Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh Tahail Ram Sachdev vs M/O Defence on 21 November, 2019
1
OA No. 4390/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No. 4390/2014
New Delhi, this the 21st day of November, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
1. Shri Tahail Ram Suchdev,
Age- 74 years, Post-DEO 'C',
Son of Late Shri H.D. Sachdev,
Residence of X- 2551, Gali No. 8,
Ragberpura-2, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi - 110031.
2. Smt. Shashi Khanna, age-69,
Wife of Late Shri Lalit,
Post - DEO B,
Resident of GH/13/1015, Pachim Vihar,
New Delhi- 110087.
3. Smt. Sharda Bhudhi Raja,
Age-74, Post DEO-C,
Wife of Late Shri Kuldeep Singh,
Residence of A/14D, DDA Flats,
Munirka, New Delhi.
4. Smt. Saroj Chopra,
Age - 72, Post DPA-A,
Wife of Shri I M Chopra,
Residence of 859, Sector - 37,
Faridabad, Haryana.
5. Smt. Sudharsan Gulati,
Age-68, Post - DPA -A,
Wife of Shri J R Gulatiaged
Residence of 4/29, Punjabi Bagh Ext.,
New Delhi.
6. Smt. Pravesh Uppal,
Age- 72, Post -DPA-A,
Wife of Shri K. L. Uppal,
Residence of ED/108,
1st Floor, Tagore Garden,
New Delhi.
2
OA No. 4390/2014
7. Smt. S. L. Maini,
Age, Post DPA-A,
Wife of Shri J. K. Maini,
Residence of F-1, Mansarovar Garden,
New Delhi.
8. Smt. Kanta Neb,
Age- Post, DPA-A,
Wife of Late D. R. Neb,
Residence of J/97, Saket,
New Delhi.
9. Shri Satish Kumar,
Age, Post DPA-A,
Son of Late Shri Kundan Lal,
Residence of C4H/87, Janak puri,
New Delhi - 110058.
10.Shri Krishan Lal,
Age-74, Post Statistical Asst.
Son of Late Shri Dayal Dass,
Residence of WZ 1646, C, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi - 110046.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma)
Versus
Union of India,
Through
1. Secretary,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
3. JS (Trg.) and CAO,
Ministry of Defence,
E Block, Hutments,
New Delhi - 110011.
...Respondents
3
OA No. 4390/2014
(By Advocate: Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A):-
The applicants in this OA are retired employees of Ministry of Defence. They were initially appointed as Key Punch Operators (KPOs)/Computer and subsequently promoted as Senior Computer/Data Entry Operators, Grade- B with a revised designation of Senior Computer w.e.f. 08.01.1991. The IV Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommended reorganization of existing EDP posts and prescribed uniform pay scales and designations. Department of Electronics undertook the task of rationalization of the pay scales of EDP posts and revised pay structure for the EDP posts was introduced vide OM dated 11.09.1989. Vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence OM dated 08.01.1991, the pay scales of MISO, Ministry of Defence were also revised and the posts were re-designated. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.12.1994, sanction of President was conveyed for placement/promotion of incumbents 4 OA No. 4390/2014 to the EDP posts in the Ministry of Defence was issued.
2. The applicants contend that the Department implemented the orders of revised EDP pay scales w.e.f.11.09.1989 instead of 01.01.1986, which was the date of recommendation of the IV CPC for granting revised pay scales. Due to revision of their pay scales w.e.f. 11.09.1989 instead of 01.01.1986, the applicants, who have since retired, claim that they are getting less pension as compared with their juniors. Many of their colleagues, it is contended are getting EDP pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in terms of order passed by this Tribunal, their claim was, however, rejected by the department as the applicants were not a party in those OAs. Various representations were also made by the applicants, which were rejected by the respondents for extending the benefit of fixation of their revised pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986 instead of 11.09.1989. Subsequently, the Full Bench of this Tribunal allowed the OA No. 365/2007 with OA No. 2535/2006 on 10.07.2014 directing that the applicants in those OAs may be 5 OA No. 4390/2014 granted the benefit of re-fixation of pay with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
3. As the applicants were not party in the OAs decided by the Full Bench of this Tribunal, their claim of re-fixation of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 instead of 11.09.1989 was not considered by the respondents. Aggrieved by this action of the respondents, the applicants filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to re-fix the new EDP Pay Scales with effect from 1.1.86 instead of 11.09.89 with all consequential monetary/pensionary benefits in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 10.1.2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1212/99 titled Mr. B.N. Sharma & Ors Versus UOI & Ors read with full Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in OA No. 365/2007, 2536/2006 and RA No. 53/2012 in OA 1778/2006 keeping in consonance with the principle of equal treatment as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
b. Direct the respondents in terms of the prayer (a) re-fix the pensionary (in regard to Applicants benefits with all consequential monetary benefits."
No impugned order of rejection of their claims by respondents is mentioned against which the applicants are seeking such relief(s).
4. Respondents No. 01 and 03 in their counter affidavit have opposed the OA stating that the 6 OA No. 4390/2014 rationalization of pay scales of Electronic Data Processing (EDP) posts were issued vide GOI, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM dated 11.09.1989 and that the revised pay scales were to be operative only from the date of issue of notification by concerned Ministry/Department. Further, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure vide their OM dated 12.01.1990 decided that revised pay scales will take effect from 11.09.1989, irrespective of the date of notification issued by Ministries/Departments and, therefore, in pursuance of these instructions revised pay scale of the applicants were made effective from 11.09.1989. It has been submitted that although GOI has not issued any instructions to implement the recommendation w.e.f. 01.01.1986, some applicants have been extended the benefit by the departments w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in terms of orders passed by the Courts and Tribunals but only to the applicants in those cases.
5. It is also submitted by the respondents that recently the question relating to rationalization of pay scales of EDP posts in different departments 7 OA No. 4390/2014 of GOI has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension & Anr.Vs. T.V.L.N. MallikarjunaRao, CA No. 10862 of 2014. Vide order dated 09.12.2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that Data Entry Operators (DEO) Grade-A are not entitled for scale of pay of Rs. 1350-2200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 or thereafter merely on the basis of their qualifications or for the fact that they have completed their period of requisite service. It was further held that decisions rendered by the Tribunals and High Courts are contrary to the Hon'ble Apex Court decision and are, therefore, illegal. The respondents have relied upon this judgment submitting that the applicants are fully covered by this judgment, their claim is not tenable, and is liable to be rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh, CA No. 5151-5152 of 2008. The facts of this case are, however, different as it pertains to payment of disability pension and the claim of arrears etc. 8 OA No. 4390/2014
7. We heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
8. The applicants in this OA were in the scale of pay of Rs. 260-400 and were subsequently granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500, after the implementation of the recommendation of the 04th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.1986. A Committee was constituted by GOI for rationalization of posts in EDP cadre and the scales were further revised to Rs. 1350-2200 w.e.f. 11.09.1989. All the applicants were also granted the same. It is, therefore, obvious that based on the recommendation of the 04th CPC, the Department of Electronics submitted a report and Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure vide their OM dated 11.09.1989 issued detailed guidelines revising the pay scales for the EDP staff. The DEO of the EDP centre were in the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1150. Vide OM of Ministry of Finance dated 11.09.1989 two separate pay structures for EDP posts were made i.e. DEO Grade -A and DEO Grade -B which is promotional post of DEO Grade 9 OA No. 4390/2014 A, and similarly DEO Grade -C is promotional post of DEO (Grade -B). For each of these posts certain essential qualification were required along with experience.
9. In the instant case, the applicants, who were working against lower post of KPO in the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1150 and re-designated as DEO (Grade-A) claimed that they were entitled for the scale of pay of Rs. 1350-2200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. After implementation of the recommendation of the Committee set up by the Government for revising the pay structure of the EDP Centre OM dated 11.09.1989 was issued prescribing different pay scale and grades of DEO. The Junior KPO who were in the scale of pay of Rs. 260-400 and the Senior KPO who were in the scale of pay of Rs. 350-560 were revised to Rs. 950-1500 and 1200- 2040 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Thus the applicants had already got their scale of Rs. 950-1500 and another benefit was gratned to them w.e.f. 01.01.1986 by revising their pay scale from Rs. 1150-1500. Thus, the applicants already received two upgradations. Further the pay scales of Senior KPOs who were senior in the higher scale of Rs. 10 OA No. 4390/2014 350-560 were revised to Rs. 1200 - 2040 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The claim of the applicants that they are also entitled to Rs. 1350-2200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 is not tenable as the same is for different nature of job, responsibilities and qualification. Granting the applicant the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 is not permissible in terms of OM issued and implemented by the respondents.
