Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Amritpal Singh Sood Son Of Shri Jarnail ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 26 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Khushiram, Member (A)
I. O.A. NO.139-CH of 2011 Date of Order: 26.8.2011.
1. Amritpal Singh Sood son of Shri Jarnail Singh Sood,
2. Amit Kumar son of Shri Davinder Nath Dass,
3. Binod Kumar Pandey son of Shri Jai Narain Pandey,
4. Sukhdeep Singh Uppal son of Shri Jag Sharan Singh Uppal,
5. Sandeep Negi son of Shri Ravinder Negi,
6. Monika Chhabra wife of Shri Karanbir Singh Chhabra,
All working as Junior Physiotherapists in the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
APPLICANTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI J.S. MAANIPUR.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI D.R. SHARMA.
II. O.A. 160/CH/2011
1. Raghunath Sahoo son of late Shri Daitri Sahoo
2. Bibek Adhya son of late Shri Shjibapada Adhya
3. Upendra Nath Goswami son of Shri Jai Narayaan Goswami
All working as Physiotherapist in the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
Applicants
(By : Shri J.S.Maanipur, Advocate ).
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Health), Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research(PGIMER), Chandigarh.
Respondents
(By: Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate)
O R D E R (ORAL).
Honble Mr Khushiram, Member (A):
The commonness of facts and the law points involved in these two cases for determination by this Tribunal has persuaded us to dispose of these O.As by this common order.
2. It is not a matter of dispute that the respondents have, in pursuance of the CAT, Chandigarh Bench judgment dated 17.2.2010 in OA No.90-CH of 2010 filed by Amritpal Singh Sood and Others, allowed the up-gradation of the post of Junior Physiotherapist from grade pay of Rs.2000 in PB-1 (pre-revised Rs.4500-7000) to the grade pay of Rs.4200 in PB-2 (pre-revised Rs.5500-9000) w.e.f. the date of issue of orders by PGIMER Chandigarh and merger plus re-designation of the posts of Junior Physiotherapist and Physiotherapists in PGIMER, Chandigarh.
3. The grievance raised by the applicants now is that the admissibility of the revised grades ought to have been made to them with effect from the date those grades were made available to their counterparts in other dispensations of the Government with effect from 1.1.1996 i.e. the date with effect from which the recommendations made by the Fifth Central Pay Commission were implemented.
4. The respondents have taken up a stance that the grant of grades is in the discretion of the competent authorities and that the date of admissibility of the monetary benefits aforementioned has been ordered in accord with the instructions received from the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare vide latters letter dated 24.9.2010.
5. It is also contended that the Ministry had advised for modification of Recruitment Rules for the post of Physiotherapist after merging the post of Junior Physiotherapist and Physiotherapist with a common grade pay of Rs.4200/- in pay band-2, Rs.9300-34800 which was placed before the meeting of the Governing Body/Institute Body held on 17.1.2011 and necessary orders for merger of the post of Junior Physiotherapist and Physiotherapist in the grade pay of Rs.4200/- in PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 and further re-designation as Physiotherapist were issued on 21.2.2011. As per the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme ( for short MACP ) came into force w.e.f. 1.9.2008 under which an employee is entitled to three financial upgradation on completion of 10, 20 & 30 years of regular service and the applicants will also be entitled to the benefit of this scheme and will also be eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Physiotherapist as and when vacancy arises. The respondents have also stated in O.A.No.160/CH/2011 that the O.A is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before us.
7. Admittedly, the post of Junior Physiotherapist has been redesignated as Physiotherapist and has been granted up graded scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200/-. The respondents have also agreed to grant MACP on completion of 10/20/30 years of service from the date the scheme was issued. Since matters related to grant of pay scales and up-gradation of pay scale is concerned, it requires specialized knowledge of the different cadres and their functions, responsibilities etc. and the Courts cannot enter into the arena as they do not have the expertise of the Pay Commission. Accordingly, we are of the view that the respondents have already granted merger of the post of Junior Physiotherapist with Physiotherapist and have also re-designated them accordingly. They have also granted them suitable pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200/-, the Tribunal does not have paraphernalia to examine the grant of up-graded pay scales different from the scales recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission which has been implemented in this case. Since the PGI is governed by an autonomous society, they are at liberty to grant the pay scales to its employees according to availability of resources or the grants received from the Government of India. Moreover, the applicants have never questioned either their induction as Junior Physiotherapist all these years nor claimed higher pay scale from the date recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission were implemented (i.e. 1.1.1995 ) nor sought parity with the Physiotherapists of AIIMS New Delhi all these years nor Pay Commission has recommended their case in particular. We are of the view that the claim of the applicants is hopelessly time barred.
9. Resultantly, both the OAs are found to be bereft of any merit and the same are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(KHUSHIRAM) MEMBER (A) (JUSTICE S.D.ANAND) MEMBER (J) Dated: 26.8.2011.
Kks 6 (O.A.NO.139/CH/2011) 1