Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Haridasan Gangadharan vs M/O Finance on 3 November, 2023
O.A No.325/2017 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/325/2017
Friday, this the 3rd day of November, 2023.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Haridasan Gangadharan, S/o late P.Gangadharan
Aged 59 years, Sr.Project Assistant, SC No.22036
ARD, AERO, VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram
Residing at Saphalyam, Nehru Junction, Kazhakuttom PO
Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695582.
2. Shajahan Jalaludeen, S/o Late Jalaludeen, Aged 55 years
Sr. Project Assistant, SC No. 26882 SPL/VSSC ISRO PO
Thiurvananthapuram, PIN-695022, Residing at Alna
Gardens, TC-100/3223,Attinkuzhy, Kazhakuttom P.O
Thiruvananthapuram PIN-695582
3. Abey Issaac, W/o P I Issac, Aged 55 SC No.20324
Sr. Project Assistant MCD/MMG/MME, VSSC ISRO PO
Thiruvananthapuram-695 022, Residing Qrt No.C/141 ISRO
Staff Quarters Pallithura P.O., Thiruvananthapurm 695586
4. Leena Vijayam Somanathan, W/o Madhusoodhanan Assari
Aged 52, Sr Project Assistant SC No. 13240 BMPD/MSA/
VSSC ISRO PO Thiruvananthapuram 695 022
Residing Saparya, TC 66/214(3), Vandithadam Thiruvallam
PO, Thiruvananthpuram-695027
5. Manjunatha Naik Amekkala, S/o Rama Naik A
Aged 43, Sr.Project Assistant, SC No. 23834 CHSS/PGA
VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695 022
O.A No.325/2017 2
Residing Quarter No.C-188 ISRO Staff Quarters
Pallithura PO Thiruvananthapuram-695586
6. Ushakumari Kizhakkechirayil Thankappan D/O Thankappan
Aged 49 Sr. Project Assistant, SC.NO.27770, PRSO/PCM
Purchase, VSSC. ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695 022
Residing T.C.2/135(12), Sree Nivas, Vrindavan Gardens,
Vilayilkulam, Kazhakkootam P.O, Thiruvananthpuram
PIN-695582.
7. Khyrunnissa Ameena Beevi W/O S.R Shajahan
Aged 59 Sr. Project Assistant, SC.NO. 23040
MCAD/IFF/MME, VSSC,ISRO PO Thiruvananthapuram
695 022 residing TC 24/1596 MERA 88, Mera Nagar,
Thycaud PO, Thiruvananthpuram 695 014
8. Vijayanatha Kurup Sreedharan Pillai S/o MN Sreedharan
Pillai, Aged 53, Sr. Project Assistant SC No.17970 DIR, VSSC
ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695 022 residing Quarter
No.C-217, ISRO Staff Quarters, Pallithura PO
Thiruvananthapuram 695586
9. Aboobekkar Ebrahim Kunju S/o Ebrahim Kunju aged 56
Sr. Project Assistant, SC No.20267, SFD, VSSC, ISRO PO
Thiruvananthapuram 695 022 residing AR House ASRA 27
Mukkallakkal Kazhakuttom PO, Thiruvananthapuram
695582
10. Rajan Thankamma Chellappan S/o D Chellappan
Aged 50 Sr. Project Assistant, SC No.25576 Main Accounts,
VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvanathapuram 695022 residing TC
14/1444, Valsala Bhavan, Vazhuthacadu,
Thiruvananthapuram 695014
11. Rajam Chakrapani Kunjulekshmi W/o Shri D
Vasanthakumar, Aged 50, Sr. Project Assistant
O.A No.325/2017 3
SC No. 25666 GSS, VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram
695022, Residing Vilayil House, Monvila
Kulathoor, Thiruvananthapuram
12. Prakash Babu Kunji Poyil S/o Kannan P, Aged 57,Sr. Project
Assistant, SC No.24538 Main Accounts, VSSC, ISRO PO
Thiruvananthapuram 695 022 residing TC No.18/70(1)
Krishnenthu Alapuram Road Thirumala
Thiruvananthapuram 695006
13. Suresh Babu Narayanan Nair S/o Narayanan Nair
