Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jitender Kumar vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 19 December, 2024
1
Item No. 76/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 3968/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 3968/2018
/2018
Reserved on 03.12.2024
Pronounced on 19.12.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati,
Khati Member (A)
Jitender Kumar, Aged about 49 years,
S/o late Sh. Sohanvir Singh,
R/o Quarter No. 4, Type-I,
Type Old Campus,
Central Institute of Research on Bufallow (Hisar)
Haryana.
Permanent Address:
House No. 2, B-II,
B Bhagriti Vihar,
Opp. Ganga Water Plant, Delhi-94,
Delhi
Group 'C', Working as Cane weaver.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. T. D. Yadav)
V/s
Union of India through
1. Secretary Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
2. The Director General Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi
Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The Director Central Institute of Research on Buffallow
Buffallow, Hisar,
Haryana.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Nagesh)
2
Item No. 76/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 3968/2018
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
By virtue of the present Original Application (OA), the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
"(i) to direct the respondents to grant the same benefits as skilled grade to applicant order dated 11.10.2011 in O.A. No. 3998/2010 (Abrar Husain versus Union of India & Ors.), order dated 28.4.2009 in O.A. No. 1118/2009;(Prithi Pal Singh & Ors.
versus Union of India & Ors.), Ors.), O.A. No. 1018/2013 dated 5.1.2004 (Man Singh versus Union of India & Ors.) and Order dated 17.3.2008 in O.A. No. 1832/07 (Bansi Lal versus UOI) Order dated 20.9.2012 in O.A. No. 3055/2011 in the matter of G.S. Patil versus Union of India & Ors. and gran grant skilled ie 950- 1500-3050 3050-4590 4590 2 grade from the date of initial appointment with all the consequential benefits like arrears to the applicant.
(ii) to pass any other order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii)
ii) Award costs."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the applicant was granted the pay scale of ₹950-1500 with effect from 19.03.2009, as per his entitlement under the Recruitment Rules Ru (RRs). The applicant is seeking the same pay scale from the initial date of his appointment, i.e., 30 30.04.1996.
2.1 The learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was appointed as Supporting Staff Grade-1 Grade 1 in the pay scale of ₹750-12-810- 14-940, 940, starting at the minimum stage of ₹750/ ₹750/-. He was also entitled to draw allowances such as Dearness Allowance and House Rent 3 Item No. 76/ C-5 C O.A. No. 3968/2018 Allowance, as admissible to other other staff of corresponding grade and status in ICAR.
2.2 In support of his contention that the applicant is entitled to the pay scale of ₹950-1500 ₹950 1500 from the initial date of his appointment, learned counsel referred to the office order dated 18.05.1996, 8.05.1996, whic which states as under:
"Director CIRB, Hisar has been pleased to appoint Sri. Jitender Kumar S/O Sri. Sohanveer Singh, to the post of S. S. Gr Gr-I in the pay scale of Rs. 750-12-310-14-940/-
750 w.e.f. the afternoon of 30 30- 4-96 96 on the tarms & conditions contained in this Office Memorandum No. 4-1(2) 4 E-111/84/5894 111/84/5894 dated 88-4-96.
His pay will be drawn at the minimum stage of Rs. 750/ 750/- as per condition No. 1. of this office memorandum refered to above."
2.3 Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant, being visually handicapped, was assigned duties in the I/C Estate Section and a specific request was made that the applicant "may preferably be assigned the duty of Chair Caneman." On this basis, the applicant consistently performed his his duties in the Cane Section, demonstrating eligibility for the pay scale in question. Reference is also made to the office order dated 14.08.2009, which reads as follows:
follows:-
"The The following Supporting Staff (non (non-matric/1.T.I.) have successfully undergone the training course organized by the Institute in two batches in terms of the Council's guidelines based on the recommendation of VIth Central Pay Commission.
