Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Amlan Jyoti Biswas vs M/O Statistics on 4 December, 2019
I
1 o.a. 473:2016 with m.a. 858.2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
No. O.A. 473 of 2016 Reserved on: 17.9.2019
M.A. 858 of 2017 Date of order: 04-
Present HonTole Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
HonTole Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
1. Amlan Jyoti Biswas,
Son of Late Anil Kumar Biswas,
Date of Birth-28.12.1960,
Designation - Senior Statistical Officer,
Appointing authority-Cadre Controlling Authority:
Subordinate Statistical Service,
Ministry of Statistics 8b Programme Implementation,
Govt, of India,
Office Address - Anthropological Survey of India,
Govt, of India,
27 J. L. Nehru Road,
Kolkata - 700 016,
Residential Address - Northview,
31 Central Road, Barrackpore,
Kolkata-700 122.
2. Jaideep Majumder,
Son of Late Jagannath Majumder,
Date of Birth - 19.11.1972,
Designation - Senior Statistical Officer,
Appointing authority - Cadre Controlling Authority:
Subordinate Statistical Service,
Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation,
Govt, of India,
Office Address - Central Statistics Office,
IS Wing, 1 Council House Street,
Kolkata-700 001,
Residential Address - 57 Prantik Sarani,
Dumdum Cantonment,
Kolkata - 700 065.
3. Ashok Kumar Shaw,
Son of Late Nathuni Shaw,
Date of Birth- 12.01.1973,
Designation - Senior Statistical Officer,
Appointing authority-Cadre Controlling Authority:
Subordinate Statistical Service,
Ministry of Statistics 8b Programme Implementation,
Govt, of India,
Office Address - Nation Sample Survey Office,
Govt, of India,
Rupmati Mahal, 1st Floor, G.T. Road,
Khadina More, Chinsurah,
Distt. - Hooghly (W.B), Pin - 712 102,
Residential Address - 16/1 / A Sital Sarkar Lane,
Mahesh, Serampore,
Distt. - Hooghly, Pin 712 202.
2 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017
r
4. Ajay Sexena,
General Secretary,
All India Association of Statistical Officers,
MOS Ss PI, Govt, of India,
National Sample Survey Office,
Govt, of India,
C G O Complex, 2nd Floor, Sanjay Place,
Agra, U. P. Pin - 282 002.
.. Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
through the Secretary,
Govt, of India,
Ministry of Statistics 8b Programme
Implementation Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Secretary,
Govt, of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Deptt. of Expenditure,
Govt, of India,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Secretary,
Govt, of India Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances 86 Pensions,
Deptt. of Personnel 86 Training,
Govt, of India,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
.... Respondents
For the Applicant Mr. K. Sarkar, Counsel
For the Respondents Mr. P.N. Sharma, Counsel
ORDER
Per Dr. Nandita Chatteriee. Administrative Member:
The applicants have approached the Tribunal in second round litigation primarily challenging the speaking order issued on 18,11.2015 in compliance to directions in O.A. No. 335 of 2012 and seeking the following relief in particular:-
"i) to grant leave to file this joint application in terms of Rule 4(5}(b) of the Administrative Tribunals (procedure) Rule, 1987.
-/ 3 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017
/.
ii) to direct the respondents to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the
purported speaking order dated 18.11.2015 as contained in Annexure "A-ll"
herein;
iii) to direct the respondents to sanction and/or grant the Statistical Investigators /applicants of National Sample Survey Organization & others (Known as SI grade III 65 IV in SSS) under the Ministry of Statistics 85 Programme Implementation, Govt, of India, the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-9000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and to re-fix their pay accordingly up to date with other consequential benefits.
iv) to direct the respondents to produce the entire records of the case before this Honhle Tribunal for effective adjudication of the issues involved herein; vi and to pass such further or order or orders as to this Honhle Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. The applicants have filed an M.A. bearing No. 858 of 2017 praying for joint prosecution of this O.A., and, on being satisfied that they share a common interest and are pursuing a common cause of action, the M.A. is allowed under Rule 4(5) (a) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
3. Heard rival contentions of both Ld. Counsel, examined pleadings and documents on record. Written notes of arguments have been filed by the applicant. Despite the expiry of the scheduled timeline for filing of written notes of arguments as directed on 21.8.2019, no written notes of arguments have been filed on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the respondents.
4. The facts, in a narrow compass, are that the applicants are all Investigators of NSSO (FOD) (SI Gr. Ill & IV of SSS) belonging to the Subordinate Statistical Service of the respondent authorities. Complete parity prevailed with reference to all parameters of service conditions of Investigator Gr. II of Labour Bureau and Investigators as well as Jr. Investigators of CSO upto the 4th- Pay Commission. Such parity, however, was disturbed upon the recommendations of 5th CPC, and, after implementation of the 5th CPC recommendations, an anomaly committee was constituted vide DOPT's O.M. dated 6.2.1998, following which, DOPT, vide its O.M. dated 5.11.1998, decided to settle the anomalies 4 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 / arising out of implementation of the 5th Pay Commission recommendations.
n The then All India Association of Investigators of NSSO (FOD) had pointed out the anomalies in respect of disparity in pay scale between Investigators of NSSO (FOD) and Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau vide their representation dated 12.10.1998. The said anomaly, was discussed in the National Anomaly Committee meeting, and, it was decided that higher pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- (in pre revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300) would not be extended to Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau w.e.f. 1.1.1996, consequent to which concerned officials of Labour Bureau were extended the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- (pre revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-) w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
Certain Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau approached the Tribunal in its Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 335 of 2012 and the Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. (Amit Kumar Chetia & others v. UOI) with the following directions:-
"Therefore, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if we direct the respondent No. 1 to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the applicants association dated 1.6.2012 (Annex-8) in consultation with respondent No. 2 taking into account the findings arrived by us [Para 12 to 14] above within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We order accordingly. It is also directed that the respondent No. 1 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicants."
In compliance with such directions, the respondent authorities examined the matter in consultation with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and issued a speaking order dated 18.11.2015 which has primarily been challenged in the instant O.A.
5. To examine the scope of such challenge, we would, at the outset, refer to the speaking order as impugned and annexed as Annexure A-11 to the O.A. The said speaking order is reproduced below:-
5 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 File Ho. 11G24 / 12 / 2012 - SSS Mmisfcry of Statistics & Programme Implementation {SSS Division) Sardar Patel Bliawan, Room No. 528, Sahsad Marg New Delhi - 110001 Dated: 18*^ November 2015 ORDER Sub:? OA No. 335/2012 filed by Sh. Amit Kumr Chetia on behalf of All India Association of Statistical Investigators (AlASI) relating to grant of pay scale £S of Rs.5500-9000 to Investigators of NSSO (FOD) and other simiiar K incumbents of Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS) - Regarding.
Applicants of OA titled [Sh-, Amit Kumar' Ghetia& OthefsVs. UOIJ ;OA No.;. 335/ 2012'before the HonTole'CAT Ginvahati Bench seeking the following reliefs:-
. ^
(i) To set aside and quash the gradation / seniority list dated 14.07.2011 to the
extent it places the Investigator Grade II of the Labour Bureau en-block above- that of the Statistical Investigator of the National Sample Survey Organisation in the said gradation / seniority list. (u) To direct the respondent authorities to sanction to the Statistical Investigators of the National Sample Survey Organisation the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
(iii) To direct the respondent authorities to restore the past seniority of: the Statistical Investigators of the National Sample Survey Organisation eri-block 4' above to that of the Investigator Grade 11 of the Labour Bureau in: the i gradation list of Investigator Grade II of the Subordinate Statistical "Service 5 \ (SSS)'.
(iv) Any others order (s) as to your Lordship's may deem fit and proper in the
•v facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Cost of application.
(vi) Any other relief / reliefs that the applicants may be entitled to."
02. In the light of the above prayer, HonTole CAT Guwahati Bench has directed under Para 15 of the judgment dated 13,03.2015 in GA. No. 335 / 2012 (Sh. Amit Kumar Chetia & others Vs. UOI'j that "Therefore, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if we-direct tire respondent-No. 1. to oorisider ;and dispose of the representation filed by the applicants association dated 01.06.20.12 (Annex-8) in consultation with respondent No. 2. taking into account the findings -arrived.'by us. [Para 12 to 14] above with in a period of six months from the date of receipt of-a copy of this/order. We order accordingly. It is also directed that the. respondent No. vi'-shall pass a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicants.
6 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017
03. In compliance with the above direction of the Hon'ble CAT, the-issues;r3ised ,by All India Association of Statistical Investigators (AIASI) vide their representation, dated 01.06.2012 has been examined by CCA. of SSS -(Respondent No. ;1 of'.OA): in 4 > consultation with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) (Respondent No.2 of <3A] and the facts of the case are as under: r '■ (A) That there-was absolute parity in rfespeet pf^lT.paxaiaetets.pC Service condition's - between the. Investigators .Grade II of Labour Bureau and Investigators of NSSO (FOD) ' and Junior Investigators of CSO etc. up to 4th: Central Pay Commission ..(i.e. 31.12.1995). However, parity m the-pay'scales between rhese. posts-.were disturbed by the S'1' CPC (01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005). The recommendation of 5lh CPC in respect of investigators of NSSO (FODJ, Junior Investigators of CSO and Investigators Grade II of Labour Bureau were as under:
{i) Recommendation of- 5th CPC in respect of Investigators of HSSO (FOD) tender Para 81. X6: "There are currently, -1713 sanctioned posts of Assistant Superintendents (Rs.1600 - 2660) .and 1453 sanctioned posts of investigators (Rs. 1400 - 2300} in the Field Operations Divisions of NSSO.
Many representations have been made to us that these two categories of posts should be merged and given the scale of Rs.1640-2900 (Pre-revised). The Department of Statistics is not in favor of the merger.- Haying examined' the qualifications and duties and responsibilities of Investigator and . Assistant Superintendents, we recommend the up-gradation of irivestigator^arid Assistant Superintendents and accordingly the-replacement scales Of Rs.1600 -- 2660. and Rs.1640 - 2900 should be. given to the Investigators; and .-Assistant Superintendents respectively. We are also of the opinion that there'should be direct graduate recruitment in the pay scale of Rs.1600 - 2660 and 2000*3500 in a time bound manner.13
(ii) Recommendation of 5th CPC in respect of Junior Investigators of CSO, etc. under Para 81.17: "A large number of posts of Junior and Senior Statistical Investigators in the scales of Rs.1400 - 2300 and Rs*1640.-- 2900 are spread over different ministries and offices of the Government of India. We observe that some of these posts are isolated and the chances ofpromotions for the incumbent in such cases are very bleak. We recommend that all. such posts with statistical functions be constituted into a Subordinate Indian' Statistical Service (SSS) and ail recruitment to. the. feeder posts in Indian Statistical-Service (1SS) be centralized and placed under the'ISS cadre CdhtroUmg AutHorify.' All- post of Junior Statistical Investigator in the scale -of Rs;-1400 - 2300 .be upgraded and given the replacement scale of Rs.1600 - 26607 a11 Junior Statistical Investigators /- Statistical Assistant in the ^scale of Rs;1400 - 2300 will henceforth be called Statistical Investigator Grade. II. All posts of'Senior, Statistical Investigators / Assistant at present in the pay scale of Rs. 1640 -2906 may be given the replacement scale of Rs.2000- 3500 and be called Statistical Investigator Grade I. At the level of Statistical Investigator Grade II, recruitment may be taken up with graduation in Statistics as a minimum qualification The entrants in the scale would move through the replacement scale of Rs.1640- 2900 and Rs.2000-3500 in a time bound manner. Post-graduation may be made the minimum qualification for entry to 50% of the post of Statistical Investigator Grade I. The entrants to this level will move through the replacement scale of Rs.2375-3750 and the entry scale oflSS Group 'A' in a time bbund manner:*' 7 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 i (lii) Recommendation of 5th CPC in respect of Investigators Grade II of iabour Bureau under Para 74.13: "As in the Directorate General of (.Employment and Training, there are posts of Computers and Investigators in-, the Labour Bureau. Our recommendations contained in paragraph 74.T3 A (supra) will apply to these posts as well-and the posts of Investigator, Grade-11 and Investigators, Grade I may be placed in the replacement scales of pay corresponding to. Rs.164.CL2900^ and Rs.2000-3500 .respectively and re designated ' as Junior Investigators and Senior Investigators. The posts of Computers in the scale of pay of'RSiQSO-TSOO' should be progressively abolished and placed only in the corresponding replacement scale- of pay during- .the interim period. Comparison of Pay Structure of Investigators of NSSO. (EOD), Jr. Investigators of CSO etc. of Subordinate Statistical .Service- (SS5J with ■^Investigator Grade n of Labour Bureau is, as below:
i si. Name of the P^y Scale Pay Scale Pay Pay Essential-
No. posts 3rd in 4th Scale in scale in •qualiflcatio
CPC CPC. 5th 6°». n
(01.01.197 (01.01.19 CPC. CPC. prescribed .
6 to 86 to (01.01. (oi .oi. in respect, of
31.12.198 31.1219 1996 to 2006 to each
5) 95) 31.12.2 tin category: in
005) date. the relevant
RRs for
Direct '
Recruitmen,
\ ts from
c ssc.
n Investigator of 425-7.00
FOB, Jr.
Investigator of
1400-
2300
5000-
8000
GP.
4200
Degree'"with-
Mathematic
s or
CSO, Statistics or
Statistical Economics
Assistant,, etc. us a'Subject:
in ' various from - . .•••..a'
Ministries. fecbghSed
. University,,
2 Investigator 425-700 1400- '5500- GP. Degree from
Grade II of 2300 9000 4200 any
Labour ' recognized
Bureau and University ;
Statistical with 1
Assistant of . Statistics ,px
Deptt. of Post. Mathematic '
?
s .-"-or
Economics
as .one.- „of
ttie,subject, -
.• * rl*
- , "v '''•*2*/. ^-j*. *'V • • •
(B)' The above recommendations bf 5th CPC were accepted'by the Union Cabmet^vide1 GSR No: 569 (E) dated 30.09.1997 and implemented w.e.f. '01.01.1990. • ^ "
4k
8 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 (C);-. After, implementation-of j5lh; CPe recommeFi'd'ations,-an;1 anomaly;.comnuttee was , constituted vide*nOP&T:DM.No..-1'9'-/. 01 / :1997;- CM.- of :even ntimber; dated '05.Id.1998'.'to Settle /^e;..anomalies-'arising out -of implementation of the .5th Pay Gommission's^redurnmenciations rr : ' . . fD| All India Association of Investigators. .(NbwfAll -India '-AsWciation of Statistical investigators] of -NSSO fFQEi) pointekout anomaly m.'r'e'spebt of: dispkri^ ;in-;the pay ■';l scale - Investigators -of N$SO (FOB) - and ^ Investigators Grade; ll of labour Bureaff' through"Secretary, Staff Side, National Council-(J'CM) vide' theirvrepresehtition'-dated\'-
I2lh October 1998. ' ' (E) • The above anoinaly was discussed in the National Anomaly Committee .meeting -' held-on 26.05:2000, 15.09,2000 and 20.11.2000, however, the oflicial side-stick to.the position that:higher pay scale of Rs.5'50'Q 9000 (Rs. 1-400-2300} is not being- extended to Investigator^ Grade il of Labour ^Bureau w;e.f."0T0l . ryyb- and coneemed/officials- of Labour Bureau have been extended the pay scale of Rs^SGSG; - -8000 Rs:-,! 400-2300) w.e.f 01.01.1996 in the.-light of general r.ecomrhendatipns, contained * under Para 81.17 of 5th CPC and as per the provision^ ;i6f. MO^^PI f 30.05.1998. Hence, it may not be treated as an anomaly. -However, thefstafLsidb still insisted that this may be treated as an anomaly taking into account that higher-pay- scale of Rs.5500 - 9000 (pre-revised Rs.1.400-2300). would-have to be.^granted to Investigators Grade-H of Labour Bureau, sobher^or .later-atid if;would: affect-- the horizontal and vertical relativities among tiie-statistical.'functio'naraes-:sp,lre4d;oyer in different Ministries -of Govt, of India. It was further contested '-by th'C applicants the posts-of Investigator of NSSO (FOB) in the-pay scale-of Rs.5000 ■- 8000 ^Pre-fbyiseci Rs. 1400-2300) had a historical parity in all respects with their counterptifts- of :
Investigators Grade II of Labour Bureau. Apart from this, it was also pointed out by- the applicants that the S^CPC had recommended pay scales based on. the qualifications .and fair comparison m- their deliberations at rara 40.17 and 40ri 8>--pager_ 407 (Vol.-I) of the 5lhCPC Report, the spirit of the same, however-, did-hot reject -ip ' recommending Pay Scale to the Investigators of NSSO, FOB. It was further pointed put before the Anomaly Committee that "the 5th CPC_ explicitly appreciated the qualification, duties and responsibilities entrusted-by Investigators of. NSSO -(FOD) / before recommending the pa\' scale of Rs.5000 - 8000 (Rs. 1-400-2,300} but -there was-
\ no such reason for granting the higher, scale of pay Of ^3.550.0-9000.,(Pre-revised Rs. 1400-2300) to their counterparts (i. e Investigators' Grade H -of Labour .Bureau} and other similar Statistical functions posts existed in other-Ministries / Bepaftihehts. The.,, duties & responsibilities of Investigators of NSSO (FOB), Junior Investigator''of C'SO etc. wefe as under;
* "Ji) Duties responsibilities of Investigators of !NSSQ (FOP):
The primary duties of Investigators are collection of data on throughout -the country (i) socio-economic surveys (ii) Price collection surveys: (Middle .class price collection; Consumer price Index .(Rural ■& . Urban);' ^International Comparison of price (ICP) (iii) Enterprise surveys (iv): Urban FraTne^SUrvey /vi) Investigators of NSSO (FOB) are required to conduct .'the-.work-in. tiae. most difficult and adverse conditions. They, are also required to :takC'an. Anstanf and 'on. the- spot' derisions.-and 'they^haye .tb'faCe.differentijsituatfensAnd^d^f6^ ' peopie*.at;the same' time. 'Risk'factor is-alsb'fhvo]ved '.in-;the;data c6ilecfenrwbrk. -
tit.
9 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 ( vi) iviethodological S-urv'ey-'/yit/.Preparation 'oP'difftrent tj-pes of I^eport6>7'briefs 1 y Notes for the use Higher officers of NSSO (FOD)"1 cin-behalf of MOS&PI for "
formulation of policy & plan for Govt, of India. Besides, the duties of Investigator of NSSO (FOD) at the headquarters, involves cent percent checking and-scrutmy of data and tabulation etc. The duties also involve putting up various receip'ts / returns to-the higher officials after examining them thoroughly and'assisting in analysis and report work on various aspects of Socio Economy (SE), Annual Survey of Industries (AS1), Improvement of Crop Statistics (Agriculture Statistics), Urban Frame Survey (UFS).
- •* .. ■■■
(ii) Duties responsibilities of ,Junior Investigators of CSO. fis Others
Ministry: The primary duties of'InVeSti^fofs are .'collection, compilation, • analysis and tabulation of required data received tfrom the 'State Governmehts /' Ministries / Departments':-#!). Analysis of StdteY.Union Budgetforecast ^ -(iii) VIP references (iv) ParHameiit questions'/ .matters (vf L^giMati^-matters'(yi) preparation of different types of Report / Briefs ,/Notes for the use bf;PM /^FM- / .. Higher officers (vii) Releasing funds to State Govt/.'for different .ritems--i.-e.
preparation of sanction orders. , ■ • .
(iii} Duties Responsibilities of Investigators Grade II of Labour .Bureau: < The primary duties of Investigators are collection and compilation of Labour Statistics .from the primary units. For this purpose, the Investigator Grade- ll has to undertake extensive tours throughout the country-. Besides^. the'duties of Investigator Grade II at the headquarters, involves cent percent Checking and scrutiny of data and tabulation etc. The duties also involve putting up various i receipts / returns to the higher officials after examining them thoroughly .and assisting in analysis and report work on various aspects of Labour Welfare activities. --^ (F) .As a result of above, disagreement was recorded during the course of last Anqnialy Committee Meeting held on 20.11.2000.
*<s (G) On the other hand Investigator Grade II of Labour Bureau had challenged, before CAT Chandigarh that -they maybe extended the pay scale of Rs.550O-9O;O0-(Pre- revised. Rs. 1400-2300) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as recommended by -5th CPC and CCS (RP) Rules 1997.
(H) In the meantime, Subordinate Statistical Service (SS'S) was constituted vide Notification, dated 12.02.2002 and subsequent amendment dated' 4th April'2003'by clubbing all the recognised Group "B 86 C" statistical function posts scattered in different Ministries of India in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 (Pre-revised*Rs;14O0- . 2300), Rs.5500-9000 (Pre-revised Rs. 1600-2660) and Rs.6500-10500 (Pre-revised Rs. 1640-2900). The Subordinate Statistical Service was constituted with four-grade- structure, which'is reproduced below:
10 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 Post Category Pay scale No, of sanctipned-
posts : Statistical Investigator • Non-functional Rs.7450-11500 467
- Grade-I j Statistical Investigator Functional Rs.6500-10500 1091 4 ! Grade-il i Statistical Investigator Non - functional Rs.5500-9000 701 ■ Grade:Hl ' Statistical Investigator Functional Rs. 5000-8000 1635 Grade-IV Hi On account of above, the 14 posts of Investigator Grade 11 of Labour Bureau were also en-cadred in Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS) based on pay scale o Rs.5000-8000 (Pre-revised Rs. 1400-2300) and subsequently, these incumbents .were also absorbed in SSS as Statistical Investigator Grade IV w.eX 01.04.2004, Were placed in the seniority list according to their inter-se-seniority in'.the cadre of SI Grade IV (Rs.5000 - 8000) of SSS.
(J) On the recommendations of 6thCPC, the pay scale of both Statistical Grade - II (Functional! and Statistical Investigator Grade I {Non-functionalJ ori Sbb V?ere merged and placed in PB-2 with common grade pay of •Rs.4600.'^rther, Statistical Investigator Grade HI (pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5500 9 .} I on functional] and Statistical Investigator Grade IV (pre-revised pay scale of. * __ 8000) (Functional] were merged in Statistical Investigator Grade II and placed m tro'* with common grade Pay of Rs.4200. The revised structure is as under.
I Pre- revised Revised by 6th CPC Number of posts | Statistical Investigator Statistical Investigator 1754 ; Grade-1______________ Grade-I (PB-2) (Grade Pay- I Statistical Investigator 4600/-) j Grade-II Statistical Investigator Statistical Investigator 2186 Grade-Ill Grade-11 (PB-2) (Grade Pay- Statistical Investigator ' 4200/-). Grade-IV IK) The 1S posts of Investigator Grade U (PB-2, GP
Grade 1) [Now Junior Statistical.Officer (JSO)} vide SSS Order dated 01.03.2011.
11 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017
/
\ a
. (L) In the meantime, the Labour Bureau has extended the pay scale of Rs.5500 - „•<.9000 (Pre-reWsed Rs.'l 400-2300) to 'Investigators Grade II w,e.'f. 0:1.01.;l-99'6 videi'-order
-No. 11; / -2004 - '■Aafnin: 1: dated 14^ duly'2011 issued ih'-the light'oiduagment pdated\2l^ ;March;:-^ P. No. 13743 - CAT of 20O4 (O&M) given by rio.n1>le r^ Pimjab'A: Hary-arta :High Court, Chandigarh. Further, remainmg.ltivestigator Grade II of Labour Bureau have also been extended the pay scale of Rs-.5500-9000 (Pie-revised ; /Rs. 1400-2300} w.e.f. .0.1.01.1996 vide Labour Bureau Order -No. 95 of 20l3* issued 1 vide their file No. 79 / 20 / 2011 - Adm. J dated 18,07,-2013.-bn account of this, the incumbents belonging to Labour Bureau sought higher seniority in S£>S over and above^to those incumbents, who were holding the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 (Pre- ' revised Rs. 1400-2300}'as on 0l.01-.1996 and as well as iirtfre'cadre.-df Sta&aio&. Investigator Grade II (Re-designated as Junior Statistical Officer vide Notification' dated 31.2013) in Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS). (M) iQn account of die recommendations of O^ CPC, 'the Subordinate Statistical Sen-ice (SSS) was re-stxubtured'froni.Tout- -,Graded io ■■two'-Grades;1 (GP of Rs.4:200 'arid Rs.4600) w.e.f. 01.0l.2006 and revised RRs were' Notified'*,vide Notificadoh •dated 31.05.2013. ■c.
(N) In view of the above,, the Association of the applicants has represented vide their representation -dated 01:06.2012 that they may also be extended the pay scale of. . -Rs.5500-9000 w.eX:01..01.199.6 in the light of Anomaly at item number 33 & 39 of 5th- CPC and their anomaly may be resolved. Hence, as per directions of ifoh'bie /CAT Guwahati in OA No. 335 / 2012 the representation of Association dated 01.06.20l2the matter was referred to Ministry of Finance for consideration to. grant, the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 to applicants of-OA. ^4. The issue relating to grant of pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 (Pre-revised Rs.1400- 2300) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the light of representation dated 0-1.06.2012 and as per observations under Para 12-14 of Hon'bie CAT Guwahati judgment dated 13.03>2dl^5 y . has been examined in consultation with Ministry of Finance and' sarne.lnay riot.'be' 11 feasible even on notional basis to sort out seniority related- probleih- arising .out of , retrospective revision of pay scale of Investigators Grade II of Labour.;Bureau'.;V?.'eT, 01.01.1996 due to the folloudng reasons:
^ (1) The entire contingent of Investigators.'Grade -II from Labour Bure'aU:'has not so far been en-cadred in the SSS. In fact, out of 175 posts only 29 posts have so far been offered by Ministry of Labour. This is further compounded-by the fact that Labour Ministry did not offer .any pd.st .at .all for ehcadrefneht in- SSS at the time of formation of SSS in .15* February 2002, In.fact.Oth'e striUcture of SSS at that time did not include the posts ffqhi 3abour ,Bifreau../ Labour Bureau offered only 14 posts for encadrement Ou28.:03.20'b2,} Tfds'being 'sbi' the formation of SSS was.an event independent Of vtiie;pobts^6f{M^bstigktoriii:;SSS. * Moreover; there does hot appear any'nTgencypr .need ohlthe part.Of the'Ministry of Labour to operate these posts as.part of the cadre of S'SS.
(ii) Revision of pay scale' Occurring solely , in- Labour Bureau should not .be- a' .
i, .• ^actor-yitiating the process of formation.of SSS in view of a revision pf-pay.'seale' , ' : ^occurring for bulk of posts existing outride SSS and.that tooy''fromVa^date in "2011 much later than-formation of SSS. :.
12 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 V
(iii) The pay scale of. Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.SB00-9000rwere^giveri .by^^5thv^ ^ from Hs3000-8060 -t6»Rs:5300-9000 - f6'nows :ia;:neaLT:'.'future*;£Herei.rnayJ|je.::^ • • repercussion on SimiiM-'Otheri^osts^^rs-Miirfftavtf-ifaa'geifrin^'Sfciai.impliStiofi's.-^i ^ '.The; soiti.tjori -appears-- tQ;'\5~evri6i:?fo-}£frc&^ ■ ^ ^ Bureau'm\tli'e!:SSS. ^his"isp::sustaihabIfe .^^*fair;prb^.siSorf |>ee^^
- ■ .posts,- only:h.29 .have.-.-so-nfar ;?beenr:iffer'edVbyv^^^^^^^ %:: fenca'drero'ent^ah'd. '.tii'at ■ ^ outside SSS-,7as; hitherto-.'Tliefejenoadncmeni is'.no; fion'ger.;a''.yiabie •.option, as^ *!cy ^ ^ mentioned above. Th:e^2^^mpld\%estdMabbdr Sur^d.^aireadvve^ckd^d^j^^:^ :>.
'' ;'"' position or opt-out of fee'SSS Site' the from-aining PtiterlB-mpipypes^ of •Labour / ;
, V Bureau , who'are stiU.not partiof SSS.:" -
^ ■'
•""
OS. - In 'vie\\t.\pf'above',..an o'pubn'was';givenrtp.iricUmWiits^f:.fi^fet'^4w^lM®ShiS% MijnstnrOJvlt6ftevenrnumber dated\04.T2;2'C)1;4 ^
(i) 1 hereby declare that the information furnished above is tfueqd-??nj^'^50i.':' my knowledge and belief. .........
f am willing / Not uiJlmg-.to- eontintie in. SS$ :as>^er RRs^afel (HI condition applicable at.the tixtie of eritry-into the-SSB/ fiii) ■ 1 am willing to. accept-the existing,.seniority assigxied.by. pCA.of SSS>|:o -the' ■ - .
;
incumbents of-S.SSi Who were .holding the pay sc^eh'f'.Rs.SOOG ^lBBQ^ - v: r ' .GradeTV)'(GP of-Rs.4200 after 6lb- CPG}_ and will not claith senipnt^ in futureuh' 'the eadre -Of SSS pn- the basis of revised pay. scale of Rs^sSoO'-- ! 9000 grahteci--to;■Investigators Grade M of Department . retrospebtively, I .also 'agree: that-Me. pay 9000 ■ granted -by labour Bureau / Deptt.-
relevant, for fixing, my pay or seniority representatiahs-fbr-revision^jsenjprity/in.theha^^fi^lgOralbrfl'il^ti^;. s trea'ted;:a's:-\yithdraym.-lri'tiiis.regard;::thefdecisibnvdf;MbtSGA^Gi'5;SjS$|^'aib.' be :firiaJ "and binding, and no dispute would be brought against the CGAjof; SSS before any-court of Law in future. •■.h-v. ■.;
v< 1 •- ?
- (iv) 1 am'win'ing-to be -governed* by the relevant
•Statistical Service (SSS). ': '
fw |v}- I vhereby. declare that while. exereisin^ th&'j^byf -^pti^
r
' A influenced-by any agency-nor am';l uh:der>ahy.d}irbss^frbM ariy;qu&ter::-!' '.
->'
66V The above option form was - chaiienged -by
Bureau before the PB, CAT New DelhiVin oA No. 4303 /-2pi4::[Xl^lp». D-a^^s-.^UpI]v*:^ where in the decision -of UOtVwas up-held vide .Hbir'ble.RB, C-AT ■'Jtid^SetitvSa.ted . 24::0:7V20i5r However. the,=judgmenf:.of-Hon^le PB, CAT-New Delhi. h#;,^urthbr-^^ ^risdletiged by .applicants..bf.OA-No..4:503/2pT4,before:,Hbrivbl;ei^iiifeOdaij^:fjptb^>w49V ing; die;'Ihyestiga tors .Grade If'jR'S/SSOO-SOOO VPre^revised R^. 140G-;2;360)) pf Lab6urv Bureah-'from'-Sub'brdina'te Statistical5rSehtfce- (SSS); Ilqt:. ';m\^^l^^i^^:^^ons^statedA3#ef Para-4 tOr&;fMc^>ay scale of Rbi5500- ^9000 :jPriTr^vjsed:t-Rs.;l*460^ c6nld: not /be- •extended- itoVappHcani's .-oD -Oj^ Ko.. L335/,2Oj2Vt^;'£^^l^iV^9^:(0tirih^' /the'-. teha^V-dX^^fekie^ gl;0f|i^96>i-to. •.■Si. !2T2_005).at par \Hitn'.;.uv''eS'igatoi:s.G'rrtae'21-.oh!^bour.Bfir|'SiilSkli '?JjJc6HgS^Qeh't.i:ai;. fbet'iefLtsrandMerclaim-bfiapplicants are/hereby rejected. ' ■ r;- .'/''-'Vr r '
08. This issue with the approval of CCA of SSS.
C;
V^yV-v''1 *-l''7.-^
-(v;: (K> Saradwathy}
Under Secretary'to the .GovtWdf India
If.- r. ;:h . TeL 014^233^1888
i
13 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017
l
The following is inferred from a close reading of the said speaking order:
(i) That, upto the 4th' CPC, there was absolute parity between \ service conditions of the Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau and Investigators of NSSO (FOD) and Jr. Investigators of CSO.
(ii) Such parity, however, was disturbed with the recommendations of the 5th CPC, which, inter alia, recommended that, having examined the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of Investigators and Assistant Superintendents, upgradation of Investigators and Assistant Superintendents are recommended in the replacement scales of Rs. 1600-2660/- and Rs. 1640-2900/- respectively, implying thereby that the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommended two distinct replacement pay scales for the (■ Investigators and Assistant Superintendents respectively.
(iii) The 5th CPC further recommended that, all such posts of junior and Sr. Statistical Investigators which are separately distributed over different Ministries and Offices in Govt, of India, be constituted into a separate Indian Statistical Service and the recruitment of feeder posts in Indian Statistical Service be centralized and placed under ISS cadre controlling authority. The CPC further recommended that, all posts of Junior Statistical Investigators in the scale of pay of Rs.
1400-2300 be upgraded with the replacement scales of Rs. 1600-2660/-. Further, all Junior Statistical Investigators / Statistical Assistants in scale of Rs. 1400-2300 should be henceforth be called Statistical Investigator Gr. II. The posts of Sr. Statistical Investigators / Assistants presently in pay Lu,' N 14 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- would be given replacement scales / of Rs. 2000-3500/- and be called Statistical Investigator Gr. I. A (iv) The recommendations further laid down that Investigators of FOD, Junior Investigator of CSO, Statistical Assistant etc. in various Ministries should be recruited with an essential qualification of degree in Mathematics or Statistics or Economics as. a subject from a recognized University and be accorded a pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Such recommendations of the 5th CPC were accepted by the Union Cabinet and implemented, accordingly, w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
(v) Consequent to the 5th CPC recommendations, an anomaly committee was constituted and, as submitted by the then All India Association of Investigators vide their representation dated 12.10.1998, the anomaly regarding disparity in pay scale between Investigators of NSSO (FOD) and Investigators Gr. II of Labour • Bureau was discussed in the National Anomaly Committee meeting. As there was disagreement between the contentions of the official side [which argued that the officials of Labour Bureau to be extended the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- (pre-revised Rs. 1400-2300/-) w.e.f. 1.1.1996) and the staff side [who insisted that this may be treated as an anomaly taking into account the higher pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- be granted to Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau], the disagreement was recorded in the course of the last anomaly committee meeting held on 20.11.2000.
(vi) The official side highlighted that there is significant difference between the duties and responsibilities of Investigators of 15 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017
-V NSSO (FOD) and that of the Junior Investigators of CSO and / other Ministries. The official side further pointed out that there are significant differences in duties and responsibilities 4 of Investigators of NSSO (FOD) and those of the Investigators of Labour Bureau.
(vii) The Subordinate Statistical Service was constituted w.e.f.
12.2.2002 with four grade structure and 14 posts of Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau were encadred in the Subordinate Statistical Service with pay scale of Rs. 4000- 6000/ (pre-revised Rs. 1400-2300/-). The concerned Investigators were who was further absorbed in SSS as Statistical Investigator Gr. IV w.e.f. 1.12.2004, and placed in the seniority list according to their interse seniority in the cadre of Statistical Investigator Gr. IV (Rs. 5000-8000/-) of Subordinate Statistical Service.
(viii) On the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, the posts of Statistical Investigators Gr. I & II were merged and placed in PB 2 with common Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. Further, the Statistical Investigators Gr. Ill and Gr. IV were placed in common Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. Another 15 posts of Investigator Gr. II of Labour Bureau were thereafter encadred in Subordinate Statistical Service vide orders dated 7.3.2010 and the concerned officials were absorbed in Subordinate Statistical Service as Statistical Investigator Gr. II.
(ix) During pendency of the restructuring process, certain Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau had approached the Tribunal in its Chandigarh Bench with the prayer that they Uj--v /
- ! / = 16 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 be extended the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- (Pre revised Rs. 1400-2300) w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the plea of the applicant on the ground that they were similarly circumstanced as that of NSSO (FOD) and, being aggrieved, the applicant had challenged the decision in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in Writ Petition No. 13743 of 2004. The Honhle High Court, having directed that the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- be extended to the Investigators Gr. II w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the Labour Bureau extended the same to all their Investigators Gr. II. Emboldened by such enhanced pay scale, the encadred incumbents, who were erstwhile Investigators Gr. II in the Labour Bureau, sought higher seniority in Subordinate Statistical Service over those who are holding the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as well as in the cadre of SI Grade II (re-designated as Junior Statistical Officer).
(x) As the disparity in pay scales were included as items 33 and 39 of the anomaly committee consequent to 5th CPC, and, as directed by the Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 335 of 2012, the matter was referred to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance did not consider the proposal feasible even on a notional basis as because:
(i) The entire contingent of Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau have not been encadred in the Subordinate Statistical Service and only 29 posts out of 175 posts have been so encadred in the Subordinate Statistical Service.
17 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017
(ii) That revision of pay scale which took place only in the Labour Bureau in 2011 should not vitiate the formation /A. of Subordinate Statistical Service which had been formed in 2002.
(iii) Enblock revision of Investigator Gr. II of Rs. 5500- 9000/- would have repercussion in similar other posts along with significant financial implications.
(iv) The Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau could continue as an independent Unit under Subordinate Statistical Service.
(v) And, that, their encadrement is no longer feasible option.
Accordingly, the 29 employees of Labour Bureau who were already encadred were advised on 4.12.2014 to either opt to remain out of Subordinate Statistical Service akin to other employees of Labour Bureau, who are not part of Subordinate Statistical Service, or to continue in the SSS in their existing level of seniority.
(vi) The said option form was challenged by the Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau in Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. 4503/2014, M.A. 1570/2015, M.A. 323/2015, CP. 267/2015, M.A. 315/2015, M.A. 3958/2015 (Hans Raj & ors. v. Union of India & ors.) which upheld the decision of the Union of India. The said decision was challenged in HonTsle High Court of Delhi, which, as the respondents would explain during the hearing, stood dismissed.
18 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 Accordingly, the applicants in O.A. No. 335 of 2012 (filed in the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal) who were the encadred officials in Subordinate Statistical Service, could not be given the benefit of pay * scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- at par with Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau.
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant would advance the following arguments in their support:-
(i) The 5th CPC had recommended pay scales based on qualifications. The spirit of the same was, however, not reflected while recommending pay scale to Investigators of NSSO (FOD). That, the applicants, in the instant O.A. were at par with Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau and Assistants of Department upto 4th CPC with regard to all parameters of qualifications including duties, responsibilities, minimum educational qualification etc.
(ii) That, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench while adjudicating O.A. No. 335 of 2012, had observed that the recruitment procedure and minimum educational qualification were more or less same with regard to the applicants' post with that of the Investigators Gr. II in Labour Bureau.
(iii) The contentions of the respondents that 29 posts of Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau have been decadred from Subordinate Statistical Service vide O.M. dated 4.12.2014 with an option to concerned officials which, tantamounts to the fact that there is no pending anomaly in Subordinate Statistical Service, is challenged on the grounds that such anomaly existed since 1.1.1996 and the said 19 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 anomaly was recognized in principle by DOP&T and Ministry of Finance.
/
(iv) That, there is no co-relation between the anomaly items 33 and 39 given the disagreement recorded in the meeting of the National Anomaly Committee on 20.11.2000 and the notification of the Subordinate Statistical Service in 2002, and, that, it is mandatoiy for the respondent to appoint an arbitrator to tesolve items 33 and 39 which has been violated by the respondent authorities.
(V) That, the decision in Hans Raj (supra) does not apply to the present applicants.
(vi) That, as two different posts with different pay scales have merged in Subordinate Statistical Service, even after exercising the option dated 4.12.2014, the anomaly will not be resolved in Subordinate Statistical Service.
(vii) The applicants have countered the arguments of the respondent authorities that enblock revision to a higher pay scale would have huge financial implication in the light S.B. Vohra v. Union of India & ors. (2004) 2 SCC 150 and its ratio that financial implication vis-a-vis grant of a particular pay scale may not always be a sufficient reason and difference should be mutually discussed and tried to be resolved.
(viii) Ld. Counsel for the applicant would also rely on G.C. Ghosh v. Union of India & ors. (1992) 19 ATC 94 SC which has ruled that decision taken in a specific case by the judiciary or by the Government should apply in rem to similarly circumstanced officials.
20 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017
(ix) The applicants would also highlight the ratio in Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences ATJ 1989 (1) SC 654 on the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" as a constitutional goal enjoining the State not to deny equality in matters relating to employment or pay scales. Reliance has also been placed on Union of India v. V.S. Thakur, (2008) 13 SCC 463, on K.T. Veerappa v> State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 40, on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC 635, and, on Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation v. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar, (2010) 7 SCC 739, to contend that judicial interference is warranted in administrative decisions pertaining to pay parity if such decision is prejudicial to a section of employees.
7. The respondents, per contra, have argued:
(i) That the entire contingent of Investigators of Labour Bureau have not been encadred in Subordinate Statistical Service and that only 29 posts out of 175 have been so encadred. There was no urgency or need on the part of the Ministry of Labour to operate/utilize these posts as part of Subordinate Statistical Service. Consequently, any pay revision occurring solely in Labour Bureau cannot vitiate the process of Subordinate Statistical Service nor can such revision of pay scale implemented in 2011 in a block of posts outside Subordinate Statistical Service, impinge on Subordinate Statistical Service constituted in 2002.
(ii) The encadrement of Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau is no longer a viable option for Subordinate Statistical Service and the 29 encadred employees have been asked to opt either to get absorbed in Subordinate Statistical Service based on existing seniority position or to opt out and get back to Labour Bureau.
21 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017
(iii) The Ministry of Labour did not raise the issues relating to anomaly items No. 33 and 39 as well as encadrement of Investigators Gr. II in Subordinate Statistical Service and consequently Ministry of Finance did not take into account such issues while deciding on the pay scales to post of Investigator Gr. II of Labour Bureau.
(iv) The respondents have categorically denied that there is parity j among the duties and responsibilities of Investigators of NSSO (FOD) and that of Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau. According to the respondents, the primary duties of Investigators NSSO (FOD) are as under:-
"(i) Duties responsibilities of Investigators of NSSO (FOD1:
The primary duties of Investigators are collection of date on throughout the country (i) socio-economic surveys (ii) Price collection surveys : (Middle class price collection; Consumer price Index (Rural 86 Urban); International Comparison of Price (ICP) (iii) Enterprise surveys (iv) Urban Frame Survey (v) Investigators of NSSO (FOD)' are required to conduct the work I the most difficult and adverse conditions. They are also required to take an 'instant' and 'on the spot' decisions and they have to face different situations and different people at the same time. Risk factor is also involved in the.data-collection work,
(vi) Methodological Survey (vii) Preparation of different types of Reports/Briefs/ Notes for the use Higher Officers of NSSO (FOD) on behalf of MOSScPI for formulation of policy & plan for Govt, of India. Besides, the duties of Investigator of NSSO (FOD) at the headquarters, involves cent percent checking and scrutiny of data and tabulation etc. The duties also involve putting up various receipts / returns to the higher officials after examining them thoroughly and assisting in analysis and report work on various aspects of Socio Economic (SE), Annual Survey of Industries (ASI), Improvement of Crop Statistics (Agriculture Statistics), Urban Frame Survey (UFS)."
Further, the respondents have clarified the duties and responsibilities of Labour Bureau as follows:-
"(iii) Duties Responsibilities of Investigators Grade II of Labour Bureau:
The primary duties of investigators are collection and compilation of Labour Statistics from the primary units. For this purpose, the Investigator Grade II has to undertake extensive tours throughout the country. Besides, the duties of Investigator Grade II at the headquarters, involves cent percent checking and scrutiny of data and tabulation etc. The duties also involve putting up various receipts/retums to the higher officials after examining them thoroughly and assisting in analysis and report work on various aspects of Labour Welfare activities."
(v) The respondents have further argued that the applicants are not covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Honhle High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh as the jurisdiction of the said High Court k-t-L VacVl' 22 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 extended to the petitioners therein who were Investigators Gr. II in the Department of Labour Bureau and they did not belong to the cadre of / Subordinate Statistical Investigators Service. Further, the cause of action / ?
therein was the allegedly erroneous grant of pay scale of Rs. 5500- 9000/- to the Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau.
The grant of Rs. 5500-9000/- to Investigators Grade II of Labour Bureau is not the cause of action in the instant O.A. In the instant O.A., the applicants are encadred officials of the Subordinate Statistical Investigators Service [(SSIS) Gr. Ill and SSIS Gr. IV] who are claiming parity with the Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau. 8.1. The issue whether the applicants are entitled to pay parity is granted to the Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau will depend on the following factors:
I
(i) Whether the duties and responsibilities of the two cadres are identical;
(ii) Whether the applicants and the Investigators Gr. II of Labour, Bureau are working for the same employer;
(iii) The scope of judicial intervention in the context of such claim by the instant applicants.
9.1. The respondents have categorically asserted that there is a difference in functions and responsibilities between the two sets of applicants in Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau. Although, the applicants have broadly referred to similarity in nature of work, they have not disputed the job descriptions as detailed in the speaking order of the respondent authorities. Hence, we are not convinced that the applicants of the instant O.A. and the Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau are assigned identical duties and responsibilities.
23 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 9.2. Coming to the second issue, it is not a matter of dispute that the applicants are encadred as Statistical Investigators Gr. Ill and IV in the J Subordinate Statistical Service with the liberty to opt out of the same, whereas the Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau have not been offered encadrement in Subordinate Statistical Service nor has the Labour Bureau expressed any interest in encadrement of Investigators Gr. II. Hence, the applicants in the instant O.A. and the Investigator Gr. II of Labour Bureau are two distinct cadres.
9.3. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 the Honhle Apex Court ruled that principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance.
In Kishore Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 the Hon Hole Court was confronted with the issue that there was discrimination between Class I and Class II Income Tax Officers in as much as that they did the same kind of work but were granted different pay scales. While rejecting their arguments that the pay scale should be same for officers doing same kind of work, the HonTsle Apex Court had directed as follows:-
"If this contention had any validity, there could be no incremental scales of pay fixed dependent on the duration of an officer's service. The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Article 14. The contention that Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated, therefore, also fails."
In Supreme Court Employees9 Welfare Association v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 334 the HonTde Apex Court emphasized the need for reasonable classification stating as follows:-
"ln other words, where unequal pay has brought about a discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution, it will be a case of 'equal pay for equal work', as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution. If the classification is proper and reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved, the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' will not have any application even though the persons doing the same work are not getting the same pay. In short, so long as it is not a case of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, the abstract doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', as envisaged by Article 39(d) of the Constitution, has no manner of application, nor is it enforceable in view of Article 37 of the Constitution."
IH-X 24 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 / In State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514 the HonlDle Court acknowledged that the principle of "equal pay for equal work"
could not be applied blindly such, as in Union of India v* E.S. Soundara Rajan, (1980) 3 SCC 125, where employees belong to two distinct categories; or as in C,R, Seshan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1989 SC 1287, wherein the differentiation in pay between the two groups of employees is based on difference in duties and responsibilities, or, as held in Garhwal Jal Sansthan Karmachari Union v. State of UP, (1997) 4 SCC 24, wherein there is a difference in duties and functions. In State of MP v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC 635 the Hon hie court has held that "equal pay for equal work" could be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. Designation of quantum of work is not determinative. In Union of India v. Mahajabeen Akhtar, (2008) 1 SCC 368, the Honhle Apex Court ruled that parity cannot be granted where nature of duties and educational qualifications are different.
In T. Venkateswarulu v. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, (2009) 1 SCC 546, the Honhle court ruled that the function of determining equivalence is an executive function and is to be done by expert bodies and Courts do not generally interfere in the task of job evaluation unless there is cogent material showing grave error and exercise of court's jurisdiction is absolutely necessary to undo justice. It has been further held in Inder Singh v. Vyas Muni Mishra, 1987 (Supp) SCC 257 that the principles will not apply when two group of persons are not doing the same kind of work and hence equal pay cannot be claimed, as held in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2003) 11 SCC 658, merely because of same or similar designation in two separate services.
25 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 In Federation of All India Customs & Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1291, it was observed as follows:-
"The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive some requiring more tact, some less - it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. It has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless, it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived at mala fide either in law or in fact."
In S.H. Baig & ors. v. State of M.P. & ors. 2019 (1) AISLJ 327, the HonTDle Court observed as follows:-
"12. Parity of pay-scales cannot be given to the appellants even on the'principle of equal pay for equal work. The appellants contend that some of the Ministerial employees were assigned work in the Executive Police Force. Some persons in the Ministerial (E) branch have been appointed to the Police Force as Deputy Superintendent of Police also. The Ministerial (E) staff is also assigned duties of Executive Police Force during elections. The Government maintains that the members of the Ministerial (E) branch do not discharge executive functions. It is well settled law that even if persons are holding same rank/designation and having similar powers, duties and responsibilities they can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work. [See: Randhir Singh v. Union of India, 1982 (1) SLJ 490 (SC) = (1982) 1 SCC 618 and State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148.] In this case the qualifications for appointment, mode of recruitment, training, the duties and responsibilities not being similar, the appellant are not entitled for the relief of equal pay."
9.4. In the instant matter, the respondents have carried out the recommendations of subsequent CPCs. While encadering certain posts from Labour Bureau, they have applied their mind to the necessity of encadrement of a specific number of posts and have not recoursed to mass encadrement.
9.5. The respondents have consciously deliberated on the nature of duties and responsibilities between the work done by the applicants and those rendered by the Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau and have concluded on the difference in duties and responsibilities between the two sets of employees.
9.6. The respondents have clarified that the Labour Bureau had never raised an anomaly or sought the views of the Finance Ministry while 26 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 a granting pay scale to its Investigators Gi*. II. The anomaly was raised by the All India Investigators regarding disparity of pay scale between Investigators of NSSO (FOD) and Investigators Gr. II of Labour Bureau. 9.7. According to the respondents, the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- as extended to Investigators Gr. II in Labour Bureau in the light of judicial decision in WP No. 13743 of 2004 Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, is not automatically applicable to another set of officers encadred in Subordinate Statistical Service with distinct set of duties and responsibilities.
9.8. The respondent authorities have also arrived at a practical decision in offering an option to the encadred Investigators of Subordinate Statistical Service either to continue in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- at their existing level of seniority, to seek absorption therein or to opt out of Subordinate Statistical Service and to revert back to the Labour Bureau.
Hence, we do not find the decision of the respondent authorities to be marred with malafide or to be guilty of arbitrariness in fact or in law. Accordingly, the scope of judicial intervention is limited.
10. In reverting to the issues highlighted in para 8.1 above, we therefore conclude that:
(i) The duties and responsibilities of the two cadres are not identical.
(ii) The cadres are distinct subject to option exercisable by the officials encadred in Subordinate Statistical Service.
(iii) Judicial intervention is not warranted in the speaking order of respondent authorities dated 18.11.2015.
11. Before parting, we would also like to refer to the judgment of Hon^ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 8437/2015 and WP (C) No. 27 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 9921/2015 dated 13.11.2017, wherein the petitioners had challenged the O.M. dated 4.12.2014 (whereby the respondents had decided to decadre 29 posts of Investigator Gr. II of Labour Bureau). The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the HonTDle Court, while discussing the ratio in P.U. Joshi & ors. v. The Accountant General, Ahmedabad & ors. (2003) 2 SCO 632 with the following observations:-
"In these circumstances, we are of the view that the only manner in which the Petitioners, ifithey so desire, can be treated as holders of Group 'B' posts is by going back, upon de-cadrement, to their parent department, the Labour Bureau, which has now, admittedly, treated their said post as a Group 'B' post. In our view this methodology worked out by the Respondent is just and fair and does justice to all the parties involved."
In the instant O.A. tod, we find that a reasonable formula has been developed by the respondent authorities in allowing the applicants upon decadrement to opt to either to continue in Subordinate Statistical Service at their existing seniority or to opt out of the Subordinate Statistical Service and revert to their parent department where they would have a fair chance to access their desired pay scale.
Accordingly, we would like to accord the applicants liberty to prefer their options to remain in Subordinate Statistical Service or to revert to the Labour Bureau so that the scope of any rigid discrimination in pay scales amidst extant and erstwhile Investigators Gr. II in the Labour Bureau is put to rest.
12. The applicants, in their written notes of arguments, have urged that an arbitrator be appointed to resolve the pending anomalies at item No. 33 and 39 consequent to the 5th CPC. We do not find any such relief prayed for in the Original Application and such prayer, made beyond the scope of this O.A., is not maintainable.
28 o.a. 473.2016 with m.a. 858.2017 « This O.A. is hence disposed of with the following findings and directions:-
! '
(i) This Tribunal does not consider it expedient to intervene in the speaking order dated 18.11.2015 (Annexure A-ll of the O.A.). Hence, the O.A. fails on merit.
(ii) The applicants are at liberty to opt, as directed by the respondent vide their notification dated 4.12.2014, and, in the event, once such options are preferred, the respondent authorities will decide on further course of action with reference to the optee applicants within 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. With these directions, the O.A. is disposed of. No costs.
/
✓
(Dr, Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Banerjee)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
SP