Aged 55, Sr. Project Assistant, SC No.27090
Main Purchase, VSSC, ISRO PO Thiruvananthapuram
695 022, Residing Anjanam, TC 96/2164 (New)
Pulayanarkotta Junction, Thuruvickal PO,
Thiruvananthapuram 695031
14. Sreekanth Vannarath, S/o I VK Nair aged 50 Sr. Project
Assistant, SC NO.27139 DLS/PGA, VSSC,
Thiruvananthapuram 695022 residing TC 15/368,
Edapazhanji, Sasthamangalam PO, Thiruvananthapuram-
695010
15. Vijayamohanan Attupurath S/o A Kunhiraman
Aged 53 Sr. Project Assistant, SC No.28156, IISU Stores
ISRO, Thiruvananthapuram 695013 residing "Amritham"
SPRA 211-A, Sreeram Nagar, Nettayam,
Thiruvananthapuram 695013
16. Ushakumari Leelamma W/o Shri Surendran Nair
Aged 54 Sr. Project Assistant, SC No.27742, R&R/PGA VSSC,
ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695022
Residing "Nachiketham', Sreekrishna Nagar, Sreekariyam
P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695017
O.A No.325/2017 4
17. Radhammal Devarajan W/o A Devarajan
Aged 54 Sr. Project Assistant, SC No.25561 Hindi Section
VSSC, ISRO PO Thiruvananthapuram 695 022
Residing 'Krishna' Gayathri Gardens, Sankar Nagar,
Kaimanam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695040
18. Vanaja Ajithan, W/o K S Ajithan, Aged 53, Sr. Project
Assistant, SC No.17953 EST/PGA, VSSC,
ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695 022
Residing Sree Shylam Kallingal, Kulathoor P.O
Thiruvananthapuram 695 583
19. Shaheena Leela. W/o Shri N Suresh Mohan
Aged 52. Sr. Project Assistant,SC No.26902. VSSC
Central School, ST.Xavier's College Post
Thiruvananthapuram. PIN-695 582. Residing "Atheena",
Pragathi Gardense, Near Kazhakuttom Railway Station,
Kazhakuttom PO, Thiruvananthapuram PIN 695 582
20. Lawrence Joseph Thundiparambil, S/o T.L.Joseph
Aged 50, Sr. Project Assistant, SC No.23285 Main Accounts
VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695022
Residing ANUPAM, ARA G-12/1, Nehru junction
Kazhakuttom Post, Thiruvananthapuram-695 582.
21. Jayakumar Krishnan Nair Seemanthini Amma
S/o Late Krishnan Nair K, Aged 48, Sr. Project Assistant
SC No.22563 EST/PGA, VSSC, ISRO PO Thiruvananthapuram
695 022, Residing Sopanam, VV Nagar 14-A
Peroorkkada PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695005
22. Anand Neyyattinkara Sundaresa Iyer, S/o N.P. Sundaresa
Iyer, Aged 54, Sr. Project Assistant, SC No.20417
Main Accounts, VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram
695 022, Residing 'Vaishnavi', 54/1519(2)
Opp. Vishnu Kovil, Karumom
O.A No.325/2017 5
Thiruvananthapuram -695002
23. Sivakumar Arumughan, S/o Arumughan K (late), Aged 48
Sr. Project Assistant, SC No.27308, EST/PGA, VSSC
ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695 022
Residing QUARTER NO:C-92, ISRO Staff Quarters
Pallithura(P.O), Thiruvananthapuram -695586
24. Sreelatha Sukumaran Vasanthi, W/o KC Pamdeth
Aged 56, Sr. Project Assistant, SC. NO.27200, PGA, VSSC,
ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695 022
Residing Greeshmam, Kizhakkumkara, Kulathoor PO,
Thiruvananthapuram 695583.
25. Sasi Devi Thacharattil Kopan W/o Sri P RAJ
Aged 55, SC No.27028, Sr. Project Assistant
CMSE Admin.,COMPOSITES ENTITY, VSSC
Thiruvananthapuram-695013 residing Thattackattu
VNRA-19, Vikas Nagar, Pappadu Lane
Nettayam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.
