Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
A K Mandoi vs Archoelogical Survey Of India on 27 February, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018
Reserved on 07.02.2025 Pronounced on 27.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
1. Sri Ajaya Kumar Mandoi, aged about 33 years, S/o
Sri Narayan Mandoi, At- Parakaran Sahi, PO Old
Town, PS- Lingaraj, Dist- Khurda
2. Rajendra Pradhan, aged about 37 years, S/o Late
Gandharba Pradhan, At- Jambua, Patnasahi, PO
Old town, PS- Lingaraj, Dist- Khurda
3. Binaya Ranjan Pattanaik, aged about 38 years, S/o
Late Bramhananda Pattanaik, At- Hota sahi, PO
Old town, PS- Lingaraj, Dist- Khurda.
4. Bansidhr Mohanty, aged about 48 years, S/o Late
Narottam Mohanty, Plot No-1953, Sriram Nagar,
Sibakrupa Gauri Sankar Matha, Bhubaneswar,
Dist- Khurda.
...Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry
of Culture, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Archaeological Survey of
India, Janapath, New Delhi.
2 O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018
3. The Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological
Survey of India, Toshali Plaza, Block-VI, 1st Floor
Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar.
......Respondents
For the applicant : None
For the respondents : Mr. B.Samantaray, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
This case was listed on 30.01.2025 for hearing. Ld. Counsel for the respondents was present and insisted for taking up of the matter for final hearing and adjudication being an old matter of year 2018. Hence, he having heard on 30.01.2025, for the sake of giving natural justice to the Ld. Counsel for the applicants to be present and pursue the matter, the matter was adjourned to 07.02.2025 with specific condition that in the event of his non-appearance, the matter will be taken up for final hearing and finalized under Rule 15 & 16 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The matter was accordingly listed on 07.02.2025 but none was present for the applicants and no request was also made on their behalf for any adjournment. In such circumstances, having heard Ld. Counsel for the respondents, with his aid and assistance perused the records.
3 O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018
2. It is the case of the applicants that they have been discharging the duties of Group-D as Monument Attendant under Archeological Survey of India, Bhubaneswar since 1997. Since, they have been discharging the duties as casual worker, which are similar to the duties discharged by Group-D employee regularly appointed under the respondents, they are entitled to 1/30th pay at the relevant pay scale plus DA as per the DoP&T OM dated 07.06.1988.
3. On 29.08.2008, a memorandum of settlement was made between the Management and Workmen for payment of 1/30th pay at the relevant pay scale plus DA. Even then, they were not allowed the said pay while granting the same to their juniors. Therefore, they approached this Bench in OA No. 331, 447, 448 and 450 of 2009, which were disposed of on 14.09.2009 directing respondents to consider the case of the applicants for grant of the pay scale keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the OM issued by the DoP&T. The respondents considered their cases and by order dated 11.02.2010, they were allowed the 1/30th pay at the relevant pay scale plus DA w.e.f. 15.02.2010 but failed to consider the grant of said benefits from 14.09.2009. They made representation 4 O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018 but no consideration having been given to the said representation, they approached this Bench in the instant OA seeking direction to the respondents to consider the payment of arrear wages as per order dated 14.09.2009.
4. On the other hand, by placing reliance on the counter filed by the respondents, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance of the order of this Bench, the competent authority considered their cases with reference to the conditions stipulated in the DoP&T OM and vide order dated 11.02.2010 allowed the 1/30th pay at the relevant pay scale plus DA w.e.f. 15.02.2010. It is stated that though the applicant completed 240 days in a year earlier but they were not engaged in the similar nature of work as performed by the regularly appointed Group-D as a pre-condition in terms of DoP&T OM dated 07.06.1988. Hence, the prayer of the applicant in this OA for granting them the arrears from 14.09.2009 as per order dated 14.09.2009 is not justified. The order copy in OA 331/2009 has been filed by the applicants along with rejoinder.
5. It may be noted that the question of payment of equal pay for equal work to the casual workers received due judicial consideration 5 O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh And Anr. Vs Engineer-In-Chief, C.P.W.D. And Ors., AIR 1986 SC 584, and, Their Lordships, have been pleased to hold as under:
"We are not a little surprised that such an argument should be advanced on behalf on the Central Government 36 years after the passing of the Constitution and 11 years the Forty- Second Amendment proclaiming India as a socialist republic. The Central Government like all organs of the State is committed to the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 39 enshrines the principle of equal pay for equal work. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India this Court has occasion to explain the observations in Kishori Mohan Lal Bakshi v. Union of India (supra) and to point out how the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and how it is a vital and vigorous doctrine accepted through out the world, particularly by all socialist countries. For the benefit of those that do not seem to be aware of it, we may point out that the decision in Randhir Singh's case has been followed in any number of cases by this Court and has been affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India . The Central Government, the State Governments likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of taw should ill-come from the mouths of the State and State Undertakings. We allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case (supra) to pay to the petitioners and all other daily rated employees, to pay the same salary and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees with effect from the date when they were respectively employed. The respondents will pay to each of the petitioners a sum ol Rs. 1000/- towards their costs. We also record our regret that many employees are kept in service on a temporary daily-wage basis without their services 6 O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018 being regularised. We hope that the Government will take appropriate action to regularise the services of all those who have been in continuous employment for more than six months.
6. Taking into consideration the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the DoP&T, New Delhi vide OM No. 49014/2/86 Estt.(C ) dated 7th June,1988 instructed to all concerned that where the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of 8 hours a day and, in cases, where the work done by a casual worker is different from the work done by a regular employee, the casual worker may be paid only the minimum wages notified by the Ministry of Labour or the State Government/Union Territory Administration, whichever is higher, as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. However, if a Department is already paying daily wages at a higher rate, the practice could be continued with the approval of its Financial Adviser.
7. The DoP&T vide OM No. 49014/1/2017-Estt.(C)Pf. dated 4th September, 2019 on the subject 'Equal pay for Equal Work' for casual workers, reiterated that where the nature of work entrusted to the 7 O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018 casual workers and regular employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of 8 hours a day. In cases where the work done by a casual worker is different from the work done by a regular employee, the casual worker may be paid only the minimum wages notified by the Ministry of Labour & Employment or the State Government/Union Territory Administration, whichever is higher, as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
8. The relevant portion of the memorandum of settlement dated 29.08.2008 reached between the Management and the Workmen is quoted below:
"TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
1. It is agreed by & between the parties that the management would pay 1/30th pay to the 17 nos, of casual workmen immediately w.e.f 14th August-2008, So far rest of the other eligible are concerned the management shall bring them to the 1/30th pay to the eligible workmen /casual workers working under this management in a phased manner at the earliest.
2. The management will submit the list of workmen with regard to grant of 1/30th pay before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (C) subject to change of factual status and accordingly to modify the list if required by the management under rule, The list shall be submitted within 15 days of the date of settlement.8 O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018
3. The management will declare the 1/30th pay to the workmen those who have been engaged as on cut off date upto 31 March 2002 and keeping in view of the decision taken previously in this regard.
4. The workmen shall discharge their duties with almost discipline, sincerely & ensure proper conduct in the work place.
5. The settlement is reached with the goodwill and volition parties.
6. The settlement shall be effective from the date of signature the settlement and till regular wage revision is made out.
The parties are advised to submit their report implementation of the terms of settlement before this office within 30 days from the date of signing of this settlement falling it will be deemed that the settlement has been implemented."
9. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.09.2009 is quoted below:
"Hence, in the fitness of things, we direct the Respondent Department to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the office Memorandum of DOP&T (cited supra) and keeping in view the fact that applicant's juniors have been granted the benefit and pass appropriate orders, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Provided that the nature of the work is the same as that of regular employee. Respondents are further directed to consider the arrear salary to which the applicant is entitled to also. This position has been made clear in Para-2 "Daily Wages" of Swamy's Complete Manual on Establishment & Administration, which reads thus:-9 O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018
"Daily Wages- If the nature of the casual workers and regular employees is the same, casual workers should be paid at 1/30th of pay at the minimum of pay scale of the regular post plus D.A. (No CCA/HRA will be taken into account)."
7. The O.A. is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
10. Admittedly, after considering the completion of 240 days of work in a calendar year, entrustment of similar duties as discharged by regularly appointed Group-D employees and taking into consideration the order of this Tribunal quoted above, respondents- department granted 1/30th pay to the applicant vide order dated 11.02.2010 w.e.f. 15.02.2010. Therefore, the prayer of the applicants to direct the respondents to consider their cases for grant of 1/30 th of minimum scale of pay as per the order of this Tribunal dated 14.09.2009 has, virtually, been complied with. However, it is the case of the applicants that since juniors to them have got the said benefits prior to 15.02.2010, they are also entitled to the 1/30th of pay from the date of order of this Tribunal. The applicants did not utter a single word, who are the juniors to whom such benefits were allowed prior to them but the same was denied to them even though they discharged the same and similar duties like the regular Group-D 10 O.A.No. 260/00183 of 2018 employees of the department. According to the respondents, none of the applicants was discharging the similar duties as discharged by regularly appointed Group-D employees prior to 15.02.2010. This stand goes uncontroverted by the applicants in absence of any such document evidencing contrary to the stand taken by the respondents. The order of this Tribunal, quoted above, would state that there was no such positive direction that the applicant be granted 1/30th pay from the date of the order passed by this Tribunal, rather, the order of this Tribunal was to consider their cases in accordance with law and, on consideration, the respondents granted them the benefits w.e.f. 15.02.2010. In view of the above, we see no force in the stand of the applicants for antedating the date of grant of 1/30th scale of pay prior to 15.02.2010.
11. In the result, this OA stands dismissed. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS