Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Mahabir Singh Mor vs Union Of India on 18 May, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.931/2009 New Delhi, this the 18th day of May, 2011 Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) 1. Shri Mahabir Singh Mor, W/Man, S/o late Pehlad Singh Mor, R/o H.No.D-5, Teacher Colony, Atlas Road, Sonepat, Haryana. 2. Shri Shyam Sunder Mishra, Electrician, S/o Shri Laleshwar Mishra, R/o H. No.S-2, Plot No.208, Sector-6, Veshali, Ghaziabad, U.P.. 3. Shri Birdhi Chand, A.P.O., S/o Shri Ram Chander, R/o F-3,227, Sultanpuri, Delhi-86. 4. Shri Dharampal, W/Man, S/o Shri Jugti Ram, R/o H.No.188-B, Ward No.1, Gandhi Nagar, Gannaur, Haryana. 5. Shri Om Prakash, W/Man, S/o Shri Ganga Dass, R/o H.No.631/5, Krishana, Gali No.13, East Maujpur, Delhi-53. 6. Shri Lila Dhar, W/Man, S/o Shri Durga Dutt, R/o H.No.C-24, Maukend Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Gali No.4, Delhi-94. 7. Shri Anand Singh, W/Man, S/o Shri Nen Singh, R/o E-Block/7/345, Nehru Vihar, Delhi-94. 8. Ram Kishan, A.W.M. S/o Shri Ram R/o RZG-466, H. No.77 Raj Nagar IInd, Palam Colony, New Delhi 45. 9. Rakesh Chander, A.W.M. S/o Sh. Guraditta Mal Bhaskar R/o Pocket-I, IV, H. No.71, Sector-6, Rohini, New Delhi-85. 10. Shree Ram Yadav, W/Man S/o Sh. Gurucharan Yadav, R/o Pocket-e I, H. No.112, Sector 16, Rohini, New Delhi-85. 11. Dharam Singh, A.W.M. S/o Sh. Kehar Singh, r/o H. No.102, Gali No.86, Vishwas Farm, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59. 12. Paramjit Singh, W/Man S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh H. No.2182/2, Guru Arjun Nagar, New Delhi-8. 13. Ramesh Singh, W/Man, S/o Late Sh. Lila Dhar R/o T-580/3, Baljit Nagar, Back side of Shadipur Depot, New Delhi-8. 14. Bhagwan Dass, A.W.M., S/o Sh. Tej Ram, r/o H.No.A-71, Gokul Puri, Delhi-94. 15. Kuldeep Singh,A.W.M., S/o Late Sh. Khajan Singh, R/o H.No.84, Patel Nagar, New Delhi-8. 16. Munna Lal, W/Man, S/o late Sh. Babu Ram, r/o H.No.7857, Katra Nabak Roshan Ara Road, Delhi-7. 17. Om Parkash, A.W.M., S/o Sh. Jage Ram, r/o H.No.673/25, Pathar Wali Gali, Arya Nagar, Sonepat, Haryana. 18. Sukhbir Singh, A.W.M, S/o Sh. Rattan Sarup Sharma, r/o H.No.21, Vill. & P.O. Bakoli, Delhi-36. 19. Har Prasad, W/Man S/o Sh. Kavel Singh, r/o H.No.54, Gali No.1, A-Block, Mithapur Extension, Delhi-44. 20. Yashpal Sharma, A.W.M., S/o Sh. Parkash Sharma r/o H.No.3-C-190A, NIT, Faridabad (Haryana) 21. Ramparsad Yadav, A.W.M., S/o Sh. Ram Bhuj Yadav, r/o H.No.A-5-18, Rajbir Colony, Kundli, Delhi-96 22. Raveti Singh, W/Man S/o Sh. Devi Sahai, r/o Pocket-B-7, Flat No.16, Sector-17, Rohini Delhi-90 23. Mahesh,A.P.O., S/o Sh. Kishan Prasad, R/o H.No.195, Gali No.14, Face-II, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-95. 24. Chinta Mani, A.W.M., S/o Sh. Bhala Dutt, r/o H.No.H-208-C, M. Story Building, Sector-12, Partap Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. 25. Narain Singh, A.P.O. S/o Sh. Ram Singh Rajwar, R/o H. No.B-45, Telecom Staff Quarter, Vivek Vihar, Delhi-95. 26. Shiv Shankar, A.W.M., S/o Sh. Angan Lal R/o H. No.21, D.D.A. Quarter, New Seema Puri, Delhi-95. 27. Sudhir Prasad Mahajan A.W.M. S/o Sh. Durga Prasad Mahajan, r/o H. No.B-2/40, Harsh Vihar, Delhi-95. 28. Narender Kumar, W/Man S/o Sh. Sham Lal, R/o H. No.22/565, Mandoli Vistar, Nand Nagari, Delhi-93. 29. Ramesh Chand Sharma, W/Man S/o Sh. Kishor Chand Sharma R/o H. No.167, Gopal Park, Delhi-51. 30. Yashpal, P.O. S/o Sh. Maya Ram R/o H. No.87, D.L. F. Ghaziabad, U.P. 31. Rambir Singh, W/Man S/o Late Sh. Parshu Ram, R/o H.No. D-158, Raj Nagar, Park-2, Palam Colony, New Delhi-45. 32. Vijay Kumar, A.W.M., S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o R-Z/79, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Colony-45. 33. Ram Dhiraj, W/Man S/o Late Sh. Durga Prasad, R/o E-3/451, Sultan Puri, New Delhi-41. 34. Raman Kumar Kapila, A.C. Mech., S/o Late Sh. Panna Lal, R/o J-26, Gali No.10, Bharm Puri, Delhi-53. 35. Suresh Kumar Sharma, A. C. Mech. S/o Sh. N. R. Sharma, G.H.5&7 LIG Flat No.67, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 63. 36. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma, A.P.O. S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander Sharma, Block-6/2-C P&T Quarter, Kali Bari Marg, New Delhi 41. 37. Om Prakash, A.P.O. S/o Sh. Udmi Ram, R/o H. No.3/85, Vinna Enclave, Nangloi, Delhi-41. 38. Kishan Lal, A.W.M., S/o Sh. Mathura Prasad, R/o H. No.H Block/536, Sukupur, J. J. Colony, Delhi-34. 39. Jagdish A.W.M. S/o Sh. Chottey Lal, R/o H. No.476, Patase Wali Gali, Bawana, Delhi-39. 40. Ram Chander, A.W.M. S/o Sh. Banwari Lal R/o H. No.193-A, Vill. Malikpur, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. 41. Baldev Raj, W/Man S/o Sh. Takhat Ram Madan, R/o H. No.673, IInd Floor, Parmanand Colony, Mukarji Nagar, Delhi-9. 42. Sewa Singh, A.W.M. S/o Sh. Gyan Singh R/o H. No.33, Wash Dev Nagar, Partap Nagar, Gali No.10, Delhi-7. 43. Ramesh Chand, A.W.M., S/o Sh. Hari Chand, R/o RZ H.I, West Sagarpur, Gali No.1, Gitanjali Park, New Delhi 46. 44. Hari Singh, A.W.M. S/o Sh. Raghuvir Singh, R/o H. No.H-29, Luxmi Park Extn., Kunwar Singh Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi-41. 45. Ram Kishan, Electrician, S/o Sh. Jage Ram, R/o Village & P.O. Puth Khurd, Delhi-39. 46. Katpan Singh, W/Man S/o Late Sh. Munshi Ram, R/o H. No.430-A, Bawa Colony, Sonepat, Haryana. 47. Seeta Ram, W/Man, S/o Sh. Shiv Shankar R/o H. No.B-77, Bhart Vihar, Rajapuri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59. 48. Bhagwan Singh, A.W.M., S/o Late Shri Hakim Singh, R/o H. No.3653, Ground Floor, Sector-3, Pocket-2, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana. 49. Ramesh Kumar, A.W.M. S/o Shri Om Parkash Maini, Nil-56 B, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17. 50. Ram Narayan, A.W.M. S/o Shri Raghuvir Singh R/o H. No.B-II, 18 Madangiri, New Delhi-62. 51. P.R. Dutt, A.W.M., S/o Shri Vidhyadutt, R/o H. No.D-85, P&T Colony, Moti Bagh-1st, New Delhi-21. 52. Mews Singh, W/Man S/o Sh. Puran Singh H. No.D-49, Kiran Garden, New Delhi-59. 53. Krishan Kumar, W/Man S/o Late sh. SUraj Bhan, R/o Village & P.O. Kanonda, The. Bahadurgarh, District Jhjjar, Haryana. . Applicants. (By Advocate : Shri B. S. Mor) Versus 1. Union of India Through the Secretary of Government Ministry of Communication, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001. 2. The Chairman Telecom Commission, Department of Telecom, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001. 3. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Through its Chief Managing Director 12th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001. 4. General Manager (HR) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Minto Road, New Delhi 110 002. . Respondents. (By Advocate : Shri R. N. Singh for Respondents No.1&2 Shri Chandan Kumar and Shri Sanjeev Narula for MTNL) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
53 Applicants have joined together in the present Original Application seeking direction of the Tribunal to the Respondents to extend the benefits of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) Arbitration Award dated 30.01.1988 to them and to quash and set aside the orders of the Respondents dated 18.03.2008 (Pages 49 to 51). Pursuant to this Tribunal direction in OA No.1606/1998 decided on 11.09.2003 in the case of All India Civil Wing, Non-Gazetted Employees Union and Another versus Union of India and Others, the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) in consultation with the Department of Telecommunication conveyed to the Applicants in the said OA the rejection of their representation stating that the MTNL was neither in a position to consider the pay revision in post absorption scenario and also it was not in their domain to revise the CDA based Pay as on 31.10.1998/30.09.2000 of the employees in the pre absorption period.
2. The genesis of the case can be traced to the creation of Civil Engineering (CE) Wing of the Post and Telegraph (P&T) Department on 1.07.1963. Earlier the said Civil Engineering Wing was part and parcel of the CPWD. Pursuant to the creation of the CE Wing of P&T in 1963, staffs working in the said CPWD were transferred to the Civil Engineering Wing of the P&T Department. Initially they were transferred on deputation basis without any deputation allowance and subsequently options were called from CPWD Non Gazetted staff on deputation to the P&T Department as to whether to continue in P&T on absorption or to be repatriated to CPWD. The Terms and Conditions were stipulated in a letter dated 24.08.1968. By exercising option, the Applicants were absorbed in the CE Wing of P & T Department permanently. It is the case of the Applicants that after the creation of the MTNL, they joined on deputation basis and later on were absorbed in the MTNL. Applicants aver that though the recommendations of 3rd CPC in respect of pay scales were granted to many ranks but the Draftsmen demand of the CPWD were examined in the JCM of the Ministry of Works and Housing, from where it was referred to the Work Study Units and as there were difference of opinion between Government and the CPWD Staff, the issues were referred in May, 1977 to the arbitration of Honble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh, Chairman, Shri S. Ramanujam and Shri D. S. Nakra-Members. The Board of Arbitrators in the Award specified the pay scales of Draftsman Grade I, II and III and their pay was to be fixed notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and actual date would be w.e.f. 29.07.1977. The Award laid down but the recategorisation to be done notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1973 but the arrears should be paid to the workmen from 1.04.1981. It is the case of the Applicants that pursuant to the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dharam Vir Sachdev and Others versus Union of India and another [WP (C) No.911/1981 decided on 22.2.1984] confirmed by the High Court in the LPA on 4.09.1984 and upheld by Honble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP on 31.03.1986, pay parity of not only the Draftsman but also all other categories in CE Wing of P&T on par with their counterparts in CPWD was decided. In the 3rd Central Pay Commission (CPC) Government accepted that the cadres of CE Wing of the P&T being similar to those in CPWD would get same pay scales and financial benefits. It is further stated that the said Award was modified by the Honble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 28.01.1992. Pursuant to the directions of the Honble High Court in a Contempt Petition relating to the said matter, the concerned employees of the CPWD were granted arrears and the Respondents implemented the Award fully for the employees of the CPWD. It is the case of the Applicants that they have come from the Civil Wing of the P&T Department which was earlier part and parcel of the CPWD and, therefore, the benefits accrued under the Award ought to have been implemented by the concerned authorities in their favour. Having not done so, some of the affected employees including Applicant No.2 approached this Tribunal through the All India Telecom Civil Engineering, Non Gazetted Employees Union (the Union) through OA No.1606/1998. After considering the case, this Tribunal in its order dated 11.09.2003 and also in order dated 6.12.2005 in RA No.87/2005 directed the Applicants to submit a self contained detailed representation enclosing relevant documents to the Respondent No.1 who would consider the same as per Law, Rules and Instructions and take a final decision in the matter by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The Applicant No.2 and others submitted representation dated 8.11.2006 and 2.02.2006 to the Respondents which were rejected by MTNL vide their order dated 18.03.2008. It is this order which is being challenged by the Applicants in the present OA.
3. Shri B. S. Mor, learned Counsel for the Applicants, took us through the historical background of the issues involved in the case and indicated that the Civil Engineering Wing of the P&T Department was carved out from the CPWD and pay parity including service benefits of financial aspects were maintained on par with corresponding posts in the CPWD. He submitted that the Applicants cases were covered by the policy decision laid down by the Government in P&T Board letter dated 24.08.1968, as per which the maintenance staff of the Civil/Electrical Engineering Wing of the P&T (now MTNL) would have the same pay scale etc. as in the CPWD. His contention is that as the Applicants accepted absorption in the P&T and later in MTNL on the pay parity condition, they would be legally entitled to be given the financial benefits flowing from the Arbitration Award dated 31.1.1988 modified on 28.1.92 which had been enforced in the case of the employees (Work Charged/Regular Classified) of the C.P.W.D.
4. Another contention adduced by Shri Mor is that the recommendation of the 3rd CPC recognized the pay parity of the Civil/Electrical Engineering Wing of the P&T Department with the pay scales of the corresponding categories in the C.P.W.D. He urges that the Arbitration Award dated 31.1.1988 in regard to the Pay Scales should be implemented in the case of the maintenance staff of Civil Engineering Wing of the Department of Telecom absorbed in MTNL. He places his reliance on the judgment dated 22.2.1984 passed by the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.911/1981 upheld right up to Honble Supreme Court. He, therefore, submits that as the Arbitration Award dated 31.1.1988 has become final with the judgment and order passed by the Honble High Court of Delhi, MTNL is bound to grant the same benefit to the Applicants as given to the employees of C.P.W.D.
5. Shri Mor contends that all the rules and provisions in respect of building works & maintenance of the C.P.W.D. continue to apply to the Civil Wing of the Department of Telecom (now MTNL) and same cannot be denied to the Applicants on the ground of formation of another department or MTNL when all the norms and duties are the same.
6. Moreover, it is argued that the Arbitration Award in respect of draftsmen in C.P.W.D. was ordered to be applied to draftsmen in the Civil Wing of the Department of Telecom first by the Honble High Court of Delhi and later followed by this Tribunal. It is stated that Tribunal in OA No.1712/88 decided on 28.10.1991 in case of Bhajan Singh & ors. Vs. Union of India & others and OA No.1978/1988 decided on 31.7.92 [S.L.P. (C) dismissed on 16.4.1993] in All India P & T Civil Wing Non-Gazetted Employees Union Vs. Union of India has applied the ratio of the aforesaid case in Dharam Vir Sahdev (supra) in CWP No.911/1981 have granted the same relief to the applicants therein. Similarly, Calcutta Bench in OA No.20/93 titled as K.K. Dey Vs. Union of India and OA No.1077/1994 titled as J. Dutta & others Vs. Union of India in case of draftsmen; Hyderabad Bench in OA No.1394/95 titled as B. Ashok Jumar & others Vs. Union of India and this Principal Bench in OA No.96/97 Hukam Singh & others Vs. Union of India in case of lift operators have granted the similar relief(s). His argument is that these authorities amply show that Guwahati Bench; Ernakulam Bench, Chandigarh Bench and Madras Bench have also followed the same principle of law. Thus, he pleads that till date, no Court/Tribunal have denied the claimed relief to the similarly situated employees (draftsmen and lift operators) like the Applicants in the present OA.
7. In view of the above contentions, Shri B.S. Mor submits that the Applicants are entitled to the claimed relief(s) for grant of the benefits regarding scale of pay as granted to the corresponding category of employees of electrical wing of Central Public Works Department by implementation of the Arbitration Award dated 31.1.1988 modified on 28.1.92 by Honble Delhi High Court.
8. The Respondents on receipt of the notice on 8.04.2009 and controverting the above grounds have filed their counter reply on 29.10.2009 to which the rejoinder was submitted by the Applicant on 15.12.2009. The Respondents No.1 and 2 submitted their reply affidavit on 12.08.2010 to which the rejoinder was filed by the Applicants on 18.01.2011 and filed also an additional affidavit dated 21.03.2011.
9. Shri R. N. Singh, learned Counsel representing Respondent Nos.1&2 has rebutted the contentions raised by Shri Mor. His main contention is that the Applicants were not party to the Arbitration Award which was applicable to the specific employees of CPWD. The link between the Applicants and the CPWD was served long back much before the controversies were referred to arbitration. Referring to the Applicants Associations earlier OA No.1606/1998 claiming for similar relief, Shri Singh submits that the same was disposed of by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 11.09.2003 and in compliance thereof the Respondents passed order dated 23.3.2004 (Annexure-R2) whereby the decision of the Competent Authority was conveyed to the Applicants in the said OA. Particularly, para 7 of the compliance order dated 23.03.2004, clearly gives the reason for non-grant of the relief. He further submits that the order dated 23.3.2004 is a conscious decision of the Competent Authority in compliance of the direction of this Tribunal and the same is not under challenge in the present OA. On this ground alone, the OA is not maintainable. He further contends that the OA is not maintainable inasmuch as the same is barred by limitation, delay and latches.
10. He submits that it is trite law that parity of post and pay scale falls exclusively under the domain of the executive, who, generally acts on the report(s)/recommendation(s) of the expert bodies. Viz., Pay Commission(s), Anomaly Committee(s) constituted by the Government from time to time and in absence of any recommendation in spite of there being so many CPCs after the Arbitration Award and none having given any recommendation for the relief, as sought for by the Applicants, there is not even a basis available to the Applicants to feel aggrieved. He places his reliance on the judgments of Honble Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dibeyendu Bhattacharya, reported in 2011 (2) SLR 243, has ruled that for claiming equal pay for equal work, it has to be established that eligibility, mode of selection, recruitment, nature and quality of work, duties and efforts, reliability, functional need, dexterity, responsibilities and status of both the posts are required to be identical. Besides, onus to establish discrimination by employer in such matter lies on employees claiming parity of pay and the same is miserably missing in the present case. Further, it is submitted that reliance on behalf of the Applicants on so many judgments is not of any help to the Applicants. It is stand that even when the recommendation of expert bodies viz. CPCs and Anomaly Committee (s) are not binding on the Government for just and bonafide reasons and in the present case when there is not even a recommendation, mere reliance of the Applicants on the Arbitration Award to which the parties to the OA have been strangers, the Applicants have no case and the present OA is misuse of process law.
11. Representing Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Shri Chandan Kumar, learned Counsel submitted that MTNL- a body corporate was formed on 1.04.1986 where the Group-C&D and Group-B Government employees on deputation were absorbed w.e.f. 1.11.1998 and 1.10.2000 respectively. The Applicants while getting absorbed have taken conscious decision in accepting the pay scales. Further, it is stated that the MTNL management and its employees at Delhi and Mumbai have entered into an agreement on 20.07.2004 and the clauses 1.3, 2.1, 9.3 and 9.5 of the said agreement are binding on both the parties. Shri Kumar contends that in view of the agreements and terms of absorption, the MTNL has considered the Applicants representation and declined to accede.
12. Opposing the legal points raised by Shri Mor, the Counsel for the Respondents Shri Chandan Kumar contended that the Arbitration Award involving 27000 workers of CPWD who were engaged in construction/maintenance of road/building/runway was specific for them and there was no complete/whole parity between the Applicants in the present OA and the workers in the Award. In this regard, it was contended that the Applicants did not claim such parity in the OA. Shri Chandan Kumar relied on the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India versus Hiranmay Sen & Others [2007 (12) SCALE 170]; and State of Punjab and Another versus Surjit Singh and Others [2009 (11) SCALE 149].
13. Shri Chandan Kumar raised one more contention to say that Applicants claim coming up now to extend the benefits of the Award of 1988 would attract law of limitation. Further it was contended that the Applicants were not party to the said Arbitration Award and did not have locus to pray for the benefits under the Award. It is stated that the present OA in terms of the liberty granted on 11.09.2003 in OA No.1608/1998 where there were only 2 Applicants and in the present OA out of 53 Applicants one Applicant alone (Applicant No.2) had come to the Tribunal. Further it is informed that the impugned order dated 18.03.2008 provides the reasons for which the Respondents have declined to accede to the prayers of the Applicant No.2.
14. Having heard the above contentions of the rival parties, we very carefully went through the pleadings and the judgments relied on by the parties.
15. Issues for our consideration and determination are: Are the Applicants entitled to the benefits of CPWD Award dated 30.01.1988? Whether the impugned order dated 18.03.2008 is legally sustainable.
16. Before we analyse the issues, it is apt for us to take stock events chronologically.
01.07.1963 The Civil Engineering Wing of the P&T Department was created by carving out the personnel from CPWD.
24.08.1968 Those personnel of CE Wing of CPWD who opted to accept the terms of absorption were absorbed in the P&T Department.
01.01.1973 Date from which the controversy of recategorisation/reclassification of work charged staff and regular classified categories in the scheduled employment for construction/maintenance of road/building and runway was raised by the CPWD Mazdoor.
1986 The Department of Union P&T was bifurcated and new Department of Telecommunication was created. The Board of Arbitrators for the CPWD work charged employees was constituted.
1.04.1986 The MTNL was set up when the employees of DOT were deemed to be on deputation to the MTNL.
31.01.1988 Arbitration Award was issued by the Board of Arbitrators.
28.01.1992 The Honble High Court of Delhi modified the Arbitration Award in the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.2792/1998.
13.08.1993 The 1998 SLP was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court.
07.05.1997 CPWD implemented the Arbitration Award as modified by Honble High Court and paid arrears to the CPWD employees, only after the CP No.295/1993 was filed in the Honble High Court which was decided on 19.11.1996.
23.06.1997 Applicants and others filed representation requesting the Arbitration Award implementation in DOT.
1998 OA NO.1606/1998 was filed claiming the benefits of the Award. BSNL and MTNL were impleaded in array of parties in the OA.
1.11.1998 C & D Group of DOT employees were permanently absorbed in MTNL on the basis of their option.
30.09.2000 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) came into existence.
1.10.2000 B Group of employees on exercise of their options were absorbed in the MTNL.
1.10.2001 With effect from 1.10.2011 after negotiation with its Union, BSNL allowed the benefits of the Award to some of its employees.
11.09.2003 This Tribunal disposed of the OA No.1606/1998 with direction to the Applicants to submit self contained representation and on receipt of the same, the Respondents to pass speaking and reasoned order keeping in view the provisions of law, rules, and instructions.
02.02.2006 Representations were submitted to the 08.11.2006 Respondents pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal in OA No.1606/1998.
18.03.2008 Respondents passed detailed speaking order rejecting the Applicants claim.
17. Respondents have produced copy of the orders relating to the permanent absorption of the Applicants in MTNL. Each of the order spells out the terms and conditions of permanent absorption which comes into effect from 1.10.2000 (Afternoon). Each order inter alia envisages employees link with the parent Department (DOT) in terms of the conditions envisaged in the OM No.4/18/87-P&PW(D) dated 5.7.1989 which is basically on the prorata pensionary benefits available to the employee from the Government. In so far as pay and allowances are concerned the same is to be regulated in terms of Para 4 of the above said OM dated 5.7.1989. As per the terms 8 of the order of permanent absorption the employee in MTNL will be entitled to all the benefits admissible to the corresponding employees of the said organization and continue to be governed by its rules in all respects. It is seen that the Applicants having been permanently absorbed by exercising option and accepting the terms and conditions, they have no claim for pay parity with the government. The MTNL was incorporated as body corporate on 1.04.1986 and the pay and allowances of Government (Central Pay Commission) is not admissible to the MTNL employees. Thus, as the terms and conditions of absorption come into force w.e.f. 1.10.2000, pay parity with Government pay scales will not be legally admissible w.e.f. 1.10.2000. Prior to 1.10.2000, the Applicants were on deputation basis drawing CDA (Government) Pay and allowances. But they were all permanent employees of the P&T Department.
18. The CPWD Arbitration Award envisages reclassification of grades of certain cadres of employees in CPWD. This inter alia provides for higher pay scales notionally with effect from 1.1.1973 (during 3rd CPC period), further revision w.e.f. 1.1.1986 (date when the 4th CPC recommendations) came into force. In the meantime, the 5th CPC pay scales came into effect from 1.1.1996.
19. The Counsel for the Applicants has referred to many judgments to indicate that if the Petitioners/Applicants in those cases have been extended the benefits of CPWD Award, the Applicants in the present OA being originally from the CPWD should get similar treatment. We may advert to those judgments here.
20. In Shri Dharam Vir Sahdev and Others versus Union of India and Another [CWP No.911/1981 decided on 22.02.1984], the Honble High Court of Delhi considered the question whether the staff of the Civil Engineering Wing of the P&T Department are entitled to the scale of pay as was recommended by the 3rd CPC and given to the corresponding employee categories of CPWD, and having taken into account the Award for the CPWD came to the conclusion that the Petitioners in the Writ were entitled to the pay scales notionally w.e.f. 22.08.1973 and actually from 16.11.1978 and pay arrears should also be paid. LPA moved against this judgment was dismissed on 4.09.1984 and the Honble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP on 31.03.1986. We note that in this case the Petitioners were the employees of DOT.
21. This Tribunal in OA No.1712/1998 [decided on 28.10.1991] considered the relief prayed by the Draftsmen (Civil) Grade-III, II and I of DOT claiming the benefits extended to the corresponding categories of employees in the CPWD and while agreeing with the views expressed in the judgment of Honble High Court in the case of Dhararm Vir Sahdev (supra) and treating the Applicants in the OA as the colleagues of the Petitioners in the Writ Petition allowed the benefits of revised scales of pay as was granted to their counterparts in the CPWD.
22. Further, a similar case was decided on 31.07.1992 by this Tribunal in OA No.1978/1988, where the Applicants were the Non-Gazetted cadres of Civil Engineering Wing of the Department of Telecom and Department of Posts. Tribunal, while allowing the prayers directed the Respondents to extend the same benefits as were applicable to their counterparts in CPWD.
23. The learned Counsel for the Applicants cited judgments of this Tribunal where the benefits of Arbitration Award of CPWD were extended to Liftmen, Draftsmen and others in the DOT.
24. It is noticed that in all those cases relied on by Shri Mor, the Petitioners/Applicants were employees of the Civil/Electrical Wing of DOT. When the examples of those judgments were taken as the basis by the Applicants in the OA No.1606/1998, the Tribunal considered some of those judgments and directed the Respondents to consider representation and pass a speaking and reasoned order. The Respondents did pass the order on 18.03.2008 which were challenged in the present OA. The relevant part of the order dated 18.03.2008 reads as follows:-
7. In this background, the matter has further been examined in MTNL (R-4). With the approval of the Competent Authority, the following has been concluded. The role of MTNL, as a Company, in this matter is limited to the extent of extending an equivalent IDA pay scale to the relevant CDA pay scales held by the employees at the time of absorption in MTNL which has already been granted to them in more attractive terms after negotiations. The Government of India, based on its economics, having taken a conscious decision not to disturb the CDA pay scales of the employees concerned for the period prior to 1.11.1998/1.10.2000, MTNL has neither jurisdiction nor reason to consider any revision of the CDA pay scales to the employees prior to taking them in to the Companys rolls on permanent absorption and to bear the consequential expenditure. Further, the Company, faced with the prevailing stiff competition in the aggressive Telecom Service market, its gradually dwindling profits and the new wage negotiations in progress, is not in a position to consider any other benefit to the employees concerned in the post-absorption period, which further will result in serious repercussions in the IDA pay set up from the date of absorption and also the hierarchical relations among employees in the post absorption scenario.
8. In the above circumstances, with the approval of the competent authority in MTNL, the above mentioned representations are hereby conveyed that MTNL is neither in a position to consider any pay revision in post absorption scenario unless the CDA based pay as on 31.10.1998/30.09.2000 is revised by Government of India, Department of Telecommunication nor it is in its jurisdiction to revise CDA pay of the employees in the pre-absorption period.
25. The facts in the foregoing paragraphs would disclose the following admitted facts.
* The Applicants in the present OA were not party to the dispute/issues on which the CPWD constituted the Board of Arbitrations.
* Arbitration Award was person in rem and the analogy was drawn in various judgments by which similarly placed persons of DOT (who came from CPWD) and the Arbitration benefits were extended.
* The jobs/function then discharged by the Applicants in the present OA were not the matters of reference for the Arbitration.
* The Applicants linkage with CPWD was cut off on 24.08.1968 when they were permanently absorbed in DOP&T. Further link with DOT was severed on 1.11.1998 when they permanently absorbed in MTNL.
* MTNL is a body corporate (though the Government of India is a major share holder) where the Pay Commission Pay Scales do not apply to the MTNL employees (They get IDA pay scale).
* The Applicants have 3 different spells:-
I. Upto 1.7.1963- Applicants were part of CPWD.
1.7.1963 upto 1.11.1998 Applicants were part of DOT and some of them were on deputation to MTNL w.e.f. 1.4.1986.
III. 1.11.1998 onwards-Applicants are part of MTNL.
26. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any legal infirmity in the Respondents order dated 18.03.2008. For the reasons discussed within, the Applicants are not entitled to get the benefits of the CPWD Arbitration Award dated 30.01.1988. Thus, the Applicants do not succeed in the OA. Accordingly, we dismiss the OA being devoid of merits. No costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) Member (J) Member (A) /pj/