26. Santhosh Kumar Vattakavunkel Karunakaran Nair
S/o Karunakaran Nair, IISU Purchase Vattiyoorkavu
Thiruvananthapuram, Residing Vattakavunkel
Mampazhakunnu, Manikanteswaram Post
Thiruvananthapuram-695 013
27. Anilkumar Jagadamma Sreenivasan, S/o C Sreenivasan
Aged 50, Sr. Project Assistant, SC No.20390, CMD, CPH
CMG, VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695 022
Residing Sreevalsam, TC-30/1792,BSRA-25
Bhagath Singh Road, Pettah PO,
Thiruvananthapuram 695024
28. Maglin Philomina, W/o J Aloysius, Rged 54
Sr. Project Assistant, SC No. 23666 AVN Purchase
O.A No.325/2017 6
VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695022
Residing Smitha Bhavan, South Thumba, Valia Veli
Thiruvananthapuram Pin-695 021.
29. Sudekshina Cheriyanaduparambil Vasumathi
W/o Late N Dinesan, Aged 54, Sr. Project Assistant
SC No.26701, AVN Stores, VSSC, ISRO PO
Thiruvananthapuram 695022, Residing Deepu Nivas
Pyari Nagar, Kazhakuttom PO
Thiruvananthapuram 695582
30. Moli Leela, W/o R.Padmakumar, Aged 48
Sr. Project Assistant, SC No. 23755, AVN Accounts
VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695022
Residing T.C. 11/152, Kanakanagar, Nanthancode
Thiruvananthapuram-695 003
31. Sreekumari Sreeemathi, W/o ANI R, Aged 52
Project Personal Secretary, SC No. 26962, CNG/AVN/VSSC
ISRO P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695022, Residing
Souhredam, Mundayil, Varkala
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 141
32. Ushadevi Velaparambil Krishnan, W/o Anildev V L
Aged 53, Project Personal Secretary, SC No.27766
Main Accounts, VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram
695022, Residing Athira, Near Railway Station
Chirayinkeezhu PO, Thiruvananthapuram
33. Lali Titus Retnabai, W/o P V Thomas, Aged 45
Personal Secretary, SC No.13257, Main Accounts
VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695022
Residing Puthenparambil, Near St.Joseph's Church
Kazhakuttom PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695582
34. Bhageerathi Savithri, W/o M Sankaranarayana Iyer
O.A No.325/2017 7
Aged 56, Personal Secretary, SC. No.20747 PGA, VSSC
ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695022, Residing Pranavam
H. No.35, Sri Nagar, Vallakkadavu PO
Thiruvananthapuram 695 008
35. Beena Thankamma Gopi, W/o. Late Sajeendran KK
Aged 41, Project Per. Secretary, SC No.20842
PGA/GAD (ATF Area), VSSC, ISRO PO
Thiruvananthapuram-22, Residing 'Punartham'
RGRA -32, Rose Garden, Mukkola
Nettayam PO, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 013
36. Usha Gopinath, W/o AJITHKUMAR T
Aged 49, Project Per. Secretary, GSLV Mk-III, PROJECT
COMPLEX BUILDING, 70 ACRE, VSSC, ISRO P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram 695022, Residing 'Gopikrishna'
Market Road, Sreekariam P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram -695017.
37. Uma Rajaraman, W/o Shri N Rajaraman, Aged 46
Personal Secretary, SC No.27781, R&R/PGA
VSSC, Thiruvananthapuram 695022
Residing 'Niranjana' TC.29/1526(2) CRA-123-C
Old Post Office Lane, Chembakassery
Vallakadavu P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695008
38. Mary Kolpurath George, D/o. George K C, Aged 45
Proj. Per. Secretary, SC.No.62447, MME, VSSC/ISRO PO
Thiruvananthapuram- 695 022, Residing TC-3/955(2)
Muttumkal Arasummoodu, Kulathur P O
Thiruvananthapuram-695 583
39. Beena Vilakkathra, W/o V. Ayyappankutty
Aged 48, Personal Secretary, SC No. 20834, CGSE/VSSC
ISRO P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-22, Residing Quarter No.