10. So far as the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Full Bench of the Tribunal relied upon by the applicants are concerned, the same has not only been taken note of but also declared as illegal by the Hon'ble Apex court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Satyendra Prasad & Ors. arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3956 of 2013 dated 09.12.2014. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under:-
10. Cases before Central Administrative Tribunal After rationalisation of pay scales of Electronic Data Processing posts as Data Entry Operator, number of persons, who were working against lower posts of Key-Punch Operator in the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500 and redesignated as Data Entry Operator Grade 'A', claimed that they are entitled for the scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200. Central Administrative Tribunal Benches situated in different States, passed contradictory orders. In many of the cases reliefs were granted by 11 OA No. 4390/2014 allowing the scale of pay of Page 10 10 Rs.1350-2200 to those who are designated as Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' whereas some claims were rejected as well. Some of the examples are as follows:
(i) Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Orissa in OA No.249/1991 had granted the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 to Data Entry Operator Grade 'A'. The SLP filed against the same was dismissed summarily on 15th May, 1994.
(ii) Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Gujarat in Y.B.Vishnu Prasad & Ors. v.
U.O.I. & Ors. by judgment dated 1st September, 1999 also granted prayer directing the authorities to pay the applicants scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200.
(iii) Central Administrative Tribunal. Hyderabad Bench in OA No.957/1990 by judgment dated 10th December, 1992 allowed the benefits in favour of the employees-Data Entry Operators.
(iv) Identical relief was granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench.
(v) OA which was preferred before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi was, however, dismissed.
(vi) Many of the petitions against the aforesaid judgments by which Union of India moved before the Supreme Court were dismissed in limine.
(vii)The Central Administrative Tribunal Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in M.H. Bag & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (OA No.142 of 95) allowed similar benefits referring the decisions of different Page 11 11 Benchs of Central Administrative Tribunal of different States.
11&12 xxxxx
13. In view of the decisions passed by the different Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal, some confusion appears to have taken place in the Department of Central Government. By its Circular No.CGDA No.EDP /113/II(PC) /vol.14 dated 4th January, Page 12 12 2006, the office of Controller General of Defence Accounts intimated that the pay of the DEOs Grade A & B has to be fixed from 1.1.86 or from the date of appointment whichever is later and arrears are to be drawn accordingly. The said letter does not show that such decision has been taken by the 12 OA No. 4390/2014 Union of India or under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
14 to 21 xxxxx
27......The Court or the Tribunal, in our opinion, would be exceeding its power of judicial review if it sits in appeal over the decision of the Executive in the matter of prescribing the pay structure unless it is shown to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Difference in pay scales based on educational qualifications, nature of job, responsibility, accountability, qualification, experience and manner of recruitment does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
29. Both the Tribunal and the High Court also failed to notice the statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India issued by the order of the President of India vide notification dated 3rd April, 1992 and notification dated 10.10.1996 from Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions.
Both the Tribunal and the High Court also erred in ignoring the law laid down by this Court in plethora of judgments that the "principle of equal pay for equal work" is not always applicable even if duties and functions are of similar nature.
30&31 XXXXXX
32. In view of the findings recorded above we hold that Data Entry Operators Grade-A are not entitled for Scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or thereafter merely on the basis of their qualifications or for the fact that they have completed their period of requisite service. We further hold that any decision rendered by any Tribunal or any High Court contrary to our decision is wrong. Further in view of the reasons and findings recorded above while we hold that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit as they sought for before the Tribunal or the High Court, all the impugned orders passed by the CAT Benches and the High Courts in favour of the respondents being illegal are set aside.
33. The appeals are allowed. No costs." 13 OA No. 4390/2014
11. The ruling given by the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted above and the ratio thereof puts the controversy to rest. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also set aside the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court and the Full Bench of this Tribunal terming the same as illegal. The present OA is also fully covered and the claim of the applicant is not tenable.
12. In view of the above we do not find any merit in the present OA and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member (A) Chairman /ankit/