Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
President Shri Shiv Kumar Gaur vs Union Of India Through on 25 May, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 331/2009 New Delhi, this the 25th day of May, 2010 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. R.C. Panda, Member (A) Central Secretariat Official Language Service Translators Association through Its: 1. President Shri Shiv Kumar Gaur, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. 2. Vice-President Sh. Iftekhar Ahmed, Ministry of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001. 3. Shri Mohan Chander Mishra, Assistant Director, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 4. Shri G.N. Bansal, Assistant Director, Archeological Survey of India, New Delhi 110 001. Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. G.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Sinha) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. 2. Department of Official Languages, Cadre Controlling Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs, Through its Secretary, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110 003. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. B.K. Berera & Mr. Padma Kumar S) ORDER (ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
Central Secretariat Official Language Service Translators Association through its President Mr. Shiv Kumar Gaur and others have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents for proper implementation of order dated 14.05.2002, and while doing so, to direct the respondents to implement the proposal submitted by Cadre Controlling Department in compliance with the order of the Tribunal dated 14.05.2002 on the basis of the prayer made in writ petition w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in toto on actual basis.
2. Brief facts as projected in the Original Application for the reliefs indicated above would reveal that the applicant Association had filed Application bearing OA No.1378/1997 before this Tribunal praying inter alia for declaration that OM dated 31.07.1990, whereby the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 was extended to the Assistants and Stenographers of Central Secretariat Service and Central Secretariat Stenographer Service (CSS/CSSS) as a higher revision of pay scale from Rs.1400-2600, should be made applicable to them also. The applicants belong to Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) and had historical party of pay scales with the Assistants and Stenographer Grade C of CSS/CSSS. They demanded that Junior Translators of CSOLS should be treated in the same manner in the matter of pay scales, and OM dated 31.07.1990 should be made applicable to them as well w.e.f. 01.01.1986. They also claimed consequential benefits of higher revision in the pay scale of Senior Translators and arrears of pay and allowance thereof. The said OA was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 20.11.2000. Aggrieved, the applicants filed writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 7231/2001 before Honble High Court of Delhi, which was decided on 14.05.2002, operative part whereof reads as follows:-
The learned Tribunal did not issue any positive directions in this regard. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the facts and particularly having regard to the question involved in the O.A. filed by the petitioner direction to consider the aforesaid question should have been given by the learned Tribunal.
Having regard to the contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition the same may be considered to be a representation made on their part and the respondent should consider the same on merits at an early date.
3. It is the case of the applicants that from the directions, as reproduced above, it would be clear that respondents were supposed to examine the question of granting higher pay scales of Rs.1640-2900, Rs.2000-3500 and Rs.2200-4000 to the applicants i.e. Junior Translators, Senior Translators and Assistant Directors in CSOLS, maintaining parity of pay scales between the posts of Assistants, Stenographers Grade C of CSS/CSSS and Junior Translators of CSOLS w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The respondents, however, in another case related to the anomalies created by the Fifth Central Pay Commission in pay scales of the applicants vis-`-vis their counterparts in subordinate offices of CTB and CHTI, issued an order dated 19.02.2003 initially for grant of upgraded pay scles from 11.02.2003 and subsequently revised it to be given retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on notional basis vide orders dated 05.04.2004 and w.e.f. 11.02.2003 on actual basis. In the process, the issue of grant of higher pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 was not considered at all. This led to spate of representations that came to be made by the applicants mentioned in paragraph 4.11 of the OA which, it is the case of the applicants, were never responded to, which compelled the applicants to seek information under Right to Information Act. On getting the copies of relevant noting portions of concerned files of Ministry of Home Affairs under the RTI and on inspection of the concerned files, it emerged that the case of the applicants in relation to the pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986 was never considered. The applicants rely upon the following portion, as quoted in the OA, of the information that they received udder Right to Information Act:-
3. The Fourth Central Pay Commission in its report had made the following recommendations in respect of Junior and Senior Translators of Central Secretariat Official Language Service:
10.280. It has been suggested by the members of the service that Junior Translators should be given a higher pay scale than Assistants of CSS as they are required to possess Master Degree whereas the Assistants possess Bachelor Degree. Even so, they have been given Group C status and pay scale of Rs.425-700 while Assistant CSS are classified as Group B and are given the pay scale of Rs.425-800. In view of higher qualification required for entry grade of Junior Translator, we recommend that the post be given the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 and for the post of Senior Translator we recommend the pay scale of Rs.15\640-2900. xxx xxx xxx
4. The issue now is grant of higher scale. For the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1995 as the post already stands upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
5. Department of Official Language had earlier submitted a proposal that the higher scale .may need to be granted so as to comply with the directions of the Delhi High Court. The file was sent to the Department of Legal Affairs for their advice. The advice given by the Department of Legal Affairs is reproduced as under:-
The detailed reference of the Department of Expenditure is available at page 4/N. Though Official Language Service Association appears to have filed a CWP No. 7231/2001 in Delhi High Court.. The High Court vide its order dated 14.5.2002 directed that the issue of grant of higher pay scale to the concerned posts should be considered on merits. The Government considered the issue and initially allowed grant of upgraded pay scales from 11.02.2003 which, however, was subsequently given retrospective effect and notional upgradation was allowed w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with actual financial benefits w.e.f. 11.02.2003. The issue now whether the action taken by the Government would be substantial compliance of the courts directions. On perusal of the pleadings placed before the Court and the Court order, it is observed that the Association had requested the revision of pay from 1.1.1986. The Department of Expenditure appears to have considered the request in the context of 5th CPC only and the prayer of the petitioners in the Writ Petition does not appear to have been dealt with and orders passed after such consideration. The Department may, therefore, have to pass appropriate orders with regard to prayer that the pay scales should be upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
4. Relying upon the information received by the applicants at their end under Right to Information Act, relevant part whereof has been reproduced above, Mr. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sinha, would forcefully contend that once the High Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicants, as it is always the case of the applicants that they would be entitled to higher grades of pay as have been given to the employees of CTB and CHTI, w.e.f. 01.01.1986 pursuant to recommendations of 4th CPC, the respondents are bound to consider their case w.e.f. 01.01.1986, whereas, admittedly, they considered it from 01.01.1996, which would be the date applicable for implementing the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission. That there is an error in considering the case of the applicants from 01.01.1996 and not from 01.01.1986 is not in dispute. Surely, such are the notings made by none other than the respondents themselves in the relevant files. However, the cause of the applicants being opposed on the only ground that the applicants had earlier raked up the said issue before this Tribunal, which met with no success and even the Supreme Court in SLP did not interfere with the order of this Tribunal.
5. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been pleaded that the applicants filed OA No.8837/1991 praying for declaration that DOP&T OM dated 31.07.1990 granting pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to Assistants of CSS and Grade C Stenographers of CSS w.e.f. 01.01.1986 be made applicable to them. This Tribunal, vide order dated 26.10.1995, observed that in the result, we dispose of this OA with observation that in the event the applicants have not filed any representation to the Fifth Central Pay Commission, they may do so even at this stage, provided the Commission is still accepting representations and in that event the applicants may also submit a copy of that representation to the respondents who may forward the same to the Fifth Central Pay Commission with their recommendations, if so advised. The applicant Association filed SLP against the orders aforesaid before Honble Supreme Court, which was disposed of with the following orders:-
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
6. The applicant association filed miscellaneous application bearing MA No. 590/1996 in OA No. 837/1991 praying for restoration of the OA and to decide the same on merits. Paragraph nos.6 to 8 of the order passed in the misc. application read as follows:-
6. Manifestly, n o MA is maintainable for re-hearing the matter which has been finally heard and disposed of on merits. In this connection, the applicant Sh. Mahender Singh stated before us that they were not able to file the R.A. in time, because the documents themselves were received after the admissible period of 30 days. He, therefore, urged that this M.A. be treated as R.A. and the matter be re-heard.
7. Such a prayer is summarily rejected in the face of the Honble Supreme Courts order dated 22.02.1996 dismissing the applicants SLP in limine, without even issuing notice to the respondents. As a matter of fact the applicant should have filed a copy of the Supreme Courts order dated 22.02.1996 much before the M.A. came up for hearing and it is only during the course of hearing today when we questioned the applicant that if he was aggrieved by our judgment dated 26.10.1995 why he had not filed an appeal under law that he admitted that applicant had filed an appeal..
8. Under the circumstances, we hold that MA 590/1996 is not maintainable in law, particularly when the Tribunals judgment dated 26.10.1995 has become final and the S.L.P. against the same has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court.
7. The applicant association then filed SLP against the said order and Honble Supreme Court vide orders dated 26.02.1997 ordered that we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It will be open to the petitioner to avail any other remedy that may be available to him in the law. The SLP is accordingly dismissed.
8. The applicant association again filed OA No. 1378/1997 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of on 20.11.2000, against which, as mentioned above, a writ came to be filed which was disposed of with the observations as already reproduced above.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examining the records of the case, we are of the view that the only objection raised by the respondents in dismissing present Original Application, as adverted to above, cannot be accepted. We need not go into the issue as to whether at any given time the case of the applicant association was dealt with on merits and the matter was given quietus by the highest Court of the land. Surely, there are arguments in that regard from both sides, but, as mentioned above, there would be no need to go into the issue, as surely, this objection was never raised by the respondents before the High Court of Delhi when writ petition No.7231/2001 came to be disposed of vide orders dated 14.05.2002. Despite the background of the case of filing various petitions and SLP, as mentioned above, the directions came to be issued by the Delhi High Court which indeed have been complied with by the respondents, even though partially. Once, the respondents have complied with the directions given by the High Court of Delhi and an order in that regard has even been passed, the respondents cannot take the plea that present Original Application would be barred by the principles of res judicata. On merits, insofar as non-consideration of the case of applicants association for upgradtion of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 is concerned, the same is not in dispute. There indeed has been a mistake on the part of the respondents to consider the case of the applicant association only w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It is admitted position, as mentioned above, that the applicants were always claiming upgradation of their pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 at par with employees of CTB and CHTI, whereas in fact, it has been considered only w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Counsel for the applicants is right in urging that respondents should at least consider the case of applicants for upgradation of their pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 even though on notional basis.
10. In view of the observations made above, we dispose of this Original Application directing the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant association for upgradation of their pay scales at par with CTB/CHTI w.e.f. 01.01.1986 at least on notional basis. Let the exercise, as ordained above, be completed within a period of three months from today. There shall be no order as to the costs.
(Dr. R.C. Panda) (V.K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /naresh/