O.A No.325/2017 8
C/155, ISRO Staff Quarters, Pallithura P.O
Trivandrum-695586
40. Santha Sarojini, W/o Late P Vijayakumaran
Aged 53, Personal Secretary, SC No.27124, ACEG, ADTG
VSSC, ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695022
Residing Quarter No.C/124, ISRO Staff Quarters
Pallithura PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695586
41. Kumari Lekha Rajamma, W/o K Venugopal
Aged 50, Personal Secretary, SC No.23092, SR, VSSC
ISRO PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695022, Residing Rajeevam
TC-18/1614(1), Kunnapuzha PO
Thiruvananthapuram 695032.
- Applicants
[By Advocate: Mr.C.S.Manu]
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by Secretary Ministry of
Finance (Department of Expenditure) New Delhi
PIN-110001
2. The Secretary to Government of India Department
of Space, Antariksh Bhavan New BEL Road
Bangalore- 560094
3. The Director Vikram Sarabai Space Centre Government of
India Department of Space, ISRO P.O. Thumba,
Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695022.
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. N. Anilkumar, SPC]
The application having been heard on 15.09.2023, the Tribunal
on 03.11.2023 delivered the following:
O.A No.325/2017 9
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal Applicants are officials working under the 3rd respondent, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, VSSC for short, in the categories of Senior Project Assistants, Project Personal Secretaries and Personal Secretaries. They were holding the scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4,800/- in the 6 th Central Pay Commission period. They were granted/eligible for PB-3 at Rs.15600-39100 based on the Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, hereinafter referred to as 2008 Rules. As per the first schedule, Part-B Section-II of the 2008 Rules, administrative staff/office staff, Section Officer, Personal Secretary or equivalent on PB-2 at Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4,800/- will be assigned PB-3 at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5,400/- on completion of four years. Following the promulgation of the said Rules, Annexure-A3 office memorandum was issued by the Department of Space, Government of India, whereunder it was decided to assign grade pay of Rs.5,400/- in PB-3 to the categories of employees, Personal Secretary, Project Personal Secretary, Senior O.A No.325/2017 10 Project Assistant, Assistant Catering Manager and Assistant Security Officer, who were drawing grade pay of Rs.4,800/-, on completion of four years of regular service from the date of assigning the grade pay, that is 01.01.2006. Thus the applicants were enjoying the benefits of PB-3 at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5,400/-.
2. By the introduction of the Revised Pay Rules, 2016, hereinafter referred to as 2016 Rules, pay band system was abolished and pay matrix system was introduced. Annexure-A5 resolution was passed for implementing the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission where it has been specifically stated that the Government has not accepted the recommendations of the Commission on downgrading of posts and that normal replacement will be provided in such cases. Despite the decision of the Government that downgrading was not accepted, while implementing the 7 th CPC report, in Annexure-A6 office memorandum the applicants have been placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. This is counter to the 2008 and 2016 Rules as well as the specific decision of the Government. By accepting the 2016 Rules, the applicants should have been placed in O.A No.325/2017 11 Level-10, which is equivalent to PB-3. Under the new pay matrix system, scale of Level-9 is equivalent to PB-2 of the pay band system and scale of Level-10 is equivalent to PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. In Level-10 pay starts with Rs.56,100/- whereas in Level-9 pay starts with Rs.53,100/-. Shifting administrative staff carrying PB-3 to PB-2 results in downgrading their status apart from monetary disadvantages. Such a downgrading is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The pieces of information gathered through Right to Information Act indicate that such downgrading is not recommended by the Ministry. Against such downgrading applicants had filed Annexure-A11 series representations. The Original Application was filed while such representations were pending.
3. At the time of admitting the O.A., this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the said representations. Later, by Annexure-A12 order those representations were rejected. Thus the O.A. was amended incorporating additional reliefs seeking to quash Annexure-A12 as well.
4. The applicants contend that Annexure-A6 is ultravires of O.A No.325/2017 12 2016 Rules and contrary to Annexure-A5 resolution passed by the Government. So they seek quashing paragraph 9.7 of Annexure-A6 and to declare Annexure-A6 to the extent downgrading the applicants from PB-3 at Rs.15,600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5,400/- to PB-2 in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4,800/- and placing them at scale of Level-9 in the pay matrix under 2016 Rules and to direct the respondents to place them in Level-10.
5. Respondents filed reply challenging the very maintainability of the O.A. According to them, no such downgrading or discrimination has taken place. While adopting pay structure including non-functional selection grade under the 6 th CPC, Department of Space had assigned grade pay of Rs.5,400/- in PB-3 to the given categories of personnel who rendered four years of regular service with grade pay of Rs.4,800/- in the specific posts for appointment/promotion. On the basis of the recommendations of the 7th CPC after dispensing with pay band and grade pay new pay structure in the form of levels in the pay matrix were accepted. On the recommendations of the report of the Commission, common O.A No.325/2017 13 grade pay of Rs.5,400/- prevailing in PB-2 and PB-3 has been rationalised. Accordingly, non-functional upgradation will be from Level-8 to Level-9. The respondents have submitted that non- functional upgradation cannot be treated either as downgradation or upgradation as the employees holding the posts with grade pay of Rs.4,800/- on completion of four years of regular service in the posts were placed in the grade pay of Rs.5,400/- in the 6 th CPC pay structure, while granting non-functional upgradation.
6. According to the respondents, there is also no basis for the allegation of discrimination vis-a-vis Section Officers in the Central Secretariat. Both the categories are entirely different. Promotional hierarchy in the Central Secretariat is distinct from the promotional hierarchy in ISRO. The hierarchy, pay scales, career progression path etc. of the applicants and that of Section Officers in the Department of Personnel and Training and Central Secretariat are incomparable and there is no basis in claiming benefits granted to Section Officers and others who are entrusted with different duties and higher responsibilities. The applicants are not similarly placed as the O.A No.325/2017 14 personnel in other Central Government departments.
7. The respondents have also stated that the representations given by the applicants were duly considered and Annexure-A12 order was passed taking into account all necessary aspects in proper perspective. It is reiterated that Annexure-A6 does not envisage any downgradation of the applicants from PB-3 to PB-2 while placing them in Level-9. The terms and conditions for grant of grade pay on non- functional basis is purely non-functional upgradation specific and personal to the employee and is not linked to the vacancies in the grade; it does not bestow any right on the officer to claim promotion based on the non-functional upgradation. In the newly restructured pay matrix, the earlier situation of a common grade pay of Rs.5,400/- prevailing in PB-2 and PB-3 has been rationalised. Thus the O.A. is sought to be dismissed.
8. The applicants filed a rejoinder controverting the contentions of the respondents. According to them, the Rules of 2008 and 2016 were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which should not be meddled with by executive orders. The provisions in O.A No.325/2017 15 Annexures-A1 and A7 are plain and clear. Thus they are entitled to be placed in Level-10 of the pay matrix. Statutory Rules cannot be amended through executive orders. They have reiterated that they have been downgraded against the decision taken by the Government.
9. The respondents filed an additional reply reiterating their contentions in the reply statement.
10. We heard the learned counsel on both sides in detail.
11. The applicants at the time of filing the O.A. were holding the posts of Central Project Assistants, Project Personal Secretaries and Personal Secretaries, as the case may be, in the 3rd respondent organisation. By now, some of the applicants have retired from service on superannuation. During the 6th CPC they were in PB-3 with pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5,400/- by virtue of Annexure-A3 order. Under Annexure-A3 OM, grade pay of Rs.5,400/- in PB-3 was granted to these categories of employees, who were drawing grade pay of Rs.4,800/-, on completion of four years from the date of assigning the said grade pay. But according to them, on implementation of the recommendations of the 7th CPC report in the O.A No.325/2017 16 VSSC, they have been virtually downgraded. They are aggrieved by clause 9.7 of Annexure-A6, which reads thus:
9.7 The pre-revised grade pay of Rs.5400, Pay Band - 3, assigned to administrative personnel under Non-functional upgradation, shall now be assigned to Pay Band-2 and replacement scale of Level 9 (Level nine) be assigned under CCS (RP) Rules, 2016. The difference in basic pay, if any, due to the above change, shall be protected by treating it as personal pay to be absorbed in future and such protection shall be applicable only to those employees, who were placed in Rs.5400 (PR) on or before 24.7.2016. All other terms and conditions stipulated in the DOS OM No.E.29011/1/2008-V, dated 24/26.12.2009 read with OM of even number dated 13.12.2012 remain unaltered.
12. Annexure-A3 OM dated 26.12.2009 indicates that the given categories of employees, that is Personal Secretary, Project Personal Secretary, Senior Project Assistant, Assistant Catering Manager and Assistant Security Officer, who were getting grade pay of Rs. 4,800/- on completion of four years from the date of assigning the grade pay of Rs.4,800/-, are entitled to get grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. Accordingly, all the applicants are getting that grade pay in PB-3. They claim that when 7th Pay Commission recommendations were O.A No.325/2017 17 introduced, the Union Government had committed that no downgrading shall be effected and therefore the applicants are entitled to get corresponding scale in Level-10, but they have been granted revision only in Level-9, which is ultravires Annexures-A1 and A7. Aggrieved by the same, they have approached this Tribunal.
13. Paragraph 9.7 of Annexure-A6 has already been extracted above. Now the questions are whether downgrading has taken effect when the pay revision was introduced under Annexure-A7, whether the applicants have been discriminated against when similarly placed employees in the Central Secretariat and DoPT were granted revision of pay in Level-10, which according to the applicants is highly discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal.
14. The respondents, on the other hand, have taken the stand that it is not a case of downgrading, that it was a non-functional selection grade that was granted after completing four years in the given scale, on rationalisation done during the 7th CPC, it cannot be taken as downgrading, non-functional grade given cannot be taken as upgradation or downgradation. It is personal pay, which cannot be O.A No.325/2017 18 attached to any post and therefore it being purely non-functional the applicants are not justified in treating it as downgrading.
15. In the 7th CPC report, in Chapter 7.1 at clause 4(b) the following recommendation was made by the Commission:
"The Commission observes that the current progression from GP 4600 to GP 4800 on promotion as Section Officer is an appropriate upgrade and does not find any justification for placing the entry level to SO at a higher level. In so far as the nonfunctional upgrade is concerned, in the newly restructured pay matrix the earlier situation of a common grade pay i.e., 5400 prevailing in PB2 and PB3 has now been rationalised. Accordingly, the non-functional upgrade will henceforth be from level 8 to level 9. In the case of all such cadres/services where non functional upgradation is presently available across two levels, for example, from GP 4800 to GP 5400 (PB3) the same will now be available across only one level for example, from GP 4800 to GP 5400 (PB-2) or in the new matrix from level 8 to level 9."
This recommendation has been accepted by the Government. At the same time, it is true that downgrading recommended by the 7 th CPC was not accepted. The definite case of the respondents is that the applicants were given grade pay of Rs.5,400/- as part of non-functional O.A No.325/2017 19 upgradation, which cannot be treated as upgradation as the employees holding specific posts with grade pay of Rs.4,800/- on completion of four years of regular service in the post, were placed in the higher grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. After analysing the recommendations of the 7th CPC and having regard to the fact that such a non-functional upgradation was given on personal basis to those who have completed four years of service with grade pay of Rs.4,800/-, it cannot be termed as an upgradation and therefore any consequent proposal made to the rationalisation cannot be branded as a downgradation.
16. As rightly argued by the learned Standing Counsel, the applicants are under a misconception that when non-functional grade pay of Rs.5,400/- was given on completion of four years with grade pay of Rs.4,800/-, they are under the impression that it was on upgradation. In fact it was not an upgradation but was conferring a higher grade pay purely on personalised basis, not attached to a post. Such a non-functional grade given to persons, therefore, cannot be reckoned as upgradation in the real meaning of the term. O.A No.325/2017 20
17. Moreover, as part of rationalisation during the 7 th CPC, such non-functional shift has been taken from Level-8 to Level-9. In the circumstances, the argument of the respondents that it is a downgradation is liable to be discounted.
18. The arguments of the applicants are liable to be rejected for one more reason. When such shifts take place, the interests of such employees are protected by granting personal pay whenever any difference in basic pay occurs. That means, as a sequence to such change, the individual officer will not experience any monetary loss.
