Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Amardeep Maruti Ningarppagol vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 3 April, 2019
i O4 No. F31013, $3213, 733135, FIAT & P3813 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAL ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.731/2013 with MA No.961/2013 "OA No.732/2013 with MA 962/2013 OA No.733/2013 with MA 963/2013 "OA No.734/2013 with MA 964/2013 '& OA No.735/2013 with MA 965/2013 Date of Decision: 03.04,2019, CORAM: DR. BHAGWAN SAHAIL MEMBER (A} RN. SINGH, MEMBER (J) Smt. Aditi Vinod Bandre, ' Age 34 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 008.
R/at 4/2 Tata Colony, Khadegolawali (Gaon) Vithalwadi, Kalyan (BE)... Applicant in O4 No. 731/13 Shri Vadukot Jose Justin ~ Age 38 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 008. R/at Riddhi Siddhi Apartment 'A' Wing, 5" Floor, R.No.502, Buisewadi, Thane (W). . a Applicant in OA No.73213 o Shri Santosh Dattatray Yadav, Age 38 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai. R/at Aai Niwas, Jimi Baug, Near Old Jimi Baug, Old Swami Samarth Mandir, Kalyan (East)... Applicant in OA Na. 73393 Smt. Anindita Samir Nandi Age 34 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 068. R/at C3/40, ee Park, Residencey, Near Tulsidham, Thane (W). Lee Applicant in OA No. 734/13 Shri Amardeep Maruti Ningappagol Age 42 years, R/at ESIS Hospital, 16/9 Road No.33, Wagle Estate, Thane a"
2 OANo TRIS, 73203, 733/13, 734013 & 735/13 :
CW), Pin ~ 400 604. .. Applicant in OA Na. 735/13 (By Advacate Shri Vicky Nagrani) VERSUS
1. Secretary Govt. of India, ' Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Moulana Agaz Road, At Post New Delhi 110 O11.
bo Drugs Controller General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan