Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Coram: Hon Ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand vs Union Of India Through The Director ... on 24 January, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.No.133-CH-2012 Order pronounced on: 24.01.2013 (Order reserved on 15.01.2013) CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. RANBIR SINGH, MEMBER (A) H. S. Gill son of Shri Hari Singh aged about 59 years, working as Security Officer, Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Sector 30-C Chandigarh-160030. Applicant By : Mr. V.K.Sharma, Advocate. 1.Union of India through the Director General, C.S.I.R. Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2.Director, Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh-160030. By : Mr. I.S.Sidhu, Advocate. Respondents O R D E R
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND,JM
1.There is no dispute that the applicant herein was promoted as Security Officer during course of his posting at CSIR, Dhanbad w.e.f. 4.12.2000. There is also no dispute that he was transferred to CSIO, Chandigarh, on his own request, and he took over here w.e.f. 1.7.2002, as Security Officer. The grievance raised by the applicant herein is that instead of being placed in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15300, he has been put in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. He also relies upon the principle of equal pay for equal work. The claim aforementioned is buttressed by indicating a number of instances, though of other dispensations, wherein certain employees were granted that benefit on that principle.
2.The respondents averred the O.A. to be barred by constructive res-judicata by raising a plea that the equivalence of pay was a plea available to the applicant at the time he filed the earlier O.A. (No.1086-CH-2010) but since he did not raise that therein, he is barred by constructive res-judicata to raise it presently by way of an independent O.A.
3.This O.A. was described to be pre-mature as well on an averment that the matter is under consideration of a Committee which came to be constituted in accord with the directions given by the Tribunal in the course of the order dated 26.8.2011 (Annexure A-21), in the disposal of the O.A. No.1086-CH-2010.
4.Though no rejoinder came to be filed by the applicant, there is an averment in the course of para 4 (13) of the O.A. itself that the plea with regard to the availability of scale of Rs.10000-15300 was not to his notice and he filed a representation, Annexure A-16, the moment the availability of that scale came to his notice. That plea is extracted hereunder :-
That it is very pertinent to mention that the applicant approached respondents on 27.06.2006, 10.5.2011 and also filed O.A.No. CH-1086-2010 before this Honble Tribunal which was disposed of on 26.08.2011 (copy of the judgment dated 26.08.2011 is enclosed and marked as Annexure A-21 to this Original Application for up gradation / pay parity on other grounds than the Equal pay for equal work as he was not aware about the then (on 1.7.2002) prevalent scale of Rs.10000-15300 for Security Officer at CSIO. In August 2011, no sooner he learned from one of his friends (Annexure A-6&7) about it and without any further loss of time, approached the respondents (Annexure A-16) for redressal of his grievance.
5.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail, we would uphold the plea raised by the respondents on point of constructive res-judicata. By the very nature of things, a party would ordained by law to take up whatever pleas are available to it at a given point of time. It is not open to a party to raise one facet of plea, have the matter adjudicated upon and, then, file an O.A. afresh on the basis of a plea which, though available at the time of filing of earlier Original Application, was/could not be taken up by him. It is precisely for such an eventuality that the bar of constructive res-judicata would come into play.
6.We would, accordingly, dismiss the O.A. as barred by constructive res-judicata.
7.Nonetheless, there is no controversy that the matter is under consideration at the hands of the committee, constituted in accord with orders in O.A.No.1086-CH-2010. The present order would not disable the applicant from the grant of whatever consideration may come about at the hands of the Committee aforementioned. It is to state the obvious that the Committee would take into consideration the fact and effect of averment of the respondents that the claim raised by the applicant is not tenable for equal pay for equal work at par with Security Officer of the rank of Capt. Directly recruited against the advertised post. The Committee shall deliberate and take a conscious view about whether there can be any legitimate distinction between the pay scales made available to a promotee Security Officer and a directly recruited Security Officer. In view of the averred position that the O.A. No.1086-CH-2010 came to be disposed of vide orders dated 26.8.2011 (A-21) and the Committee had been directed to make its recommendations by or on 31.12.2011, it is time the competent authority takes a call on the issue by ensuring that the relevant deliberation (at the hands of the Committee as also the competent authority) concludes by or on 30.04.2013.
8.The parties shall bear their own costs of the cause in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(JUSTICE S.D. ANAND) MEMBER (J) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 24.01.2013 HC*