Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S.B.Sharma vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 4 July, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRTIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 4099/2010 New Delhi this the 4th day of July, 2012 Honble Mr. Shaliendra Pandey, Member (A) Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J) 1. S.B.Sharma, S/o Shri M.P.Sharma, R/o 280, LIG H.B.Colony, Saraswati Ihar, Gurgaon-122001 2. N.C.Jain, S/o Shri P.C.Jain, R/o 25/60, Gali No. 15, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi-32 3. K.S.Manral, S/o Shri M.S. Manral, R/o A-2/157, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-96 4. S.K.Malhotra, S/o Shri B.B.Bahri, R/o 1/75, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi-87 5. Kitab Singh, S/o Shri R.Narayan, R/o SRB, 56C, Shipra Rivera, Indira Puram, Ghaziabad, UP 6. M.K.Kashyap, S/o Shri Shyam Lal, R/o A-109 Taranmg Aptt., 19- I.P.Extension, Parparganj, Delhi-92 7. Surendra Nath Dey, S/o Shri P.L.Dey, R/o FF 3, K-6, Sector 12, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. 8. A.S.Meena, S/o Shri G.S.Meena, R/0 83-B, Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. 9. B.S.Sethi, S/o Late Shri M.S. Sethi, R/o A-138, Asha Park, New Delhi-17 10. S.P.S.Bhatia, S/o Late Shri K.S.Bhatia, R/o G-13/6, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17 11. Parveen Khanna, S/o Shri C.L.Khanna, R/o B-7/57/2, DDA Flats, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-29 12. Attar Singh, S/o Shri Late Khakhiram, R/o D-1031, DDA Flats, Bindapur, Pkt-3, Dwarka West, New Delhi-59 13. R.S.Rawat, S/o Shri S.S.Rawat, R/o D-337, DDA Flats, Bandapur, Pkt-3, Dwarka, New Delhi-59 14. Jagdish Chand, S/o Late Shri Narain Dass, R/o 1853-D/10, FF, Govindpuri Extn., Kalkaji, New Delhi-19 15. U.K.Sharma, S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad, R/o A-10, Prem Kutir, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-85 16. Sunita Dhingra S/o Shri C.R.Batheja, R/o 644, Type-IV, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi-23 17. Varsha Ahuja, S/o Shri S.R. Chugh R/o 5/7, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-8 18. K.N.Pradeep, S/o Shri K.N.Sreedharan, R/o B-8/7F, DDA Flats, Mayur VIhar-III, Delhi-96 19. Deepak Gupta, S/o Late Shri S.P.Gupta, R/o 768, Saraswati Vihar, Gurgaon, Delhi. 20. Sunita Bhatia, S/o Shri V.S.Bhatia, R/o A-2/92, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. 21. Surbhi Srivastava, S/o Late Shri P.L.Bhatnagar, R/o Pkt-E, 172 B, GTB Enclave, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. 22. P.Gokul Krishna, S/o Shri P. Jagannadha Rao, R/o 118 B, Top Floor, Shahpur Jat, DDA Flats, New Delhi-49 23. Bhagwati Prashad, S/o Late Shri Ram Prashad, R/o 892, Mahawar Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-3 24. Sanjeev Sethi, S/o Late Shri J.P.Sethi, R/o A-3/163, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58 25. Sharafatullah, S/o Shri Rizwanullah, R/o T-32, Jagabai Jamia Nagar, Okha, New Delhi-25 26. V.K.Sehgal, S/o Late Shri L.D.Sehgal, R/o 815, Sector-05, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. 27. Amarjeet Kaur, S/o Shri Mahinder Singh, R/o G-17/6, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. . Applicants (By Advocate Shri G.D.Gupta, Senior Counsel with Shri Vikram Singh) VERSUS 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Ministry of Finance through its Secretary, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi. 3. Managing Director, National Cooperative Development Corporation, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate Shri Rajesh Katyal ) O R D E R Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J):
Before independence, the Public Sector Undertakings had a very limited role to play in India. As a matter of fact, the public sector was confined to railways, ports, communications, broadcasting, irrigation and power, and a few departmental industrial undertakings such as the ordnance factories, railway workshops and Post and Telegraph. Even after independence, the policy was not very clear and it was only after the adoption of Industrial Policy Resolution in 1948 that some of the vital industries were reserved for the State sector. In the said resolution, it was mentioned that there was a need for the State to play a progressively active role in the development of industries. However, the entry of State was limited to a comparatively restricted field. But there has been a shift in favour of the public sector undertaking after adoption of socialist pattern of society as the national objective by the Parliament. The Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956 enlarged the scope of such Undertakings considerably. In pursuance of this policy the Government has set up an increasing number of undertakings and the public enterprises have come to occupy commanding heights of the economy. Today it covers a vast and varied range of activities, for example mining and metallurgy, manufacture of electrical goods, machine tools, chemicals and fertilizers, building of ships, aircraft and locomotives, building and construction, oil exploration and refining, provision of air, sea and road transport, industrial financing and insurance etc.
2. Public enterprises are called by a variety of names such as public sector undertakings, nationalized industries, socialized industries, state-owned industries, state enterprises, Government concerns or undertakings, etc. In the words of Friedmann, it is an institution operating a service of an economic or social character, on behalf of government, as an independent and legal entity, largely autonomous in its management, though responsible to the public through Government and Parliament and subjects to some direction of the government equipped on the other hand with independent and separate funds of its own and the legal and commercial attribute of a commercial enterprises. Public enterprises are autonomous or semi-autonomous Corporations and Companies established, owned and controlled by Commercial enterprises. The objectives of public enterprises, which may be economic, social or political, are:
(1) Planned development (2) Balanced development (3) Acceleration of the rate of economic development (4) Provision of infra-structural facilities (5) Balance regional development (6) Provision of funds for development (7) Revival of sick units (8) Regulation of concentration of wealth and power (9) Prevention of monopolistic tendencies (10) Provision of greater employment opportunities (11) Helping in defence of the country (12) Bringing urbanization and social change.
