Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
R Vijaya Raghavan vs M/O Defence on 24 November, 2023
1
OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00356/2021
ORDER RESERVED ON:20.10.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 24.11.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
R. Vijaya Raghavan,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o V Raghupathy
Civilian Gazetted Officer (Administration)
HQ Training Command (Unit) Air Force,
Hebbal, JC Nagar Post,
Bengaluru - 560 006
R/o No.9, Somanna Layout,
1st Main, MS Palya,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru- 560 097. ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P. Sreedhara)
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Represented by its Secretary,
DHQ PO,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. Chief of the Air Staff,
Air Headquarters (Vayu Bhavan),
Subroto Park,
New Delhi-110 011.
3. Commanding Officer,
HQ Training Command (Unit), Air Force,
Hebbal, JC Nagar Post,
Near Mekhri Circle,
Bangalore - 560 006.
2
OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
4. Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001. ....Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Sr. Panel Counsel for Respondents)
ORDER
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To quash the impugned order bearing No. AIR HQ/23077/Misc/PC-3 dated 21.01.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent (Annexure A-6) and the impugned communication bearing No.TCU/2806/1/PC dated 08.03.2021 issued by 4th respondent (Annexure A-7), vide which the request for grant of Level 8 (7th CPC) to the applicant, has been rejected.
b) Grant a consequential direction to the respondents to extend the Grade Pay of Rs.4800 in PB-2 from the date the applicant became eligible and Grade Pay Rs.5400 in PB-3 after completion of four years' service in PB-2 and to draw the arrears of pay and allowances in the said grade pay and to pay the same with interest for delayed payment;
c) Grant such other relief/s as this Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this application in the interests of justice.
3
OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant is serving as a Civilian Gazetted Officer (Administration), (CGO (A)) in the o/o Respondent No.3. The applicant is aggrieved because of rejection of his request for extension of similar pay scale with grade pay of Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 on completion of four years' service under Non Functional Scale at par with civilian staff working at different service HQ (Section Officer/Assistant Director/AO-II of CSS/AFHQ/Coast Guard/Indian Navy) by impugned Annexure A-6 dated 21.01.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent which was communicated by the 3rd respondent vide communication dated 08.03.2021 (Annexure A-7).
b) Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide Notification bearing No. SRO 78 dated 08.03.2002 notified 34 posts of Civilian Gazetted Officer (Administration) (CGO (A) in short), in the Indian Air Force by amending the RRs of IAF Civilian Gazetted Officer (Administration) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 1980 and the number of said post was revised to 81 during cadre review dated 22.09.2014. The said post carried the pay scale of 6500-10500 in 5th CPC. The applicant is one of the officers working in the said post of CGO (A) in Indian Air Force.
c) Subsequent to implementation of V Pay Commission Recommendations with effect from 1.1.1996, the pay scale of Administrative (Civ) was revised from Rs.2000-3500 to that of 4 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench Rs.6500-10500 which was also the pay scale for Section Officers/Assistant Director of CSS/AFHQ cadre equivalent in various Departments and Ministries.
d) On implementation of VI Pay Commission Recommendations with effect from 1.1.2006 the CGO (A) was granted grade pay of Rs.4200 which was later revised to Rs.4600, whereas, Section officers/Assistant Directors in CCS/AFHQ were granted grade pay of Rs.4800 as grade pay with Non-Functional Scale of Rs.5400 after completion of four years' service.
e) Against the above disparity in treating the equals with unequal Grade Pays, representations came to be submitted to the Defence Minister, DOPT, and the Ministry of Defence. However, despite repeated representations the anomaly was not rectified.
f) Some of the officials working in the Coast Guards organization as Staff Officer (Civilians), approached the Principal Bench of this Tribunal seeking for the said grade pay of Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 after four years' service. The Tribunal did not accede to their prayer. They approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. No.116/2013. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition after a detailed discussion about the staffing pattern, historical parity which existed between a Section Officer in the Coast Guard with other similarly placed officials in the Central Secretariat Services. It, therefore, set aside the order of the Principal Bench and allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to make consequent orders of pay fixation and release the 5 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench difference of pay and emoluments to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of order. Hon'ble Delhi High Court was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3402/2014 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 3.3.2014 and thereby the order of Delhi High Court attained finality.
g) Similar posts of Administrative Officer was created by the Navy and the officials working in the Naval Base in Ernakulam/Kochi of Kerala took up the matter before the Government for extension of grade pay as aforesaid to them. Their case was rejected by the Ministry of Defence. Aggrieved by the rejection of their case several Administrative Officers preferred O.A.No.868/2014 seeking for the said relief before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal. The Ernakulam Bench allowed the said OA by order dated 9.3.2017, a copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-2. The Ernakulam Bench observed during the course of order that the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court having been extended to Staff Officer (Civilian) in Indian Coast Guard Organization, the same cannot be denied to the Administrative Officers of Navy merely because nomenclature of the applicants before it. The Hon'ble Bench directed extension of grade pay of Rs.4800 in PB-2 and Rs.5400 in PB-3 on completion of four years' service in PB-2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by the respondents. Government of India passed orders dated 8.2.2018 implementing the order of Ernakulam Bench to the applicants, and subsequently passed 6 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench orders dated 13.05.2019 extending the said benefits to similarly placed Administrative Officers Grade-II of Indian Navy.
h) Indian Air Force being one of the tri-services of the Ministry of Defence is analogous to other organizations like Naval Base, Coast Guards and other allied organizations of the same Ministry of Defence. The staffing pattern, the pay scale and the broad nature of duties and functions of the CGO (A) in Indian Air Force are identical with those discharged by SO/Administrative Officers in Coast Guards, Naval Base, placed at similar levels. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the benefits extended to Staff Officer (Civ)/Administrative Officers working in those offices.
i) The applicant submitted representation dated 25.10.2019 seeking extension of similar pay scale with grade pay of Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 on completion of four years' service under Non-Functional Scale at par with civilian staff working at different service HQ (Section officer/Assistant Director/AO-II of CSS/AFHQ/Coast Guard/Indian Navy). The 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the applicant vide impugned order bearing No. Air HQ/23077/Misc/PC-3 dated 21 Jan 2021 and the 3rd respondent communicated the decision of 2nd respondent vide communication bearing reference No.TCU/2806/1/PC dated 08.03.2021 to the applicant.
j) The impugned order Annexure A-6 is liable to be quashed and set aside as arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable. The impugned order is in 7 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and therefore it is unreasonable and arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside.
k) The post of CGO (A) in Indian Air Force is similar to that of Administrative Officer's post in Navy and also that of Staff Officer (Civ) in Coast Guards. The Ernakulam Bench has clearly noted that merely because of change of nomenclature as Administrative Officer the equal pay cannot be denied to the Administrative Officers in Navy. Once the Ernakulam Bench order has been implemented by the Government there is no reason to deny the identical benefit to the applicant working in Indian Air Force. There cannot be two different pay scales for the same class of employees working under the same Ministry.
l) The impugned order is also unsustainable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP© No.116/2013 dated 06.9.2013 and Hon'ble Supreme Court having dismissed the SLP © No.3402/2014.
m) At the time of creation of the post of CGO (A), the scale of pay was identical to the persons working in equivalent grades in CSS/AFHQ and it was continued in subsequent pay commissions also. Only in the course of extension of higher grade pay, this discrimination is meted out to the applicant.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The applicant was initially appointed as LDC in IAF w.e.f. 20 October 1989 and on successive promotions to the grade of Upper Division 8 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench Clerk (UDC), Office Superintendent (OS). He is presently serving as Civilian Gazetted Officer (Administration) (CGO (A) in short) in the pay scale of PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- at HQ Training Command (Unit), Air Force under Indian Air Force which was subsequently revised to Level 7 of the 7th Pay Commission Matrix.
b) MoD vide Notification dated 09 Sep 2008 issued the Revised Pay Rules 2008 for civilians in Defence services. As per Rule 4 of the ibid Rules, the pay band and grade pay or the pay scale, as applicable, of every post/grade specified in Col 2 of the First Schedule shall be as specified against it in column 5 & 6 thereof.
c) The Revised Pay Scale for certain common categories of staff, have been mentioned in Section L Part-B of First Schedule. Under Section II SI. No. I (1) (the heading Office Staff in the Secretariat), the pay scale of Section Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 had been upgraded to Rs. 7500-12000 (Vth CPC) and PB-2/GP-Rs. 4800 in 6th CPC along with Rs. 8000-13500 (Vth CPC) and PB-2/GP-5400 on completion of 04 years. The pay scale of Administrative Officer Grade-
II who were already in pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 were given the replacement pay scale of PB2/GP-4800 and PB-3/5400 on completion of 04 years vide Section-II SI. No. II (2) (Office Staff working outside the Secretariat).
d) Since no different revised pay scale has been specified for the post of Civilian Gazetted Officer of IAF or similar posts in Navy and Army, the post of CGO (A) which existed in Pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 9 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench was given the revised pay structure as PB-2, GP-4200/- as per First Schedule Part-A Section-I of the CDS (RP) Rules, 2008. Again, MoF, DoE vide OM No. F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 13 November 2009 granted Revised Pay structure of GP of Rs, 4600/- in pay band PB-2 to post that existed in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs. 4200/- in the PB-2. Pursuant to this order, the pay scale of CGO (A) was again placed in Pay Band-2 with GP of Rs. 4600/. As per 7th CPC, the pay scale of CGO (A) in IAF was given the replacement pay scale of Level-7.
e) The applicant had submitted an application dated 25 October 2019 (Annexure RI) for grant of PB-2 GP Rs. 4800/- (Level 08 of the 7th CPC pay matrix) and PB-3 GP Rs. 5400/- (Level 10 of the 7th CPC pay matrix) on completion of four years at par with civilian counterparts i.e. Administrative Officers Grade II of the Indian Navy in terms of the directions issued by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Ernakulam in OA No. 180/00868/2014 granting the ibid scales to AO Grade II of the Indian Navy.
f) Since, the parity of pay and upgradation of civilian staff working at different service HQ are domain of expert body on pay matters, it was replied that the employees of IAF are seeking upgradation of pay scales based on judgment of court order dated 09 March 2017 of CAT, Enakulam Bench, pronounced in favour of the applicants of Indian Navy and has not referred to any government letter vide which the pay scale of particular post have been revised. Hence, individual may be 10 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench advised to raise such matter before the pay commission as and when constituted. Aggrieved by the decision of respondents, the applicant has filed the present OA No. 170/356/2021 before this Tribunal.
g) The relief prayed by the applicant for higher pay scale is not legally tenable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of Judgments has held that it is primarily the function of the Pay Commission to determine matters relating to pay structure and to apply such norms as are proper and relevant.
h) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association, reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC has held as follows:
There can be, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body.
i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in State of Haryana Vs. HESPSA, 2002(6)SCC 72 has held as follows:
Ordinarily Courts will not enter upon task of Job Evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like pay Commission etc.
j) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deb Narayan Shyam Vs. State of WB 2005(2) SSC 286 has held that the principle of equal work depends on nature of duties and qualifications for recruitment. If the duties, functions and qualifications for recruitment are different from 11 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench the class of employees with whom parity is claimed, such employees cannot claim such parity.
k) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai 2009(13) SSC 635, has held that mode and manner of appointment is considered a relevant factor for invocation of doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work. It was further held that mere similarity in designation or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The court has to consider factors like source and mode of recruitment, appointment, qualifications, nature of work, value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality functional need. The equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesale identity between holders of two posts.
l) The orders issued by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench are specific to the applicants and not in rem. Further, the upgradation of pay scales on the ground of pay parity with other organization is the domain of expert body on pay matters and hence, the matter may be raised before the pay commission as and when constituted.
m) On implementation of 6th Pay Commission, the post of CGO (A) was granted pay scale with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in Pay Band 2 (Rs.
9300-34800). Section Officers in CSS/AFHQ were granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- and Rs. 5400/- on completion of four years of regular service in PB-2 as Non-Functional scale based on the functionality of posts being served at HQrs. 6th CPC has given two sets of 12 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench recommendations, one for the common category of Ministerial Staff existing in HQs organisations of Govt. of India (Para 3.1.9) and the other for common category of Ministerial Staff existing in offices outside the Secretariats (Para 3.1.14). Hence, the applicant's case is found under the domain of expert body on pay matter and the matter may be raised before pay commission as and when constituted.
4. In the rejoinder to the reply, the applicant has pleaded as follows:
a) The contention of the respondents that "equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body" as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, is not denied. Nevertheless, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases has not completely ruled out the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the plea of the aggrieved employees who have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction (Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West Bengal Registration. Service Association -1993 Supp (1) SCC 153).
b) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Deb Narayan Shyam Vs. State of W.B. 2005 (2) SCC 286 has also held that 'Suffice it to say that the principle is settled that if the two categories of posts perform the same duties and function and carry the same qualification, then there should not be any distinction in pay scale between the two categories of posts similarly situated'.
c) The applicant in the present OA is aggrieved by the action of respondents in rejecting his claim for extension of PB-2/GP-4800 and PB-3/GP-5400 (NFS) on completion of 04 years' service in PB-2 at par 13 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench with his civilian counterparts i.e. Administrative Officers Grade-II of the Indian Navy; the post which performs the same duties and function and carry the same qualification without any distinction in pay scale.
d) The applicant submits the following documents to establish his claim of parity between the two posts of CGO(A) in Indian Air Force and AO-II of Indian Navy as identical post, under the umbrella of Ministry of Defence.
Hierarchy of Posts and Historical Pay parity of Civilian employees of;
i) AO II in Indian Navy, Ministry of Defence.
Sl Post Pay Scale as Pay Scale as Pay Scale as Pay Scale as
No. per 4th CPC per 5th CPC per 6th CPC per 7th CPC
(a) LDC 950 -1500 3050 -4590 PB-1 GP+ Level- 2
1900
(b) UDC 1200 -1800 4000 -6000 PB-1 GP Level- 4
+2400
(c ) Asst. 1400 -2600 5000 -8000 PB - 2 + GP Level - 6
OS 1640 -2900 5500 -9000 4200
(d) AO-II 2000 -3200 6500 -10500 PB -2 + GP Level - 6
4200
Revised to PB -2 + GP Level - 7
7450-11500 4600
Granted Pay scale of 7500-12000 in PB-2 + GP 4800 in Level 8 and Pay Scale of Rs. 8000-13500 (NFS) in PB-3 + GP 5400, after completion of 4 years in PB-2, in compliance of CAT, Ernakulam Order dated 09.3.2017 in OA No.868/2014.
ii) CGO (A) in Indian Air Force, Ministry of Defence.
Sl Post Pay Scale as Pay Scale as Pay Scale as Pay Scale as
No. per 4th CPC per 5th CPC per 6th CPC per 7th CPC
(a) LDC 950 -1500 3050 -4590 PB-1 GP Level- 2
+1900
(b) UDC 1200 -2040 4000 -6000 PB-1 GP+ Level- 4
2400
14
OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
(c ) Asst. 1400 -2600 5000 -8000 PB - 2 + GP Level - 6
OS 1640 -2900 5500 -9000 4200
(d) CGO (A) 2375 -3500 6500 -10500 PB -2 + GP Level - 6
4200
Revised to PB -2 + GP Level - 7
7450-11500 4600
e) The applicant also produces herewith the copies of following
documents for the kind perusal of this Tribunal.
i) Recruitment Rules - The copies of The Indian Air Force Civilian Gazetted Officer (Administration) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2002' and 'The Navy, Administrative Officers (Group 'A' and 'B' posts) Recruitment Rules 2018 are produced as Annexure A-9 and Annexure A-10 respectively.
ii) Nature of Duties Copies of Duties of CGO (Admin) of Indian Air Force and duties of AO-II in Indian Navy are produced as Annexure A-11 and Annexure A-12 respectively.
f) The perusal of above documents would indicate that the hierarchy of posts, historical pay parity, recruitment rules and the broad nature of duties of CGO (Admin) of Indian Air Force and Administrative Officers Grade-II of Indian Navy are identical, except minor variations in pay scale under 4th CPC, and the un-amended recruitment rules of CGO (A) of IAF, subsequent to merger of Asst. and OS posts consequent to implementation of 6th CPC. Thus, it is apparent that these two categories of posts perform the same duties and functions and carry the same qualification. Hence, there should not be any distinction in pay scales between these two categories of posts similarly situated. 15
OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
g) The mode of recruitment and service conditions being the same, the applicant cannot be disentitled from the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, considering the fact that they are discharging the same functions and responsibilities. It is a settled principle of law that when two classes of employees perform same nature of functions, the denial by the State of equality of pay would be violative of Articles 14 & l6 of the Constitution as the State is perpetuating a discrimination in prescribing different scale of pay for same nature of work.
h) Under the similar facts and circumstances, this Tribunal, in the matter relating to the Administrative Officers of NCC Directorate, following the decision of CAT, Ernakulam Bench in OA No.868/2014, allowed the OA vide order dated 16.10.2019 in OA.No.337/2019.
5. The respondents have filed an Additional reply to the rejoinder filed by the applicant in which they have averred as follows:
a) The orders issued by the CAT Ernakulam Bench are specific to the applicants and not in rem. Also, the Apex Court in Deb Narayan Shyam Vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 (2) SSC 286, has observed "Suffice it to say that the principle is settled that if the two categories of posts perform the same duties and function and carry the same qualification, then there should not be any distinction in pay scale between the two categories of posts similarly situated". The comparison of two categories is the charter of Expert body on Pay matters i.e., Pay Commission and hence, the issue be best left to Pay Commission as and when constituted.16
OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
b) The applicant has conveniently mentioned the parity of posts in Navy vis-a-vis IAF upto the level of Pay level-7. Whereas, it may be seen that in Navy the hierarchy of posts move upto Pay Level-13 and in IAF it is upto Pay Level-11 only. Further, the number of posts authorized in Pay Level-10, 11, 12 and 13 in Navy are 21, 14, 08 and 02 and in IAF, only 01 post is authorized each in Pay Level-10 and Pay Level- 11 respectively and there is no higher post after level 11. The hierarchy, number and Pay Level of posts of IHQ of MoD (Navy) and IAF starting from Pay Level 07 are tabulated as under:
IHQ of MoD(Navy) IAF
Name of Post Authorized Pay Name of Post Authorized Pay
No. of post Level No. of post Level
Pr. Administrative 02 13
Officer
Chief Administrative 08 12
Officer
Senior Administrative 14 11 Civilian Staff Officer 1 11
Officer (Adm)
Administrative Officer 21 10 Sr. Civilian Gazetted 1 10
Gd I Officer (Adm)
Administrative Officer 32 7 Civilian Gazetted 81 7
Gd II Officer (Adm)
c) It is amply clear that the point needs to be examined by Expert body on
Pay Matters i.e., Pay Commission. Further, the RRs of Navy also supports the same i.e., AO II of Navy can move from Pay Level-07 to Pay Level-13 whereas in IAF, CGO (A) can move upto Pay Level-11 only and as such the level of responsibility needs to be examined by an Expert Body on Pay Matters.
d) The orders issued by the CAT Ernakulam Bench are specific to the applicants and not in rem. Further, the upgradation of pay scales on the ground of pay parity with other organization is the domain of expert body on pay matters and hence, the matter may be raised before the pay commission as and when constituted.
17
OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
7. In the present case, the applicant is seeking extension of similar pay scales with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and 5400 (on completion of 4 years of service as a Non Functional Scale), on par with civilian staff working at different Headquarters of Section Officers/Assist Directors in CCS/AFHQ / Indian Navy.
8. The contention of the applicant is that there is parity between the post of CGO(A) in Indian Air Force and Administrative Officer Gr. II in the Indian Navy. Both the posts perform the same duties and functions and carry the same qualifications. The applicant has also enclosed copies of the Recruitment Rules applicable to the post of Civilian Officers CGO (A) in Indian Air Force i.e. the Indian Air Force Civilian Gazetted Officer (Administration) Recruitment Rules 2002, and the Navy Administrative Officers (Group A & B posts) Recruitment Rules 2018, interalia applicable to the post of Administrative Officer Gr. II in the Indian Navy in support of his contentions. He has also enclosed copies of duties of CGO (A) of Indian Air Force and that of Administrative Officer Gr. II in Indian Navy (Annexure A-11 and A-12). His contention is that these two categories of posts perform the same duties and functions and carry the same qualifications. Hence, there should not be any distinction in pay scales between these two posts which are similarly situated.
9. The respondents, in their additional reply, have contended that there is no parity in the post of Administrative Officer Gr. II in the Indian Navy vis-à- 18
OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench vis the post of CGO (A) in the Indian Air Force. In support of their contention, they have enclosed the hierarchy chart which indicates that there are posts at higher levels in the hierarchy in Indian Navy up to the pay level 13, whereas in the Indian Air Force, the highest officer is up to the pay level 11 only. They also contend that the number of posts authorised in pay levels of 10, 11, 12 and 13 in the Navy are 21, 14, 08 and 02 respectively, whereas, in the Indian Air Force, only one post is authorised each in Pay levels 10 and 11 respectively . The number of posts authorised at the level of CGO (Adm) in Indian Air Force is 81 posts against that of 32 posts authorised for the post of Administrative Officer Gr. II in the Indian Navy.
10. The respondents have also taken the stand that pay matters and parity of pay scales sanctioned in various grades across different organisations, need to be examined by an expert body on pay matters such as the Pay Commission. They have relied upon a catena of Court Judgments which have held that the question of posts, equal salary is a complex matter which is best left to expert bodies, such as Pay Commission.
11. The respondents have cited the following Court Judgments in support of their contentions.
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association, reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC has held as follows:
There can be, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body.19
OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in State of Haryana Vs. HESPSA, 2002(6)SCC 72 has held as follows:
Ordinarily Courts will not enter upon task of Job Evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like pay Commission etc.
(iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deb Narayan Shyam Vs. State of WB 2005(2) SSC 286 has held that "the principle of equal work depends on nature of duties and qualifications for recruitment. If the duties, functions and qualifications for recruitment are different from the class of employees with whom parity is claimed, such employees cannot claim such parity."
(iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai 2009(13) SSC 635, has held that "mode and manner of appointment is considered a relevant factor for invocation of doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work. It was further held that mere similarity in designation or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The court has to consider factors like source and mode of recruitment, appointment, qualifications, nature of work, value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality functional need. The equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesale identity between holders of two posts."
12. The contention of the applicant is that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of cases has not completely ruled out the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the plea of the aggrieved employees, if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary 20 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench state action or inaction. He has relied on the judgments of Apex Court in Secretary, Finance Department vs. West Bengal Registration. Service Association - 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153) and in Deb Narayan Shyam vs. State of W.B., 2005 (2) SCC 286.
13. There is no doubt that administration of pay scales across different organisations amongst various departments of Government of India and the questions of pay parity across different organizations for similar posts is a complex matter. It needs to be examined by an expert body in pay matters such as a Pay Commission. These expert bodies are mandated to look into all aspects of demands seeking pay parity and similar pay scales for similar work undertaken across various departments in Government of India.
14. In the present case, there are two further aspects which merit consideration.
The first is the question of cadre structure. The cadre structure of these posts in the Indian Air Force is quite different from the cadre structure available to similar posts in Indian Navy.
15. The cadre structure as per the Recruitment Rules notified by the Indian Navy vide S.R.O. 108 dated 13.11.2018 comprises of the following levels:
(1) Principle Administrative Officer (Pay Level 13) - 2 posts, (2) Chief Administrative Officer (Pay Level 12) - 8 posts (3) Sr. Administrative Officer (Pay Level -11) - 14 posts (4) Administrative Officer Grade-I (Pay Level 10) - 21 posts (5) Administrative Officer Grade-II (Pay Level 7) - 32 posts 21 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench
16. The post of Administrative Officer Grade II referred to above, was earlier in Level 7 of the pay matrix as per the Recruitment Rules. However, based upon the directions issued by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, the Government of India passed orders on 8.2.2018 implementing the orders of Ernakulam Bench, and placing these posts in Level 8 in favour of the applicants in that case. Subsequently, the Government of India, vide its order dated 13.5.2019, extended the pay scale of Level 8 to all similarly placed Administrative Officers Grade-II of the Indian Navy.
17. As far as the Indian Air Force is concerned, the cadre structure for the similar posts in the Indian Air Force is quite different. These posts in IAF are categorized as follows:
(1) Civilian Staff Officer (Adm) (Level 11) - 1 post (2) Sr. Civilian Gazetted Officer (Adm) (Level 10) - 1 post (3) Civilian Gazetted Officer (Adm) (Level 7) - 81 posts
18. It is apparent that the cadre structure of these posts cannot be considered as identical with each other. Once the cadre structure is distinct, it cannot be concluded that the duties and levels of responsibility of these posts at the level of AO Grade II in Indian Navy and CGO(A) in the Indian Air Force are similar.
19. A perusal of the Recruitment Rules for the post of CGO (A) in the Indian Air Force issued vide SRO 78 dated 8.3.2002 by Ministry of Defence indicates that for promotion to the post of CGO(A) the feeder cadre is the post of Office Superintendent. The minimum eligibility requirement 22 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench indicated is post of Office Superintendent in the revised pay scale of 5500- 9000 with 3 years regular service in the grade failing which Office Superintendent with six years with combined regular service in the grade of Office Superintendent and Assistant of which two years' service shall be in the grade of Office Superintendent.
20. For the post of Administrative Officer Grade-II, in the Indian Navy, as per SRO 108 dated 13.11.2018, the feeder cadre is the post of Office Superintendent. The minimum eligibility requirement indicated is, Office Superintendent in level-6 of pay matrix (Rs.35400- 112400), with five years regular service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on regular basis and have successfully completed mandatory training of 2 to 4 weeks in Establishment Rules or Personnel Administration from a recognised Institute as prescribed by the Department.
21. As can be seen from the above two provisions, the minimum eligibility requirements for consideration for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer Grade-II in the Indian Navy are different and distinct from the minimum eligibility requirements for consideration for promotion to the post of CGO (A) in the Indian Air Force.
22. Keeping the above in view, the contention of the applicant that the post of CGO (A) in Air Force is identical to the post of Administrative Officer Grade-II in the Indian Navy, and consequently, should have pay parity, cannot be countenanced. The question of Pay Parity between posts in different organizations, is best left to an expert body such as the Pay Commission. The applicants are free to raise these demands seeking pay 23 OA.No.356/2021/CAT/Bangalore Bench parity before the expert bodies having this mandate, such as the Pay Commission, as and when these are constituted.
23. Keeping the above in view, the OA lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
24. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/