Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
M K Sahoo vs Income Tax on 26 February, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019
Reserved on 05.02.2025 Pronounced on 26.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
1. Manas Kumar Sahoo, aged about 35 years, S/O-
Jagatjiban Sahoo
2. Smitanjali Behera aged about 34 years, D/O-
Duryodhan Behera.
3. Sri Sadasiv Mishra aged about 33 years, S/O-
Dibakar Mishra.
4. Sri Pramod Kumar Mohanty, aged about 54 years,
S/O-Late Raghunath Mohanty.
5. Sri Ajit Barik aged about 28 years, S/O-
Duryodhan Barik.
6. Geetanjali Mohanty, aged about 42 years D/O-
Late Padmalochan Mohanty.
7. Monalisha Panda aged about 40 years, D/o- Late
Prafulla Kumar Panda.
8. Pranati Chuudhury aged about 39 years, W/O-
Sangram Keshari Choudury.
2 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019
9. Sisir Kumar Beura, aged about 34 years, S/O-
Maheswar Beura.
10. Subash Chandra Barik, aged about 34 years, S/O-
Akuli Charan Barik.
11. Rudra Kinkar Mohapatra, aged about 26 years,
S/O- Baidhar Mohapatra.
12. Bipra Charan Sahoo, aged about 57 years, S/o-
Late Narahari Sahoo.
All are working as Group-D, office of the Income
Tax Officer, Cuttack At-Shelter Chhak, PO-
Tulasipur, Cuttack, 753008.
13. Tahid Ahemmed aged about 32 years, S/o-Sk.
Abdul Quayum. Presently working as Gr-D, O/O-
Income Tax Officer, Jajpur Ward, At/PO/Dist-
Jajpur.
......Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its Secretary
(Revenue), Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New-Delhi-110001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes represented
through its Under Secretary (Ad.VII), 460 Hotel
Samrat, Chanakyapuri, New-Delhi-110 021.
3. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Odisha, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajaswa Vihar,
Bhubaneswar-751007.
4. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shelter
Chhak, Cuttack, At/Po/Dist-Cuttack, 753008.
3 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019
5. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax (HQ) (Adm
& Vig), O/O- Principal Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Odisha, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajaswa
Vihar, Bhubaneswar-751007.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.P.Dhalsamant, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. J.K.Nayak, Counsel
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
In pursuance of DoP&T No. 49014/2/86 dated 07.06.1988 and CBDT's letter F. No. C-30014/41/2015-V&L dated 16.10.2015, the Pr. Chief Commission of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, issued an order dated 21.11.2017 stating therein as under:
"In pursuance to DoPT OM No. 49014/2/86 Estt (C) dtd. 07.06.1988 & CBDT's letter F No. C-30014/41/2015- V&L dtd. 16.10.2015, it is hereby ordered that payment to casual labourers whose nature of work is the same as that of regular employee, duly certified by the Supervisory officer, will be made @ 1/30th of the minimum Pay Band, i.e. PB-1 of Rs. 5,200/- (5200- 20200) with GP-1800 as per recommendations of the VIth Pay Commission report notified by the Govt. plus DA admissible from time to time on the said amount w.e.f. 01.07.2008.
This order is applicable to the daily wages labourers/ dally wages workers/ casual labourers of the Income Tax Department within Odisha Region. The above rate of wages is not applicable to any persons/dally wages Labourers engaged through any service 4 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019 provider/agency in view of the Board's letter No. 12034/1/2004-Ad. IA dtd. 04/10.12.2008.
In this regard, a certificate as per the enclosed format (Annexure-A) is required to be issued by the respective Supervising Authority under which the casual workers are engaged to ensure that the particular casual labourer in respect of which payment is made, is doing the same nature of work as assigned to the regular MTS.
This order will be subject to the outcome of any judicial pronouncement in the matter by any Court at a later stage. An undertaking may be taken by the Head of office from the individual casual workers (Dally Wagers/ Casual labourers) for recovery of excess payment, if any arise due to clarification/directions received from CBDT or any judicial pronouncement at a later stage."
2. Soon thereafter, a corrigendum was issued on 14.02.2018 stating therein as under:
"The Second line of second Para of this office order dated 21-11-2017 communicated in Memo No. Pr. CCIT/Admn(GL)/VII-16/2017-18/23628-82 dated 21- 11-2017 containing "The above rate of wages is not applicable to any persons/dally wages labourers engaged through any service provider/agency in view of the Board's letter No.12034/1/2004-Ad.1A dtd.04/10.12.2008 may be read as:-
This Pay scale is not to be given to any person(s)/casual workers engaged directly or through any service provider/Agency after 10th December, 2008 in view of the CBDT's OM DO F. No. A-12034/1/2004-Ad.IA dated 4/10 December, 2008."
Other contents of the said order will remain unchanged." 5 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019
3. Being aggrieved, by the aforesaid corrigendum, the thirteen applicants, who have been engaged on casual basis directly by the respondents on various dates after 01.12.2008 have filed this OA praying therein to quash the corrigendum dated 14.02.2018 (A/8) and pay them wages @ Rs. 630/- per day, i.e. 1/30th of minimum scale as payable to regular employees in Pay Matrix Level -1, i.e. Rs. 18000/-, and release the arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2016 since they have been continuing to discharge their duties of Group-D/MTS on casual basis like the regular employees of the respondents department. The case of the applicants, which has been reiterated by their Counsel, are as under.
(a) The present applicants, along with others, had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 377/2013 praying inter alia to quash the order dated 09.05.2013 and 16.05.2013 and to direct the respondents to regularize their service from the date of their initial appointment with grant of all consequential service and financial benefits.6 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019
(b) Similarly situated persons, engaged on casual basis, had also approached before the CAT, PB New Delhi in OA No. 2012/2013 with the same prayer.
(c) While the OA No. 377/2013 was pending before this Tribunal final adjudication, OA No. 2012/2013 was disposed of by CAT, PB, New Delhi on 22.04.2014 with certain directions and payment of wages was one among them, an excerpt from it reads as under:
".........further, we direct the respondents to continue to disburse payments/remuneration/ wages/payments to the applicants against their employment as per the standard terms and conditions prevalent and being followed at present."
(d) In the light of the decision of the CAT, PB, New Delhi, the OA No 377/2013 was disposed of on 05.02.2018 to follow the direction of CAT, PB, New Delhi referred to above.
(e) The applicants were paid 1/30th of minimum scale of pay at level-I i.e. Rs. 18,000/- plus DA upto January, 2018 (at the rate of Rs. 600 plus DA) like 7 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019 the persons engaged on such casual basis prior to 04/10.12.2008.
(f) But, in view of the corrigendum dated 14.02.2018, the 1/30th of pay paid to them has been reduced detrimental of their interest and they have been paid @ Rs. 448/- per day from January 2018, which is in violation .
(g) Such unilateral reduction of their wages is in violation of the principle of natural justice and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jagdish Singh, (2017 (1) SCC (L&S) 1, Sabha Shankar Dube Vs DFO & Ors, 2019 (2) SCC (L&S) 65, decision of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 16.08.2024 in WP(C) No. 16222/2018 (Prasar Bahrati Board Casting Corporation of India & Ors Vs Goutam Ballav Mohanty & Ors, order of this Bench dated 29.08.2023 in OA 592/2022 (Sudarsana Behera Vs UOI & Ors), earlier order of this Tribunal in OA 77/2013 dated 05.02.2018, DoP&T OM No. 8 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019 49014/2/86 dated 07.06.1988, and CBDT's letter F. No. C-30014/41/2015-V&L dated 16.10.2015.
Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the applicants are discharging the same and similar duties like that of the persons engaged prior to 04/10.12.2008 and, that of the regular employees of the department, the depletion in their wages is violative of Article 14, 16, 21 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. Hence, they are entitled to the relief claimed in the OA.
4. Respondents/Ld. Counsel for the respondents by placing the order dated 11.07.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 4601/2003 (S.Bhaskar Dora Vs. UOI & Ors) and also the order of this Bench dated 16.07.2014 in OA No. 949/2013, have stated that the present applicants being not the holders of civil post nor have they sought to be regularized to civil post, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain this OA. Hence, they have prayed to dismiss this OA in limine. Insofar as merit of the matter, it is stated as under.
9 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019
(i) As per recommendations of 7thCPC, the minimum pay of the workers working in the bottom grade should be fixed at level-1, ie.. Rs. 18,000//- per month and accordingly the pay of the applicants was revised to the minimum scale of pay to the tune of regular Group-D employees.
(ii) Respondent No.3, i.e. PCCIT, Odisha vide Office Order dated 09/12.06.2017 ordered payment to casual labourers whose nature of work is same as that of regular employees at the rate of 1/30th of minimum scale payable at Level-1 i.e. Rs. 18000/- + D.A at the current rate w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in view of the implementation of the recommendations of 7th CPC but the said pay scale is not to be given to any person(s)/casual labourers engaged directly or through any service provider/agency after 10.12.2008 in view of the CBDTs D.O. F. No. 12034/2004-AD.1A dated 04/10.12.2008.
10 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019
(iii) In view of the order of the Pr.CCIT, Odisha, Bhubaneswar dated 9/12.06.2017, all the daily wage workers irrespective of their date of engagement were granted revised wages, i.e. 1/30th of the minimum scale of pay at Level-1 i.e. Rs. 18000/- + D.A. w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Accordingly, arrear wages for the period from 01.01.2016 to September, 2016 have been paid. Regarding the balance revised arrear for the period from October, 2016 to September, 2017 it is to be stated that the same was not paid because of Pr. CCIT's order dated 14.02.2018 made on the basis of Boards letter dated 4/10.12.2008. Since, February, 2018, the applicants are being paid wages @ Rs. 448/- per day. Therefore, there being no illegality in the matter, this OA is also liable to be dismissed on merit.
5. We have considered the submissions of the respective parties and have perused the records.
6. Since the Respondents/Ld. Counsel for the Respondents led emphasis on the maintainability of this OA, we would like to deal 11 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019 with the same at the first instance. We have examined the provision of the AT Act, 1985, the facts of the matter with reference to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of S.Bhaskar Dora (supra) so also of this Bench in OA No. 949/2013. We find that the question before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the aforesaid case was as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction with regard to the disengagement of the petitioner, a casual Sweeper engaged on daily wage basis, and the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the said case held that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide such matters. By following the said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, this Tribunal also dismissed OA No. 949/2013, whereas in the instant case, as to how far the respondents-department are justified in depleting/reducing the 1/30th pay scale, granted as per the DoP&T order, of the applicants, who are continuing on casual basis. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the orders relied on by the respondents have no application in so far as determination of the present grievance of the applicant.
7. It is noticed that the question of payment of equal pay for equal work to the casual workers received due judicial consideration of the 12 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh And Anr. Vs Engineer-In-Chief, C.P.W.D. And Ors., AIR 1986 SC 584, and, Their Lordships, have been pleased to hold as under:
"We are not a little surprised that such an argument should be advanced on behalf on the Central Government 36 years after the passing of the Constitution and 11 years the Forty- Second Amendment proclaiming India as a socialist republic. The Central Government like all organs of the State is committed to the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 39 enshrines the principle of equal pay for equal work. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India this Court has occasion to explain the observations in Kishori Mohan Lal Bakshi v. Union of India (supra) and to point out how the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and how it is a vital and vigorous doctrine accepted through out the world, particularly by all socialist countries. For the benefit of those that do not seem to be aware of it, we may point out that the decision in Randhir Singh's case has been followed in any number of cases by this Court and has been affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India . The Central Government, the State Governments likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of taw should ill-come from the mouths of the State and State Undertakings. We allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case (supra) to pay to the petitioners and all other daily rated employees, to pay the same salary and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees with effect from the date when they were respectively employed. The respondents will pay to each of the petitioners a sum ol Rs. 1000/- towards their costs. We also record our regret that many employees are kept in service on a temporary daily-wage basis without their services 13 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019 being regularised. We hope that the Government will take appropriate action to regularise the services of all those who have been in continuous employment for more than six months.
8. Thereafter, in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli And Anr. vs State Of U.P., AIRONLINE 1985 SC 9, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This Article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. 14 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019
9. Taking into consideration of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh (supra), the DoP&T, New Delhi vide OM No. 49014/2/86 Estt.(C ) dated 7th June ,1988 instructed to all concerned that where the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of 8 hours a day and, in cases, where the work done by a casual worker is different from the work done by a regular employee, the casual worker may be paid only the minimum wages notified by the Ministry of Labour or the State Government/Union Territory Administration, whichever is higher, as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. However, if a Department is already paying daily wages at a higher rate, the practice could be continued with the approval of its Financial Adviser. Following the aforesaid OM the CBDT, New Delhi, issued instruction to all concerned vide letter F No. C-30014/41/2015 V&L dated 16.10.2015. Based on the aforesaid OM/letter, applicants and others, who were engaged on such casual workers prior to 15 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019 10.12.2008 were paid 1/30th of minimum pay scale but such payment to the applicants were stopped from February, 2018.