3. There are three main forms of the public enterprises, viz.
(a) departmental undertakings
(b) public corporations and ( c ) Government Companies. Earlier most of the public enterprises were established, financed and managed as a department of the Government. It was because the Government did not make any distinction between the normal traditional functions of the Government and the public enterprises. The principle characteristics of this form of organization are as follows:-
(i) The enterprise is financed by annual appropriations from the Treasury and all or major share of its revenues are paid into the treasury.
(ii) The enterprise is subject to the budget, accounting and audit controls applicable to other Government activities.
(iii) The permanent staff of the enterprises are civil servants, and the methods by which they are recruited, and the conditions of service under which they are employed are ordinarily the same as for other civil servants.
(iv)The enterprises is generally organized as a major sub-division of one of the central departments of the Government and is subject to the direct control of the head of the department.
(v) Wherever this applies in the legal system of the country concerned, the enterprise possesses the sovereign immunity of the state and cannot be sued without the consent of the Government. The principal characteristics of a public Corporation are:
It is wholly owned by the State.
It is generally created by or pursuant to a special law defining its powers, duties and immunities and prescribing the form of management and its relationship to establish departments and ministries.
(iii) As a body corporate it is a separate entity for legal purposes and can sue and be sued, enter into contracts, acquire property in its own name. Corporation Conducting business in their own name have been generally given greater freedom in making contracts and acquiring to disposing of property than ordinary government departments.
(iv) Except for appropriations to provide capital or to cover losses a public corporation is usually independently financed. It obtains fund from borrowing either from the Treasury or the public, and from revenues derived from the sale of goods and services. It is authorized to use and re-use its revenue.
(v) It is generally exempted from many of the regulatory and prohibitory statues applicable to the expenditure of public funds.
It is ordinarily not subject to budget accounting and audit laws and procedure applicable to non-corporate agencies.
In the majority of cases, the employees are not civil servants, and are recruited and remunerated under terms and conditions which the corporation itself determines.
4. The National Cooperative Development Corporation (for short NCDC) has been implementing a Central Sector/Corporation Sponsored Scheme for providing financial assistance towards setting up of agro-based processing units for plantation of crops ( Tea, Coffee, Rubber, Cashew, Arecanut, Spices etc.), food grain processing ( rice/dal mills, bakery, roller flour mills, maize starch/glucose plants etc.), oilseed processing units and various other processing units ( particle based, paper board projects etc.) Aforementioned functions of NCDC cover the following activities:
Establishment of new processing units Expansion/modernization/rehabilitation/diversification of existing Units Strengthening of share capital base Margin money/working capital to commodity cooperative and State-level Commodity Federations for expansion of their business activities.
In pursuance of Gazette Notification dated 16.09.2002, 13.1.2003 and 21.6.2005 of Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture & Cooperation), the following services have been included under Service Cooperatives for financing by NCDC:-
Agricultural credit through Cooperatives Labour cooperatives Water conservation works/services, irrigation, micro-irrigation in rural areas undertaken by the Cooperatives.
Animal care/health, disease prevention through Cooperatives;
Rural sanitation/drainage/sewage systems through Cooperatives Agricultural Insurance through cooperatives. From the various functions of NCDC, it is apparent that it is a public Corporation and can also be classified as a departmental undertaking. The applicants who are employed in NCDC as Assistants and Programme Officers as well as on other equivalent posts have filed the present Original Application seeking parity in pay scale with Assistants/Section Officers employed in Central Secretariat Services. The question regarding revision of scale of pay for the Assistants in CSS etc. had been under consideration of the Government in terms of order dated 23.05.1989 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (PB) New Delhi in OA No. 1538/1987. Thus, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) issued OM dated 31.07.1990 prescribing the revised scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 for the pre-revised scale of Rs. 425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700-EB-25-800 for duty posts included in the Assistant Grade of Central Secretariat Service and Grade C Stenographer of Central Secretariat Stenographers Service with effect from 1.1.1986. Said revised pay scales were also made applicable to Assistants and Stenographers in other organizations like- Ministry of External Affairs which are not participating in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) where the posts are in comparable grades with same classification of pay scale and the method of recruitment through Open Competitive Examination is also the same. Since the NCDC had been following the Central Government scale of pay for its employees, in view of revision of pay of Assistants and Stenographer etc. in CSS, the Board of Management of the Corporation in its fifty sixth meeting held on 21.12.1990, proposed to make the revised pay scale in terms of OM dated 31.07.1990 applicable to the corresponding grade in NCDC. For easy reference the minutes of the meeting of Board of Management of the Corporation recorded at item No. 12 on 21.12.1990 are reproduced below:-
Fifty sixth meeting of the Board of Management of the Corporation . 21.12.1990) Revision of scales of pay of the post of Assistants/Stenographers/Accounts Assistants/EDP Assistants and consequent upgradation of their promotion post.
The Government of India, vide O.M. No. 2/1/90-CS,IV dated 31st July 1990 has prescribed the revised scales of pay of Rs.1640-60-2600-EB-75-9000/- for the pre-revised scale of Rs.425-800 for the duty posts included in the Assistants Grade of the Central Secretariat Service and Grade C of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The Government of India had earlier prescribed the scale of Rs.1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600/- for these grades from 1.1.1986. Since the NCDC has been following the Central Governments scales of pay the same scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600 was prescribed w.e.f. 1.1.1986, for the posts in the Corporation which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.425-800/-. As the Government have now re-considered the earlier decision and decided to grant the higher scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the posts which were previously in the scale of Rs.425-800, it is, therefore, proposed to make the decision applicable to the corresponding grades in the NCDC also w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Accordingly, the following posts in the NCDC which were given the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on the basis of earlier decision of the Govt. of India, will now be granted the scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986:-
S.No. Designation No of Posts 1. Assistants 46 2. Accounts Assistants 18 3. EDP Assistants 6 4. Stenographers Gr.III 36
2. The posts of Programme Officers, Accountants, Stenographers Gr.II and EDP Officers were granted revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on the basis of the Government of Indias decision to replace the scale of Rs.550900 to the scale of Rs.1640-2900. On this analogy, the post of Assistant Librarian, Reception Officer and Junior Engineer (Electrical) were also given the scale of Rs.1640-2900. The posts of Programme Officers, Accountants Stenographers Gr.II and EDP Officers are the promotion posts from the cadres of Assistants, Accounts Assistant, Stenographers Gr.III and EDP Assistants respectively in the grade of Rs. 1400-2600. With the latter being given the revised scale of Rs.1640-2900, it will be necessary to give some incentive to the incumbents of these posts by way of a higher scale. Accordingly, it is proposed to prescribe the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200 for these posts w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The same revised scale will be prescribed for the isolated posts of Assistant Librarian, Reception Officer and Junior Engineer (Elect.). The posts which will be effected by this decision are:-
S.No. Designation No. of Posts 1. Programme Officer (including Hindi 70 Programme Officer) 2. Accountants 12 3. Assistant Lib. 1 4. Stenos Gr.II 23 5. EDP Officers 4 6. Reception Officer 1 7. Jr.Engineer (Elect) 1
3. The post of Steno.Gr. II which are now given the revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 are the feeder posts for promotion to Steno Gr.I in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200. With the grant of the replacement scale of Rs.2000-3200 to Stenographers Gr.II, it is proposed to grant the higher scale of Rs.2000-3500 to the existing grade of Stenos Gr.I. It may be mentioned here that the comparable posts in the Central Secretariat belonging to the Combined Grade A & B of the CSSS are also in the scale of R.2000-3500. These are only nine posts of Stenographers Gr.I in the NCDC. Briefly, the proposals are:-
to prescribe the scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the posts which are at present in the scale of Rs.1400-2600, in accordance of the orders of the Govt. of India.
to prescribe the scale of Rs.2000-3200 for the posts which are at present in the scale of Rs.1640-2900; and to prescribe revised scale of pay of Rs.2000-3500 in place of the existing scale of Rs.2000-3200 for Stenographers Gr.I
4. The revision is proposed to be made effective from 1.1.1986 as has been done by the Govt. of India for the posts of Assistants and Stenographers in the CSSS.
5. While it is difficult, at this stage, to estimate the precise financial implications of the proposed revision of the pay scales for the posts of Assistant/Programme Officer etc., according to the rough estimates, the financial implication is likely to be of the order of Rs.6.6.lakhs per year commencing from 1.1.1986.
6. Managing Director, NCDC, recommends this proposal,. Approval of the Board of Management is solicited to the revised scales of pay to the various grades as proposed above. The aforementioned minutes were sent for approval to all members of Board of Management of the Corporation vide letter dated 14.01.1991 and were approved with the condition that the prior approval of Central Government be obtained before implementation of the decision of revising the pay scales in terms of the minutes.
5. As the decision taken by Corporation for revision of pay scale of Assistants and Programme Officers etc. in Corporation could not be implemented, a Writ Petition No. 3248/1994 was filed before Honble High Court of Delhi wherein following the judgment in C.M.No.7996/1994 in C.W 4462/1994 (B.S.Gopinathan Nair and Ors. Vs. All India Institute of Medical Science and Ors.), the Honble High Court directed for consideration of the case of petitioners in said petition at par with Central Government employees, in the matter of pay scale and giving them the pay scale as admissible to Central Govt. employees i.e. in the pay scaled of Rs. 1640-2900. For easy reference the said order is extracted hereinbelow:-
16.1.1996 Present: Mr. A.P.S.Gambhir for the petitioner.
Ms. Ropali Sharma for respondent No.1 Mr. K.C.Mittal with Ms. Veena Bhatia for respondent No.2 C.W. 3248/1994 Learned counsel for the parties agree that this writ petition is covered by the decision of this court in C.M.7996/1994 in C.W.4462/1994 titled B.S.Gopinathan Nair and Others Vs. Al India Institute of Medical Sciences and another. Accordingly, I direct that the case of the petitioner should be considered at par with Central Government employees. The respondents shall give the pay scales to the petitioners as admissible to the Central Government i.e. at Rs.1640-2900 from the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.425-800 for the posts of Assistants. Personal Assistants (Stenographers), keeping in view the fact that similarly situated organizations are equating their employees for the post of Assistants and Personal Assistants with that of the Central Government and have awarded the revised pay scales at par with Central Government employees.
With the aforesaid directions the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The aforesaid directions may be given effect to as early as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Copies of the order may be given to the counsel for the parties. In implementation of the aforementioned order passed by High Court, NCDC (Administration Division) issued Office Order No. NCDC:6-1/90- Admn.dated 30.04.1996 providing for fixation of pay of individual employee in each category in revised pay scale. The said Office order reads as under:-
Consequent upon the revision of scale of pay of Assistants and Stenographers Grade C from pre-revised scale of Rs.425-800/- to Rs.1640-2900/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in the Central Secretariat, Govt. of India, the BOM, NCDC, in view of its earlier decision dated 21.12.1990 and order dated 16.1.1996 of the Honble High Court of Delhi, is pleased to revise the pay scale of the Assistants and equivalent (i.e. Rs.425-800/- in the pre-revised scale) to Rs.1640-2900/- and their consequential promotional posts viz. Programme Officers and equivalent ( i.e. Rs.1640-2900/-) to Rs. 2000-3200/- and Stenographers Grade-1 ( i.e. Rs.2000-3200/- to Rs.2000-3500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. This order will supersede all earlier orders issued in this regard.
2. Pay of individual employee in each category shall be fixed separately as per normal rules applicable in this regard. With reference to letter No. NCDC 16-1/90-Admn. dated 2.5.1996 of Managing Director, NCDC, Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture, (Department of Agriculture & Cooperation) issued letter No.I-12011/7/94-I&P dated 24.04.1997 requesting the Managing Director, NCDC to maintain service condition of employees of NCDC like the length of service required for promotion from Assistant to Programme Officer and other categories at par with their counter parts in the Government of India in terms of Regulation No. 68 of the NCDC Service Regulation. Finally the Chief Director (Cooperation), Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation issued letter dated 16.12.1997 conveying the concurrence of the Central Government for implementation of recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission in NCDC subject to certain conditions.
7. With revision of pay scale of Assistant and Section Officers in CSS pursuant to the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, the pay scale of Assistants/PAs who were in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10,500 as on 1.1.2006 were placed in grade pay of Rs.4600/ in PB-2 corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in terms of OM dated 13.11.2009. Similarly the SOs who were in pre-
revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 were granted replacement PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4800 corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.7500-12000/- and PB -3 with grade pay of Rs.5400 after completion of four years of service. With revision of pay scale of Assistants/PAs/SOs in CSS as above and continuation of Assistants and Programme Officers etc. in NCDC in normal grade pay of Rs.4200 in Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 i.e. in Pay Band 2 in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000, equivalence of pay of employees of NCDC and CSS was again disturbed. In One hundred sixty third meeting of the Board of Management of NCDC held on 3.10.2008, it was again proposed to make the revised pay rules based on Sixth CPC recommendation as notified by Government of India applicable to the employees of Corporation in the following manner:-
(i) Pay scales of the various posts in the Corporation may be revised in line with those of the corresponding scales recommended by the Pay Commission and as accepted and notified by the Govt. of India in respect of its employees with effect from 1.01.2006. A statement showing the existing pay scales and proposed revised pay structure (Pay Bands/Grade Pay) in respect of NCDC employees in placed at Annexure-II.
(ii) Other allowances such as House Rent Allowance, Dearness Allowance, Transport Allowance, Children Education Allowance, Special Compensatory Allowance, Special Duty Allowance will be applicable on the same rates and terms and conditions as applicable to Central Government employees.
(iii) In the case of Group-D employees, the pay in the revised pay structure will be fixed initially in the IS Pay Band with the appropriate Grade Pay. Therefore, pay of such of those Group-D employees who already possess the revised minimum qualifications recommended by the Commission prescribed for entry in PB-1 would be re-fixed with effect from 01.01.2006 in PB-1 with grade pay of Rs.1800. Those who do not possess the revised minimum qualifications for entry in PB-1 would be retained preferably for a period of six months and after re-training, these Group-D staff will also be placed in the Pay Band (PB-1) with Grade Pay of Rs.1800 with effect from 01.01.2006 as per the decision of the Govt. of India.
(iv) Pay scale S-9 (Rs.5000-8000) and S-10 ( Rs.5500-175-9000/-) have been merged by the Govt. of India into Pay Band (PB 2) Rs.9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200. It is proposed to accept this in respect of Junior Engineer/Staff Car Driver ( Special Grade ) and Assistants / Accounts Assistants/EDP Assistant/Senior Personal Assistant, respectively, in the NCDC w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
(v).The pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10,500/- of Section Officer, Private Secretary and equivalent has been revised by the Govt. of India to Rs.7500-12000/- and Rs. 8000-13,500/- ( on completion of four years). Programme Officers, Private Secretary and other equivalent level of officers in the NCDC are also proposed to be accorded the same scales effective from 01.01.2006 as they are holding the similar status as that of Section Officer/Private Secretary in the Govt. of India. Accordingly, the same Pay Bands/Grade Pay as applicable in Govt. of India to Section Officer/Private Secretary and equivalent are proposed to be made applicable to the said officers in the Corporation.
(vi) Family Planning Allowance, Cash Handling Allowance, Special Pay, Personal Pay etc. will also be regulated as per Govt. of India orders issued from time to time.
(vii).Amendments, if any, orders issued/to be issued in future by the Govt. of India from time to time regarding change in the Pay Bands/Grade Pay and allowances etc. and also any other order(s) as may be relevant in respect of the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission will also be applicable in the Corporation.
(viii) Any anomaly/discrepancy arising out of implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission in respect of employees of the Corporation shall be resolved as per the extant instructions/decisions of the Govt. of India in the matter at the level of the Managing Director.
(ix) Bills may be drawn by the Corporation separately in respect of the arrears of pay and allowances/for the period from January, 2006 to August, 2008. The aggregate arrears, computed after deduction of subscription at enhanced rates of CPF with reference to the revised pay, may be paid in two installments, the first being restricted to 40% of the aggregate arrears and paid during the financial year 2008-09 and rest 60% in second instalment as may be notified by the Govt. of India for its employees. No arrears will however, be paid in respect of House Rent Allowance, Transport Allowance, Special Duty Allowance etc. These allowances will be paid prospectively with effect from 01.09.2008. However, Dearness Allowance will be payable with effect from 01.01.2006 or from the date of option.
(x) Pay Commission has recommended Assured Career Progression Scheme, which has been accepted by the Government. The same scheme will also be implemented in the Corporation. As can be seen from Clause (iv) and (v) above, it was proposed by NCDC to accept the merger of pre revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 (S-9) with pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 ( S-10) with grade pay of Rs.4200 in Pay Band Rs. 9300-34800 and upgradation of pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500/- to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 and Rs.8000-13500 on completion of four years service. However, since the decision so taken in meeting of Board of the Management of NCDC could not be implemented, applicants have filed the present Original Application making the following prayers:-
Direct the respondents to implement the revised Grade pay of Rs.4600 in Pay Band-2 to Assistants, Sr. Personal Assistants, and equivalent, and Rs. 4800 in Pay Band-2 and Rs.5400 in Pay Band 3 on completion of 4 years service to Programme Officers/Private Secretaries and equivalent in NCDC w.e.f. 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits.
Pass any other direction/order as is necessary in the interest of justice. Prayed accordingly.
8. In support of the relief prayed for in the OA, Mr. G.D.Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants contended as under:-
(i) By not giving the Grade Pay of Rs.4600 in Pay Band-2 to Assistants and its equivalent and Rs.4800 in Pay Band-2 and Rs.5400 in Pay Band-3 on completion of four years service to Programme Officer, Section Officer, Private Secretary and its equivalent in NCDC w.e.f. 1.1.2006, respondents have violated the order dated 16.01.1996 passed by the Honble High Court in terms of which the respondents were directed to give the petitioners the pay scale as admissible to Central Government employee i.e. Rs.1640-2900 for the post of Assistants/PAs (Stenographers).
(ii) In the one hundred sixty third meeting of the Board of Management of NCDC held on 3.10.2008, it was decided to grant grade pay in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 and Rs.8000-13500 on completion of four years service to Programme Officer, Private Secretary and other equivalent level of officers in the NCDC.
(iii) The NCDC is an autonomous Corporation and the decision taken by it to revise the pay scale of its employees is not required to be concurred by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).
(iv). In terms of letter dated 16.12.1997, Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture & Cooperation) had concurred to implementation of recommendations of the Fifth CPC for revision of pay scale of NCDC employees.
(v) NCDC has already written a letter dated 9.03.2010 to Additional Secretary, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (Ministry of Agriculture) seeking concurrence of Central Government for implementation of revised Grade Pay of Rs.4600 in PB-2 to Assistants/PAs and its equivalent and Rs.4800 in Pay Band-2 and Rs.5400 in Pay Band 3 on completion of four years of service to SO/PS/PO (Annexure A-1) and its equivalent w.e.f. 1.1.2006 (Annexure A-1).
(vi) Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) has already concurred to grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4600 in Pay Band-2 ( Rs.9300-34800) corresponding to pre revised pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to the Assistants/PAs and non functional pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 to Section Officer and Private Secretary in ICAR, Employees of Provident Fund Organization and CSIR etc.
9. On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Katyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended as follows:-
(i) Equivalence of pay scale is a complex matter and it is not appropriate for the Court or Tribunal to direct accord of a particular pay scale to an employee or category of employees.
(ii) As per OM dated 13.11.2009, the post that existed in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500 as on 1.1.2006 and granted the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4200/- in Pay Band-2 was to be placed in grade pay of Rs.4600 in PB-2 corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and since the pre-revised pay scale of Assistants/PAs in NCDC was Rs.5500-9000, they were not covered by said OM.
(iii) Only such SOs/PSs or equivalent whose pre-revised pay scale was Rs.6500-10500/- had been granted the replacement pay band of PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4800 corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.7500-12000 and grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 on completion of four years service. When in the case of Assistant/PA in NCDC, the respondents have specifically indicated their pay scale as on 1.1.2006 as Rs.5500-9000 in case of Programme Officer and PS etc., they have not pointed out the pay scale drawn by them as on 1.1.2006.
(iv) The Grade pay of Rs.4600/4800/5400 could be made available only in such organizations which have had a historical pay parity with CSS/CSSS services like AFHQSS/ AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments/Organizations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC and UPSC etc. and since the posts of Programme Officer/Assistants etc in NCDC do not enjoy historical parity with said service, the incumbents of such posts are not eligible for grant of upgraded scale of Rs. 7500-12000, Rs.8000-13500 as also Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 and Rs.5400.
(v) Part B of First Schedule of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 does not become applicable to any posts automatically and each Ministry concerned is required to take an independent view with regard to implementation of revised pay structure to its employees.
(vi) Part A of the First Schedule of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 has been extended to autonomous bodies and for extension of Part B to those no decision has been taken yet, thus it was not feasible to agree to the proposal for upgradation of the pay scale for certain posts in NCDC.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In view of the pleadings and material available on record and rival contentions of the parties, following issues are to be determined by us:
(i) Whether it is open for this Tribunal to examine and issue directions with regard to the claim of an employee or categories of employees for equivalence of pay scale.
(ii) Whether there is historical parity of pay scale of Assistant/PA/PO/PS etc. of NCDC with SO/PS/PA/Asstt. of CSS/CSSS.
(iii) When Honble High Court ordered for giving the same pay scale to Assistant/Personal Assistant in NCDC as was given to Assistant/PA in CSS in pursuance to the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission, whether the applicants can be denied the grade pay allowed to Assistant/PS/SO/PA etc in CSS/CSSS after implementation of the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission.
(v) Whether for revision of pay scale of its employees, NCDC needs the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).
(vi) Whether as on 1.1.2006, Assistants/Personal Assistants in the Govt. of India were also in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 or were in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-.
11. As far as the issue of scope of interference by the Tribunal or Court in the matter of pay scale is concerned, the guiding factors to be kept in mind while examining claims for equation in pay scale by an employer are as laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. v. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors. (JT 1992 (2) SC 27. The said factors are:-
(i) method of recruitment
(ii) level at which recruitment is made
(iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre
(iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required
(v) avenues of promotion
(vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities
(vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs
(viii) public dealings
(ix) satisfaction level
(x) employers capacity to pay, etc. The aforementioned factors were reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Anr. V. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (JT 2002 (5) SC 189. Paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment read as under:
9. This Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. v. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors., JT 1992 2 SC 27 : 1993 Supp 1 SCC 153 dealing with the question of equation of posts and equation of salaries of government employees, made the following observations:
"We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the pay commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction. Courts must, however, realize that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability of the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broad banding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalization of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g. (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasize that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the sub-registrars to the second (state) pay commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the registration service before him in his capacity as the chairman of the third (state) pay commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and court's interference Is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.
(Emphasis supplied)
10. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the state government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the state government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the state government. In the context of complex nature of issues involved, the far reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration of the state government courts have taken the view that ordinarily courts should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the government. The courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed by the government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be given to the state government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the government to implement the same. As noted earlier, in the present case the High Court has not even made any attempt to compare the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two sections of employees, one in the state secretariat and the other in the central secretariat. It has also ignored the basic principle that there are certain rules, regulations and executive instructions issued by the employers which govern the administration of the cadre. Also in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das ( 2004 SCC (L&S) 160), Honble Supreme Court further ruled that whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay, depends on several factors and Courts cannot ordinarily substitute themselves in the place of those authorities in examining and evaluating the nature of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. Para 11 of the said judgment reads as under:-
11. In the case of State of U.P. v. J.P.Chaurasia it was pointed out that whether two posts are equal or should carry the equal pay, depends on several factors. It does not depend just upon either the nature of work or the volume of work done. Primarily, it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts by the competent authorities constituted for the purpose and courts cannot coordinately substitute themselves in the place of those authorities. The quantity of work may be the same but the quality may be different. That cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission and the Government, who would be the best judges, to evaluate the nature of duty, responsibility and all relevant factors. The same view was reiterated in the case of State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya by a three-Judge Bench of this Court. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma v. union of India a claim for equal pay by a group of Pharmacists was rejected saying that the classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate that the classification made was unreasonable. In view of the above legal position, it would not be advisable for us to issue direction to the respondents to grant grade pay of Rs.4600/4800/5400 to Assistant/Programme Officer etc. in NCDC.
12. The issue of pay parity of employees employed in subordinate and attached offices of Government of India with those employed in CSS/CSSS was also examined by Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri M.V.R.Rao and Ors etc.etc Vs. UOI & Ors (ATFB 2002-2003, page 260). In the said case, following the judgment of Honble Supreme Cout in Association of AIC & CE Stenographers Vs. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1291, the full Bench of this Tribunal held the view that nature of work done cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, as there may be qualitative differences regarding reliability and responsibility. Paras 31 to 39 of said judgment read as under:-
31. It has next been contended that the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 having been granted to Stenographers Grade C working in various other subordinate and attached offices of government of India, denial of the same to applicants amounts to hostile discrimination. In this connection Shri Ohri has relied upon the Honble Supreme Courts ruling in G.C.Ghosh & Others Vs. Union of India and Others ( 1992) 19 ATC 94. Other rulings relied upon in the same way include Union of India Vs. Debasish Kar & Others 1995 SCC (L&S) 1303 and the CAT, Full (Calcutta) Benchs order in DGOF Stenographers case (supra) and in K.P.Grover & Others Vs. Indian Road Construction Corporation Ltd. 1999 (1) ATJ 443. Shri Ohri has also relied upon Bureau of Indian Standards Employees Union & Others Vs. D.G.Bureau of Indian Standards 80 (1999) Delhi Law Times 35 and order dated 16.10.98 in C.W.No. 3790/95 Dr.B.C.Pant & Others Vs.Sangeet Natak Akademy & Others.
32. While there is no doubt that employees similarly placed are entitled to similar treatment and no doubt some Stenographers Grade II/Assistants in non-Secretariat offices have been extended the benefits of O.M dated 31.7.90, we notice that the grant of the higher scale of the basis of seniority. The High Court after considering the rules and relevant paras of the P&T Manual granted the relief. Thereupon SLP No.3384-3386 of 1996 was filed in Supreme Court. After hearing, the SLP was dismissed on merits. It was stated that the Bench was not inclined to interfere with the High Courts judgment except to a limited extent. CAT, Ernakulam Bench and CAT, PB followed those orders in OAs, filed before them. On 22.4.92 some applications were filed in CAT, PB. Therefore, the Forum filed an intervention application and opposed the relief. That application of Forum was rejected and relief was granted to the applicants, thereupon Forum approached the Honble Supreme Court contending that dismissal of the SLP in P.N.Lals case and Brij Mohans case ( supra) was not operative as a precedent. In the facts of that case, the Supreme Court held that it was a binding precedent though the SLP was dismissed in limine. Clearly the facts and circumstances of the present set of OAs re distinguishable and the Honble Supreme Courts order dated 30.7.96 dismissing the challenge to the Tribunals order dated 19.1.96 in Panchals case (supra) even though on merits, cannot be treated as a binding precedent to follow in the present case, because as we have already seen that applicants who are Stenographers Grade II claim the higher replacement scale of Rs.5500-9000 which is the pay scale available for the promotional posts of Stenographers Grade I in non-Secretariat offices, and this would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
33. In this connection it is relevant to note that in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M.R.Alagappan (1997) 4 SCC 401 the Honble Supreme Court has held that substantial similarity in duties and responsibilities and inter-changeability of posts does not necessarily attract the principle of equal pay for equal work when there are other distinguishable features like educational qualifications for appointment, mode of recruitment, status, special assignments assigned to one category only, different seniority lists etc. In the present case, mode of recruitment, status, as welll as seniority lists are quite different. Again in Garhwal Jal Sansthan Karamchari Union Vs. State of UP & Others ( 1997) 4 SCC 24 the Honble Supreme Court has held that principle of equal pay for equal work is not applicable even if there is some similarity in duties and functions, if there is qualitative difference in duties, functions and responsibilities. In this connection materials have to be brought on record. In none of the present OAs (sic).
34. Again in State of UP & Others Vs. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh 1998 (1) SCC 422, the Honble Supreme Court has held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply; that there may be educational or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the scales which the holders bring to the job, although the designation may be the same. Evaluation of such jobs must be left to expert bodies and unless there are malafides the evaluation should be accepted. Again in State of UP Vs. J.P.Chaurasia AIR 1989 SC 19 the Honble Supreme Court has held that it is for the administration to decide whether two posts which may appear to be same or similar should carry equal pay, the answer to which depends on several factors, Rs.5500-9000 to applicants w.e.f. 1.1.1996 which is the scale admissible in the promotional posts of Stenographers Grade I would amount to treating dissimilar persons similarly which would be directly violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is for this very reason that the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. P.V.Hariharan & Others 1997 SCC (L&S) has observed as follows:
Quite often the Administrative Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realize that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue.
35. It has next been contended that the Fourth Pay Commission had recommended the same classification viz. Group C for both the categories, viz. Stenographers Grade C of CSSS and Stenographers Grade II in the subordinate and attached offices, and merely because the Government allowed the Stenographers Grade C of CSSS to continue with the existing classification of Group B on notional basis, was no justification in adopting the classification as a ground for denying applicants the benefit of OM dated 31.7.90. Even if the Fourth Pay Commission had recommended the same classification for both Groups of employees, the fact remains that Stenographers Grade C of CSSS are Group B employees while Stenographer Grade II in non-Secretariat offices are Group C employees. As long as this classification exists, it remains a relevant factor while adjudicating the claims of equal pay for equal work.
36. Lastly it has next been contended that the Tribunal in its order dated 19.1.96 in Panchals case (supra) has held the OM dated 31.7.90 to be discriminatory, which order having been challenged before the Honble Supreme Court in the form of an SLP, and the same has been dismissed on merits after condoning the delay, the same is a binding precedent. In this connection Shri Ohri has relied upon the Honble Supreme Courts ruling in JT Officers Forum & Others Vs. Union of India and Others 1994 SCC (L&S) 366 and the Honble Supreme Courts ruling in S.Kalkat Vs. Union of India and Others 1995 SCC (L&S) 960.
37. In JT Officers Forums case (supra) wherein petitioners P.N.Lal (1966) and Brij Mohan (1965) who had qualified in JTOs qualifying examination in 1974 filed writ petitions in Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) complaining of their placement in the eligibility list below the last man who passed the qualifying examination in 1975. The departments case was that the eligibility list had been prepared on namely evaluation of duties and responsibilities should be left to expert bodies like the Pay Commission whose recommendations the Court should normally accept. We also notice that successive Pay Commissions have been consistent in their view that at the higher levels commencing from Stenographers Grade C/Grade-II, the retention of disparity is valid.
38. Again in Association of AIC & CE Stenographers Vs. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1291 the Honble Supreme Court has held that equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right, but equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done and cannot be judged by the more volume of work, because there may be qualitative differences regarding reliability and responsibility. Often the difference may be a matter of degree and there is an element of value judgment in fixing the pay and other conditions of service, but so long as such value judgment is bonafide, reasonable and based on an intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation such differentiation would not amount to discrimination.
39. Lastly we place on record the following further observations made in P.K.Deys case (supra).
It is an indisputable fact that pay scales now claimed by the respondent (P.K.Dey) are those prescribed for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. As already noticed above, it is once again a promotional post for a Naik. Acceding to the claim made by the respondents would not merely result in change in the pay scales but may also lead to alternation of the pattern of hierarchy requiring re-orientation and restructuring of the other posts above and below the post of respondent. Added to this, such consequences are likely to be felt in the various other Central Police Establishments as well. All these which are likely to have a chain reaction, may require further consideration afresh by expert body like the Pay Commission or the Government itself at an appropriate time in an appropriate manner. Courts should normally leave such matters for the wisdom of administration except the proven cases of hostile discrimination. But in the case on hand, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the position of law stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court was not right in granting the relief itself, straightaway to the respondent; that too, without examining the implications and impact of giving such directions on other cadres. However, we make it clear that the rejection of the claim of the respondent need not be taken as an issue closed once and for all. It is always open to the Government to consider the issue either by making reference to the Pay Commission or itself once again as to the grant of pay scales to the respondent. It is open to the respondent to make further and detailed representation.
12. In view of aforementioned, we are of the considered view that it is not appropriate for this Tribunal to take a decision regarding equivalence of the post held by petitioners in NCDC with SO/PS/Asstt./PA in CSS/CSSS.
13. As far as the issue of historical parity of pay scales of applicants is concerned, although in the minutes recorded in the fifty sixth meeting of the Board of Management of NCDC held on 21.12.1990, it is noted that the NCDC has been following the Central Government scales of pay for the posts in Corporation, in the counter reply filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated that there has been no historical parity of pay scale granted to employees in NCDC with members of CSS/CSSS. There is not sufficient material before us to arrive at a definite conclusion on the said issue. Thus, in the circumstances, it would be appropriate to require the respondents to arrive at a conclusion on the same while examining the claim of applicants for the grade pay of Rs.4600/4800/5400 at the time of extension of Part B of First Schedule of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 to employees of NCDC.
14. It is seen that in terms of order dated 16.1.1996 passed by Honble Delhi High Court in CWP 3248/1994, respondents were directed to give the pay scales to petitioners in the said petition at par with Central Government employees i.e. the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. It is an admitted position that the said order was implemented and the employees in NCDC were given the benefit of same. Respondents have tried to distinguish the said judgment by pleading that at the time of implementation of order dated 16.1.1996 passed by Honble Delhi High Court, the concurrence of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance was not obtained. Such a stand taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced. Once the Honble High Court has passed an order, it was not open for the Ministry of Finance to take a view contrary to same. Thus, once the Honble Delhi High Court found the employees of NCDC entitled to pay parity with Central Govt. employees, Ministry of Agriculture and NCDC were required to bring the said order to the notice of Department of Expenditure at the time of taking concurrence of that Department. Thus, while not accepting the contentions of respondents that on the ground of absence of concurrence of Department of Expenditure for implementation of order of Honble High Court, the parity of pay scale directed to be maintained in terms of said order of Honble High Court can be disturbed, we would expect the respondents to decide the claim of applicants, acknowledging the authority of order dated 16.01.1996 passed by Honble High Court .
15. As far as the plea of the respondents regarding requirement of concurrence of the Department of Expenditure for revision of pay scales of employees of NCDC is concerned, in para 1 of their counter reply, respondents have stated that the NCDC is a statutory body established under the NCDC Act, 1962 and is functioning under the administrative control of the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation. The salary structure and pay scales of the employees of Corporation are determined by NCDC under the NCDC Services Regulations with the approval of the Central Government as per provisions of Section 8 (3) (b) read with Section 23 (1) of the NCDC Act, 1962. We find no reason to reject such stand taken by respondents in their counter reply. Further, as the grant of higher pay scale to employees of a particular statutory body may give rise to such claim by employees of such other bodies also, it would have far reaching ramifications. Although it may be that the NCDC is not dependent on the funds/financial aid by Central Government, but the other statutory bodies/public Corporations may be taking financial aid from Government. Any issue or decision having financial implications needs to be determined with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). The NCDC is a statutory Corporation and the salary structure/ pay scales of the employees of the Corporation is determined with the approval of Central Government as per statutory provision. Once a particular decision with financial implications, requires approval of the Central Government, the concurrence of Department of Expenditure is a must. In the circumstances, we do not find any force in the contention that the revision of pay scale of employees of NCDC does not require concurrence of the Department of Expenditure.
16. Respondents have denied grade pay of Rs.4600/4800/5400 to PO/PS/SO /Asstt/PA in NCDC on the ground that as on 1.1.2006, they were not in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. When in respect of Assistants and Personal Assistants in NCDC, respondents have indicated that the pay scale on said date was Rs.5500-9000, in respect of PO/PS, they have not indicated the pay scale granted to them on relevant date. Further although the respondents have contended by filing additional affidavit that as on 1.1.2006 even the Asstt./SO/PS/PA in CSS/CSSS services were also not getting the pay scale of Rs.6500-10,500 and were in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000, they have not produced any material in support of said contention. In the circumstances, we are unable to take a view regarding such a pivotal issue and would require the respondents to examine and decide the same.
17. It is also the contention of the applicants that in certain other autonomous bodies such as ICAR, CSIR and Employees Provident Fund Commission, Department of Expenditure has granted concurrence for giving the grade pay of Rs.4600/4800/5400 to Assistant/Section Officer etc. This can be highlighted while seeking concurrence of the Department of Expenditure.
18. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Original Application by directing the respondents to examine the claim of applicants for grade pay of Rs.4600/4800/5400 keeping in view the order dated 16.1.1996 passed by Honble High Court and also the Office Order dated 26.11.2010 issued by ICAR (Krishi Bhawan) ( Page 160 and 161 of the paper book) and the contention of the applicants that in certain other statutory Corporations, the employees are given pay parity with members of CSS/CSSS. While doing so, respondents would also examine the factual position, whether as on 1.1.2006, the Assistant/Personal Assistants in CSS/CSSS were in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 or pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and also the pay scale of Programme Officer in NCDC. Such exercise shall be carried within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the outcome of the aforementioned examination shall be communicated to the applicants by way of a speaking order. No costs.
( A.K.Bhardwaj) ( Shaliendra Pandey) Member (J) Member (A) sk