Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
G Gurumurthy vs Eastern Naval Command on 5 July, 2024
1
OA.No.171/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00171/2023
HYDERABAD, this the 05th day of July, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
G Gurumurthy, S/o Late G Ramulu
Aged 61 yrs, Occ: retired Foreman (Gaz, Ammunition), Gr. 'B'
R/o D.No.60-7-4, Prakash Nagaram
Malkapuram (PO), Visakhapatnam 530011. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Smt. Anita Swain)
Vs.
1. The Union of India Rep by its Secretary
Ministry of Defence, South Block
New Delhi 110011.
2. The Chief of Naval Staff
Director of Civilian Personnel
Integrated Headquarters
Ministry of Defence (Navy)
Talkatora Stadium Annex Building
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Director General of Naval Armament Inspection
Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy)
West Block-V, Wing 1 FF, R.K.Puram
New Delhi - 110066.
4. The Flag Officer Commanding in Chief
Head quarter Eastern Naval Command
Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam.
5. The Controller
Controllerate of Naval Armament (DP)
Naval Armament (P), Visakhapatnam. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. K.Rajitha, Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government)
*****
2
OA.No.171/2023
ORAL ORDER
PER: HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):
i. Declare the action of the respondent in not placing the applicant in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 instead of Rs.5000-8000 from 01-01-1996 on par with other senior chargeman of NSRY by not extending the Hon'ble Kerala High Court order in OP(CAT) 213/2017 dated 20-7-2017 & batch is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution apart from violation of natural justice.
ii. Direct the respondents to grant him the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 instead of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1999 accordingly and consequently, iii. Direct the respondents to release the arrears amounts after fixation of pay scale together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with quarterly rests from the date on with the same has become due and payable till the date of actual payment with all consequential benefits thereon.
iv. Further declare that the applicant is entitled for the costs of the litigation thrust on him by the respondents not extending the benefits and pass such other order and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the applicant had joined the Naval Armament Inspection Organization(NAIO), Visakhapatnam which is under the control of 2nd respondent as Examiner on 3.1.1970 and was subsequently promoted to Senior Chargeman on 13.11.1986. On implementation of V CPC, the Senior Chargemen of NAIO, Naval Dockyard and other civilian wings were granted the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 from Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 whereas the pay of Senior Chargeman of AWS of Naval Armament Supply Organization(NASO) was fixed at Rs.5500-9000 from Rs.1400-2300. This created pay anomaly among the similarly situated Chargemen of different civilian wings of Indian Navy. When the affected chargemen have brought the issues of the said pay anomaly and also a proposal 3 OA.No.171/2023 for upgradation of their pay scales, to the notice of Ministry of Defence(MOD), the said MOD had turned down the proposal stating that it will have wider financial implications. Aggrieved by the same, some Senior Chargemen of NSRY, Kochi have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP(CAT) No.213/2017 which was allowed by the High Court with an observation that the Chargeman of NAIO and ND are doing the same job as their counterpart of NASO and therefore the respondents therein were directed to rectify the anomaly and extend the benefit to the similarly situated Sr.Chargeman at the earliest. When the other affected Chargemen have been extended with the said benefit, the applicant alone left out and hence he made representation dated 30.08.2022 to the authorities requesting to extend the same benefit but all in vain. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed the present OA.
3. On notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and have filed reply statement opposing the claim of the applicant on the ground that nature of duties of the Sr.Chargeman of supervisory staff of AWS wing(NASO) and Inspection Organisation(NAIO) where applicant is working are different. On implementation of V CPC, the Sr.Chargeman(AWS) were placed in the grade of Chargeman-I in the revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 whereas Sr.Chargeman, Inspection Organisation under NAIO & NAD and other organisations were placed in the grade of Chargeman-II in the revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 vide Ministry of Defence letter dated 26.04.1998 which created pay anomaly. When the issue of granting different pay scales in different civilian wings of Indian Navy was brought to the notice of Anomaly Committee, the said committee recommended for downgrading the pay scales 4 OA.No.171/2023 from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.5000-8000 in respect of Senior Chargeman of AWS Wing of NASO on the ground of mistaken identity. But this theory has not been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP(CAT) 271/2017 and OP(CAT)213/2017 in respect of Naval Ship Repair yard, Ernakulam and pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 was restored to Senior Chargeman of AWS Wing of NASO. Thereafter, when the similarly situated persons including the applicant submitted representations to extend the benefit of pay scales of Rs.5500-9000 on par with Chargeman(AWS), the same was taken up with the Ministry of Defence/Ministry of Finance. But the said Ministry did not accept the same stating that it will have wider financial implications and could not be processed further. And more over the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala is applicable only to the petitioners therein and the applicant is not entitled and eligible to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. It is well settled in law that fixation of pay scales, cadres, restructuring of cadres etc. are purely executive functions and Courts and Tribunals would not normally interfere in such matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in State of Haryana Civil Secretariat Personnel Staff Association (2002/6/SCC72) had reiterated that 'fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge'. Therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
5. When the matter has been taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is seeking only to consider his representation dated 30.08.2022 which has been submitted to the respondent 5 OA.No.171/2023 authorities. However, the respondents have not considered the same. Therefore, the applicant has approached this Tribunal and prayed for the aforesaid relief.
6. In view of the submissions made by the parties, without extending the period of limitation and without going into the merits of the case, with limited relief, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the applicant dated 30.08.2022 and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and rules within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /ps/