Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Baldev Raj vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 20 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.4179/2010 New Delhi this the 20th day of September, 2011. Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam Member (A) 1. Baldev Raj, Retd. Sanitation Supdt. R/o 27-C, Vaishali Apartment, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. 2. M.K. Bakshi, Retd. Sanitary Inspector, R/o F/21-23, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi-110085. 3. Surender Singh Bindra, Retd. Health Inspector, R/o 297, Sainik Vihar, New Delhi. 4. Maman Singh Dahiya, Retd. Health Officer, R/o A-3, Gali No.17, Mahendra Park, New Delhi. 5. Adarsh Kumar Oberoi, Retd. Sanitary Inspector, R/o 8/20, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. 6. Amarnath Juneja, Retd. Sanitary Inspector, R/o 30/36, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. 7. Prem Singh, Retd. Sanitary Inspector, R/o House No.23, Suraj Nagar, Azadpur, New Delhi. -Applicants (By Advocate Shri S.B.S. Vashistha) -Versus- Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri Piyush Gaur, for Shri R.K. Jain) O R D E R Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J):
Applicants have filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
That the applicants be brought at par with re-designated vaccination Cadre in the matter of pay scales and the ASIs be placed at least in the pay scale of 425-640 w.e.f. 01.01.1973 as given to Vaccinators and subsequently higher pay scales be granted to the S.I.s CSIs and Sanitation Superintendents in the interest of justice. The applicants pay scale may kindly be re-determined and their pays be re-fixed accordingly.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicants were promoted to the posts of Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI) on different dates in the years 1964 to 1978 as per the dates mentioned in Annexure A and they have also retired from the Corporation as Health Inspectors in the years 2003, 2004 and two of them on 31.05.2000 and 31.12.2008. The grievance of the applicants in this case is regarding parity in the grant of pay scale as is being paid to the Vaccinators w.e.f. 1.1.1973. Their pay scale was revised to that of Rs.425-640 vide separate order dated 31.05.2005 (page 12 of the paper-book). The grievance of the applicants is that they should also be granted the same pay scale of Rs.425-640, as has been granted to the Vaccinators. From the material placed on record, it is also evident that the applicants did not raise any grievances regarding grant of higher (revised) pay scale to the staff of Anti Malaria Operations Epidemiology Department, including grant of pay scale of Rs.425-640 to Vaccinators w.e.f. 1.1.1973 vide order dated 31.05.2005. However, for the first time such grievances were raised by the applicants through legal notice dated 11.06.2010. Although applicants have specifically stated in para-2 (should be para-3) that this OA is within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and no application for condonation of delay has been moved, however, in para-4.3 of the OA they have stated that they came to know about the office order dated 31.05.2005 in the month of April, 2010, whereby causing disparity between the Vaccinators and ASIs.
3. Respondents have filed their reply wherein by way of preliminary submission respondents have stated that pay scale of some of the Vaccinators, who were given special training regarding inoculation/immunization and perform the duties of immunization/vaccination which was being taken from inolucators alongwith the duty of birth and death registration were revised on the analogy of inoculators in compliance of the award dated 23.9.1988 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I in ID No.253/83. Thus, according to the respondents the pay scale of all the Vaccinators was not revised but the pay scale of some of the Vaccinators was revised on the above basis, as they were given special training and were performing different duties. Thus, according to the respondents applicants are not entitled to re-fixation of pay on this ground alone.
4. Respondents have further stated that the applicants and Vaccinators belong not only to different cadre but to the different departments of the respondents and are performing different duties and they cannot be compared with each other. It is further stated that applicants had been working in the EMS department of the respondent whereas the Vaccinators are working in the Health Department. The duties of the applicants and that of the Vaccinators are totally different. It is further stated that the Vaccinators who had been given the special training and were discharging the duties of immunization/vaccination which was being taken from Inolucators, were given the revised pay scale in compliance of the award dated 23.09.1988 passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Respondents have also stated that the applicants have already retired from service and hence the present OA is not maintainable, as hopelessly barred by limitation.
5. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the material placed on record. We are of the view that the applicants are not entitled to any relief for more than one reason. Firstly, the applicants have raised this grievance after a lapse of more than six years when such benefit was extended to the Vaccinators. Applicants have not filed any application for condonation of delay as to why they have not approached the authorities at the appropriate time, in case they had any valid grievance. The explanation given by the applicants that they came to know about the decision dated 31.05.2005 only in 2010, cannot be accepted. Applicants 1 and 4 have retired from the service of the Corporation on 31.05.2008 and 31.12.2008 respectively, as such they must be aware about the grant of higher pay scale to the Vaccinators pursuant to the order dated 31.05.2005. Be that as it may, since we are deciding this OA on merits, the same is not being rejected on the ground of limitation, although hopelessly time barred.
6. Now let us consider the case of the applicants on merits. The respondents have categorically stated that the higher pay scale of Rs.425-640 is not being granted to all the Vaccinators. It has been categorically stated that such revised pay scale has been granted to only those Vaccinators who were given special training regarding inoculation/immunization and perform the duties of immunization/vaccination which was being taken from inolucators alongwith the duty of birth and death registration were revised on the analogy of inoculators in compliance of the award dated 23.9.1988 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I in ID No.253/83. That apart, the respondents have categorically stated that the applicants and Vaccinators belong not only to different cadre but to the different departments of the respondents and are performing different duties and they cannot be compared with each other. This part of the averment has not been controverted by the applicants. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a wholesale parity/equivalence between the post held by the applicants and Vaccinators so as to grant the same pay scale.
7. Learned counsel of applicants further argued that the post of ASI, Vaccinator and Assistant Malaria Inspector (AMI) were drawing the same pay scale, whereas Vaccinator had been given revised pay scale of Rs.425-640 w.e.f. 1.1.1973, AMI was revised to Rs.330-560 and the same scale was also given to applicants who belong to ASI category. Learned counsel of applicants argued that MI/AMI challenged the order dated 23.03.3005 and office order dated 31.5.2005, claiming parity of the pay scale equivalent to Vaccinators and Vaccination Inspectors in TA No.266/2009 in the matter of Ram Kumar Sharma & Others v. M.C.D. and this Tribunal vide order dated 14.05.2009 disposed of the TA whereby respondents were directed to consider the grievance of the applicants for bringing them at par with re-designated Vaccination cadre in matter of pay scale. Simply because this Tribunal in the case of MI/AMI has directed the respondents to consider the case of applicants to grant higher pay scale at par with Vaccinators/Senior MI does not mean that the AMI/MI are entitled to the higher pay scale equivalent to that of Vaccinators, Senior MI and Chief Vaccination Inspector. As already stated above, parity cannot be claimed on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay, as contended by the applicants. The issue was considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and another v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and others, (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 1, and it was held that equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It is dependent on various factors such as educational qualifications, nature of jobs, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment, etc. Comparison merely based on designation of posts is misconceived. The principles relating to granting higher scale of pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work are well settled. The evaluation of duties and responsibilities of different posts and determination of the pay scales applicable to such posts and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities are complex executive functions, to be carried out by expert bodies. Granting parity in pay scale depends upon comparative job evaluation and equation of posts. The burden to prove disparity is on the employees claiming parity. Courts should approach such matters with restrain and interfere only if they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees.
8. It may be relevant to state here that the Apex Court has considerably water-down the principle of equal pay for equal work and this principle has hardly ever been applied in the recent decisions. Further the Apex Court in the case of S.C. Chandra & others v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897 has held that fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter, which is for the executive to discharge. It was further observed that granting of pay parity by the Court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences. It was further held that:
Two groups of employees may be doing the same work, yet they may be given different pay scales if the educational qualifications are different. Also, pay scale can be different if the nature of jobs, responsibilities, experience, method of recruitment, etc. are different. Thus, in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj it was held that the principle can only apply if there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. Even if the employees in the two groups are doing identical work they cannot be granted equal pay if there is no complete and wholesale identity e.g. a daily-rated employee may be doing the same work as a regular employee, yet he cannot be granted the same pay scale. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because nature of work is same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience & other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply.
9. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the applicants have not made out any case for grant of relief. Even otherwise also, perusal of the order dated 31.05.2005 reveals that the pay scales of Vaccinators were revised to that of Rs.330-560 [item 1 (b)] and Rs.425-640 [item 2 (c)] and it is not a case that all the Vaccinators of MCD were given the revised pay scale of Rs.425-640. As already stated above, respondents have categorically stated that the pay scale of Rs.425-640 was being granted to those Vaccinators, who were given special training regarding inoculation/immunization and perform the duties of immunization/vaccination which was being taken from inolucators alongwith the duty of birth and death registration, whereas the remaining Vaccinators were being granted the pay scale of Rs.330-560 which was being granted to the category of applicants being ASI. Even on this ground, applicants are not entitled to any relief.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the present OA is bereft of merit, which is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Manjulika Gautam) ( M.L.Chauhan )
Member (A) Member (J)
San.