S/Shri
1. Rameshwar, SSG-IV SSG 4 Item No. 76/ C-5 C O.A. No. 3968/2018
2. Rambir, SSG-1 SSG
3. Hatnuman. SSG-IV SSG
4. Bheera, SSG-III SSG
5. Puran, SSG-III SSG
6. Pahlad, SSG-II SSG
7.Siri Ram, SSG-II SSG
8.Ishwar Singh, SSG-IV SSG
9. Randhir Singh, SSG-III SSG
10.Ram Kumar, SSG-III SSG
11.Subhash, SSG-II SSG
12.Balraj, SSG-II SSG
13.Hari Kishan, SSG-I SSG
14.Mehar Chand, SSG-1 SSG
15.Raj Kumar, SSG-II SSG
16.Mela Ram, SSG-I SSG
17.Ram Kishore, SSG-1 SSG
18. Jitender Kumar, SSG-I SSG
19.Smt,. Santro, SSG-I SSG
20.Ram kaul, SSG-III SSG
21.Jagdeep, S/o Shri Raj Pal, SSG-I SSG
22.Om Parkash, SSg-1 SSg 1 23.Ram Kesh, SSG SSG-III
24.Ram Het, SSG-I SSG
25.Gopi Ram, SSG-III SSG
26. Radhey Shyam, SSG-I SSG
27. Yam Bahadur, SSG-III
28. Stabir Singh, SSG-I SSG 5 Item No. 76/ C-5 C O.A. No. 3968/2018
29.Mohinder Singh, SSG-I SSG
30. Jai Parkash, SSG-III SSG
31.Mahabir Singh, SSG-I SSG
32. Chander, SSG-II SSG
33.Hawa Singh, SSG-1 SSG
34. Nackched, SSG-1 SSG All the supporting staff working at CIRB, Hisar stand designatechas Skilled Support Staff in terms of Council's letter No. 14(1)/2008-Estt. 14(1)/2008 I dated 19.3.2009."
2.4 Learned earned counsel for the applicant submitted that an identical OA No. 804/1998 was filed before this Tribunal. The applicant in the said OA was a blind person appointed as a Caneman. Consequent upon the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission, the Caneman have been granted the skilled grade of Rs. 950-1500.
950 1500. This Tribunal vide order dated 15.09.2000, allowed the prayer of the applicant therein, to grant him the skilled grade from the initial date of his appointment. The respondents filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1054/2001 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the order dated 15.09.2000 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 804/1998. The said Writ Petitio Petition was dismissed bythe Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 15.07.2002 and subsequently the respondents preferred an SLP before the Apex Court challenging the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the same was also dismissed on 26.04.2004, thereby th the order dated 15.09.2000 in OA 6 Item No. 76/ C-5 C O.A. No. 3968/2018 No. 804/1998 stood confirmed. Following the order dated 15.09.2000, this Tribunal allowed several OAs.
2.5 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant should be granted similar benefits as extended in the following judgments:
1. Order dated 17.03.2008 in OA No. 1832/2007 (CAT, Delhi).
2. Order dated 28.04.2009 in OA No. 1118/2009 1118/2009.
3. Order dated 05.01.2004 in OA No. 1018/2003 1018/2003.
4. Order dated 05.08.2004 in OA No. 2697/2003 97/2003.
5. Order dated 11.10.2011 in OA No. 3998/2010 3998/2010.
6. Order dated 20.09.2012 in OA No. 3055/2011 3055/2011.
2.6 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that these judgments granted the skilled pay scale of ₹950 ₹950-1500 from the date of the applicants' initial appointments, and the applicant herein seeks parity.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respond respondents relied upon on the averments made in the counter reply and specifically highlighted the following paragraphs:
paragraphs "4.3 That the contents of the corresponding para of the O.A. are admitted only to the extent that the applicant is a visually challenged/handicapped person. Rest of the contents of the corresponding orresponding paragraph are false, fabricated and concocted hence denied. The applicant was appointed as Supporting Staff Grade (herein after referred as SSG-I) Grade-I I) in the pay scale of Rs.
750-12 12-810- 14-940/- in Group 'D' on 18/21.05.1996. This pay scale was revised to Rs. 2550-3200/ 3200/- in terms of the 7 Item No. 76/ C-5 C O.A. No. 3968/2018 recommendations made by the Vth Central Pay Commission. The applicant's salary was further revised in accordance with the recommendations of the VI th Central Pay Commission pursuant to its adoption by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The pay scale of the applicant was fixed, after VI th Central Pay Commission, as per the Rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, as reproduced herein below:
(a) In case of Group D employees. The pay in the revised pay structure will be fixed initially in the 15 pay band as per clause (A) above with the appropriate grade pay and arrears paid accordingly. Thereafter, pay of such of those Group D employees who already possess the revised minimum qualifications recommended by the Commission prescribed for entry into PB PB-1 would be fixed with effect from 1.1.2006 with grade pay of Rs.
1800.
(b) Such of those existing Group D employees who do not possess the revised minimum qualifications for entry into PB PB-1 would be retrained by the concerned Department preferably within a period of six months so that payment of arrears on account of up gradation are not delayed. After re-training, re training, these Group D staff will also be placed in the pay Band PB-1 PB 1 with grade pay of Rs. 1800 with effect from 1.1.2006 and arrears drawn accordingly. Once placed in the PB-1 PB 1 Pay Band, this category of Group D staff will regain their seniority vis-à-vis vis vis the other category of Group D staff that already possessed the minimum qualifications and w were, therefore, placed in the PB-1 PB 1 Pay Band as on 1.1.2006. InterInter-se seniority of all the employees in erstwhile Group D will be fully maintained with Group D employees in a higher pre pre-revised pay scale being placed higher vis-a-vis vis vis an employee in a lower pay scale. Within the same pre-revised pre revised pay scale, seniority which existed prior to revision would continue.
(c) Arrears shall be payable with effect from 1.1.2006 in both the cases i.e. to those Group D employees who possess the qualifications and are placed in PB-11 straight away and those Group D employees who do not possess the qualifications and are placed after re-training.
re training. Illustration 3 in regard to fixation of pay for group D staff is in the Explanatory Memorandum to these rules.
It is submitted submitted that the applicant was never appointed as Caneman/Caneweaver nor he was appointed on a pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/ 1500/-.. The applicant was appointed as Supporting Staff Grade I i.e. SSG-11 vide office order dated 07.05.1996. Grade-
8Item No. 76/ C-5 C O.A. No. 3968/2018 The policy framed by with the approval of the Competent Authority as "New Designation Policy for the Supporting Staff employees in the ICAR" was circulated to its Units/Constituents. Vide this order it was notified that all the erstwhile Group 'D' staff and also those supporting staff (non--technical) of ICAR in the pay scale of Rs.2750- Rs.2750 4400, who have already been placed in the Pay Band-I Band with Grade Pay of Rs.1800 on account of possessing prescribed educational qualification nor through training, will henceforth stand designated as 'Ski'Skilled Support Staff'."
4. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1 The applicant, applicant who was appointed as Supporting Staff Grade Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 750-12-810-14-940/-
750 in Group 'D' cannot be said to be similarly situated as Caneman/Caneweaver merely because he had been performing the duties in the cane weaving department for a long period of time. It is not in dispute that he was allowed to perform the said duties as he was visually disabled. We also note that the requisite qualifications and conditions of both the posts are different. The case laws relied upon by the applicant to seek benefit of pa pay scale attached to the post of Caneman/Caneweaver cannot be applied to the facts and circumstance of the present case, wherein the Caneman/Caneweaver were appointed directly on said post, whereas the present applicant was never appointed to the post of Caneman/Caneweaver /Caneweaver.
5.2. Further, it is also pertinent to note that once the applicant fulfilled the requisite qualifications for superior grade on successful completion 9 Item No. 76/ C-5 C O.A. No. 3968/2018 of training,, he was accorded pay scale of 950 950-1500/- w.e.f 19.3.2009.
Now, the applicant applic has become wiser and he seeks to draw benefits rendered in the decisions pertaining to the case of Caneman/Cane Caneweavers, claiming pay scale from the initial date of appointment stating that he is similarly situated. The said contention of the applicant cannot sustain.
sustain 5.3. Surprisingly, no relief was sought by the applicant for ante-dating off benefits when initial order dated 19.3.2009 according him the pay scale of 950-1500/ 1500/- was passed. An appointee whose appointment is regulated by recruitment rules is eligible to get pay scale as prescribed for the post to which he/she is appointed and not otherwise. The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant, is in a "diff "different department" vis-a-vis vis vis the reference post, does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis vis-a-vis the reference post are different, different, it may be difficult to conclude, that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitat qualitatively similar or comparable. In such a case, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be invoked. (Ref: Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences (1989 1256 AIR) and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347].
347] 10 Item No. 76/ C-5 C O.A. No. 3968/2018
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of aforesaid analysis, analysis we find that the relief sought in the present OA is untenable. Hence, the OA is rejected.
6.2. Pending ng M.A.s, M.A.s if any,, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Dr. Anand S Khati) Khati (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /arti/