10. The DoP&T vide OM No. 49014/1/2017-Estt.(C)Pf. dated 4th September, 2019 on the subject 'Equal pay for Equal Work' for casual workers, reiterated that where the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of 8 hours a day. In cases where the work done by a casual worker is different from the work done by a regular employee, the casual worker may be paid only the minimum wages notified by the Ministry of Labour & Employment or the State Government/Union Territory Administration, whichever is higher, as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
11. It is not in dispute that the applicants had approached this Tribunal earlier in OA No. 377/2013, which was disposed of based on the order of the CAT, PB, New Delhi in OA 2012/2013 wherein it was also directed the respondents to continue to disburse payments/remuneration/ wages/payments to the applicants against 16 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019 their employment as per the standard terms and conditions prevalent and being followed at present. It is not the case of the respondents that the order passed in OA 377/2013 has been set aside or reviewed. Hence, the orders are binding upon the respondents even till date.
12. We have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 16.08.2024 in WP(C) No. 16222/2018 (Prasar Bahrati Board Casting Corporation of India & Ors Vs Goutam Ballav Mohanty & Ors) wherein insofar as the equal pay for equal work it was held as under:
"11. The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" has long been recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court as a Constitutional goal, rooted in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Court has consistently upheld this principle as a necessary measure to ensure fairness and equality in the workplace. The principle is not merely a theoretical concept; it is a vital and vigorous doctrine that has been accepted globally and has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in numerous decisions.
12. In this landmark ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even daily wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, casual workers, and contractual employees, who are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts, but whose services are continuously utilized by the State or its instrumentalities over a significant period, are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale, excluding allowances. This entitlement arises on the assumption that the work they perform is of a perennial nature and that they have served for a sufficiently long period, thereby creating an equitable right to fair compensation.17 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019
13. In the instant case, the contention raised by the Petitioners that the Opposite Parties were engaged on a casual basis as Lighting Assistants, and therefore are not entitled to the benefits of regular employees, is untenable. The Petitioners argue that since the Opposite Parties were employed on a daily wage basis and were not appointed against regular sanctioned posts, they are not entitled to the relief of equal pay as claimed in this petition. However, this argument fails to acknowledge the consistent legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the rights of employees engaged in such capacities.
The Opposite Parties have been appointed on casual basis every now and then as Lighting Assistants since 1992/1993, performing duties that are integral to the functioning of Doordarshan. The Petitioners' claim, that the Opposite Parties are not entitled to regular pay because they are casual employees, is directly contradicted by the principles laid down in Jagjit Singh (supra). The consistent and prolonged engagement of the Opposite Parties in the same work as regular employees creates an equitable right to be compensated fairly.
14. In view of the above, the Opposite Parties' claim for equal pay for equal work is well-founded, and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal granting them such relief is in accordance with the law. The Petitioners are directed to comply with the directions of the CAT within a period of 1 (one) month.
13. Ld. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Charanjit Singh & Ors., 2005(7) Supreme 193, the state that the applicants being causal workers are not entitled to claim equal pay for equal work. We have gone through the said decision and we find that the Hon'ble Apex Court have interfered with the order of the 18 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019 Hon'ble High Court since in the said case, there was no finding that the work discharged by the petitioner were similar to that of the regular employees whereas, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the casual workers after being engaged prior to 10.12.2008 are getting 1/30th of minimum scale of pay. It is also not in dispute that the applicants were paid the 1/30th minimum pay scale till January, 2018. Further, it is not in dispute that the applicants have been discharging the duties like that of regular Group-D/MTS employees of the department and the casual workers who were engaged prior to 10.12.2008 and are continuing till date. In view of the above, the decision relied on by the respondents rather supports the case of the applicants. It may also be recorded that the DoP&T order is very much clear as to under what circumstances and situations, the 1/30th minimum pay scale shall be allowed to causal employees. Hence, the corrigendum dated 14.02.2018 is opposed to the law and DoP&T OMs and, thus, cannot be made applicable to the case of the applicants. The case of the applicants also qualifies the conditions made by the DoP&T in the aforesaid OMs. We also do not find any reasonable classification or criteria in depriving the applicants the 19 O.A.No. 260/00058 of 2019 1/30th minimum scale of pay as because they have been engaged after 04/10.12.2008 although it is not in dispute that discharging the same and similar duties like the casual employees after being engaged continuing in engagement on payment of 1/30th of minimum pay scale. Hence, on consideration of facts, DoP&T OMs and law, we find gross injustice was caused to the applicants in decision making process of the matter in stopping and depriving them the 1/30th of minimum scale of pay from February, 2018. Hence, the applicants are entitled to 1/30th of minimum scale of pay in Level -1 (Rs. 18,000/-) from February, 2018 as was paid to them upto January, 2018. In view of the discussions made above, the respondents are hereby directed to calculate and pay the applicants the differential arrear amount from February, 2018 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. In the result, the OA stands allowed. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) KB/PS