and Assistant Director of CSOLS respectively with effect from 1.1.1996 has been reconsidered in this Department and the Hon'ble Finance Minister has approved extension of upgraded pay scales to these posts notionally with effect from 1.1.1996 with actual payments in the higher pay scale being made from 11.2.2003.
Sd/-
(Manoj Joshi) Officer on Special Duty (IC) Shri K.C.Srivastava, Director D/o Official Language Lok Nayak Bhavan Khan Market, New Delhi'.
4. Respondents state that the aforesaid Annexure A/1 Memorandum is applicable only to the Hindi Translators etc. of Central Secretariat Official Language Services (CSOLS), not to the similarly designated posts elsewhere. The view of the Finance Ministry in Annexure R/1 was not found approval when the matter was challenged by Hindi Translators working in other Central Govt establishments other than the CSOLS. The disapproval was for the first time made by the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in OA 939/2004 dt. 09.11.2006. The decision of that Bench in favour of the applicant granting benefit of Annexure A/1 order was upheld by Calcutta High Court vide judgment dt.09.07.2008 in Writ Petition No. 632/2007. This decision was followed by the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal at Camp Sitting at Nagpur in OA No.2120/2005 and other connected OAs vide order dt.02.08.2012. The decision of the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the Writ Petition which arose there from were challenged in the Supreme Court of India in SLP (C ) No. 17419/2009. That S.L.P. was dismissed on 25.07.2013 by Annexure A/4 order of the Supreme Court. The Apex Court while dismissing the S.L.P. relied on a three-judges Bench decision of that court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 618 . It reads :
'8. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional right. Article 39 (d) of the Constitution proclaims equal pay for equal work for both men and womenb� as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for every one and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. . . . . . '.
(emphasis supplied)
5. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Shafik M.A. points out that as a sequel to Annexure A/3 order of the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal, respondents in that case issued Annexure A/6 order implementing the benefit of Annexure A/1. He prays that a similar order, buttressed by Annexure A/4 judgment of Supreme Court of India, may be made in the instant case also.
6. This Tribunal finds no circumstance to treat the applicant's case differently from those of the applicants in Annexure A/3 and the respondents in Annexure A/4 orders of the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal and the Supreme Court of India respectively.
7. In the result, OA is allowed in part. It is declared that the applicant is entitled to get scale of pay of Rs. 5500 -9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as per Annexure A/1 order. The respondents shall re-fix the pay of the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in terms of Annexure A/1 OM and re-fix the ACP benefits and all other consequential benefits of refixation. However, this Tribunal is not inclined to grant any interest as prayed for in this OA. Parties shall suffer their own costs.
P.GOPINATH U.SARATHCHANDRAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER jm