19. We are also unable to comprehend the contention that, by placing an officer in Level-9 instead of Level-10 will have impact in his status. It is a misnomer that officers in Level-10 have a higher status than officers in Level-9. Such perceptions stem from egoistic mind- sets which have no place in service jurisprudence.
20. The second ground of attack against Annexure-A6 is that it is highly discriminatory. Section Officers in Central Secretariat and DoPT etc. have been given replacement scale in Level-10, which is discriminatory, that the applicants also should have been given the O.A No.325/2017 21 same treatment. As the very nomenclature of the posts suggests, the applicants hold the post of Personal Secretary, Project Personal Secretary, Senior Project Assistant, Project Assistant, etc. in VSSC which is an autonomous organization under the Department of Space. Therefore, the nature of functions of the applicants is patently different from that of a Section Officer. That is why it is stated by the respondents that the duties and responsibilities undertaken by Section Officers, their promotional hierarchy, pay scale, career progression path etc. are totally different. Therefore, it cannot be held that the posts held by the applicants should be taken at par with the Section Officers in Central Secretariat or the DoPT.
21. Article 14 of the Constitution, which is treated as the basic feature of the Constitution, ensures equality before law or equal protection of laws. Equal protection means the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. Therefore, if the two persons or two sets of persons who are similarly situated/placed, they have to be treated equally. It is a universally accepted principle. At the same time, the O.A No.325/2017 22 principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment of circumstances in the same position. This has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. M/s.Ratnam and Sons [AIR 2016 SC 1273]. According to the Apex Court, principle of equality does not mean that every law must be applied equally. State has the power to classify persons for legitimate purposes. Legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and make classification. Every classification is in some degree likely to produce some inequality, but mere production of inequality is not enough. Article 14 would be treated as violated only when equal protection is denied even when the two persons belong to same class/category. Here, officials working in the category of Senior Project Assistants, Project Personal Secretaries etc. in the VSSC cannot be equated either in the nature of discharge of functions or hierarchy etc. at par with Section Officers in other organisations. Therefore, the argument of discrimination also cannot hold water.
22. To top it all, we are of the opinion that sanctioning a pay O.A No.325/2017 23 scale for a particular post is a matter turning on administrative policy and formulation of such a policy falls within the domain of the State. The views of the State cannot be substituted in such matters. We are of the considered opinion that, in such monetary matters having wide financial ramifications, Courts should seldom interfere. In our opinion, there are legal impediments in upholding the contentions of the applicants.
Resultanty, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 3rd November, 2023)
K.V.EAPEN JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
O.A No.325/2017 24
List of Annexures
Annexure A-6 True copy of the Office Memorandum bearing
No.A.12021/11/2016-1 dated 14-8-2016 issued by the Government of India, Department of Space, Bangalore.
Annexure A-12 True copy of Memorandum No.A.13013/1/2017- 1 dated 24-5-2017 issued by the 2nd respondent Annexure A-1 True copy of the relevant Pages of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 Annexure A-2 True copy of Office Memorandum No.E-29011/1/ 2008-V dated 12-9-2008 issued by the Department of Space, Government of India Annexure A-3 True copy of the Office Memorandum OM No.E.29011/1/2008-V dated 24/26-12-2009 issued by the Department of Space, Government of India Annexure A-4 True copy of the relevant pages of resolution dated 29-8-2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance, (Department of Expenditure) Government of India Annexure A-5 True copy of the resolution dated 25-7-2016 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Annexure A-7 True copy of the relevant pages of Notification dated 25-7-2016 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay Rules), 2016 Annexure A-8 True copy of the information sought by the applicant No.1 and reply dated 23-2-2017 issued by the Central Public Information Officer, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India to the applicant O.A No.325/2017 25 No.1 Annexure A-9 True copy of the application dated 30-11-2016 submitted by the applicant No.1 to the Assistant Public Information Officer, Department of Space, ISRO, Bangalore.
Annexure A-10 True copy of the reply dated 12-1-2017 issued by the Central Public Information Officer, Department of Space, Government of India to the applicant No.1 Annexure A-11 True copy of representation dated 25-8-2016 submitted by the applicant No.1 to the Joint Secretary, Department of Space, Government of India, Bangalore Annexure A-11(a) True copy of representation dated 14-2-2017 submitted by the applicant No.1 to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A-11(b) True copy of representation dated 25-8-2016 by the applicant No.2 to the Joint Secretary, Department of Space, Government of India, Bangalore Annexure A-11(c) True copy of representation dated 29-8-2016 submitted by applicant No.3 to the Joint Secretary, Department of Space, Government of India, Bangalore Annexure A-11(d) True copy of the representation dated 30-8-2016 submitted by the applicant No.4 to the 2nd respondent Annexure A-11(e) True copy of the representation dated 15-2-2017 submitted by the applicant No.5 to the 3rd respondent O.A No.325/2017 26 Annexure A-11(f) True copy of the representation dated 8-9-2016 submitted by applicant No.6 to the 3 rd respondent Annexure A-11(g) True copy of the representation dated 31-8-2016 submitted by applicant No.7 to the 3 rd respondent Annexure A-11(h) True copy of the representation dated 10-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.8 to the 3 rd respondent Annexure A-11(i) True copy of the representation dated 15-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.9 to the 2 nd respondent Annexure A-11(j) True copy of the representation dated 7-9-2016 submitted by applicant No.10 to the 2 nd respondent Annexure A-11(k) True copy of the representation dated 15-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.11 to the 3 rd respondent Annexure A-11(l) True copy of the representation dated 29-8-2016 submitted by applicant No.12 to the 2 nd respondent Annexure A-11(m) True copy of the representation dated 1-9-2016 submitted by applicant No.13 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(n) True copy of the representation dated 14-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.14 to the 3 rd respondent Annexure A-11(o)True copy of the representation dated 6-9-2016 submitted by applicant No.15 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(p) True copy of the representation dated 17-2-2016 submitted by applicant No.16 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(q) True copy of the representation dated 22-9-2016 O.A No.325/2017 27 submitted by applicant No.18 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(r) True copy of the representation dated 7-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.18 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(s) True copy of the representation dated 15-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.19 to the 2 nd respondent Annexure A-11(t) True copy of the representation dated 1-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.20 to the 3 rd respondent Annexure A-11(u) True copy of the representation dated 1-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.21 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(v) True copy of the representation dated 2-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.22 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(w) True copy of the representation dated 2-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.23 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(x) True copy of the representation dated 16-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.24 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(y) True copy of the representation dated 3-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.25 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(z) True copy of the representation dated 9-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.26 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(aa) True copy of the representation dated 2-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.27 respondent to the 3 rd respondent Annexure A-11(ab) True copy of the representation dated 17-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.28 respondent to the 3rd respondent O.A No.325/2017 28 Annexure A-11(ac) True copy of the representation dated 25-8-2016 submitted by applicant No.29 respondent to the 2nd respondent Annexure A-11(ad) True copy of the representation dated 15-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.30 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(ae) True copy of the representation dated 25-8-2017 submitted by applicant No.31 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(af) True copy of the representation dated 14-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.32 to the 2nd respondent Annexure A-11(ag) True copy of the representation dated 14-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.33 respondent to the 2nd respondent Annexure A-11(ah) True copy of the representation dated 16-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.34 respondent to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(ai) True copy of the representation dated 16-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.35 to the 2nd respondent Annexure A-11(aj) True copy of the representation dated 25-8-2016 submitted by applicant No.36 to the 2nd respondent Annexure A-11(ak) True copy of the representation dated 17-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.37 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(al) True copy of the representation dated 30-8-2016 submitted by applicant No.38 to the 3rd respondent O.A No.325/2017 29 Annexure A-11(am) True copy of the representation dated 31-8-2016 submitted by applicant No.39 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(an) True copy of the representation dated 31-8-2016 submitted by applicant No.40 to the 3rd respondent Annexure A-11(ao) True copy of the representation dated 15-2-2017 submitted by applicant No.41 to the 3rd respondent Annexure MAI True copy of the Memorandum No.A.13013/1/2017- 1 dated 24-5-2017 issued by the 2nd respondent to the applicants **********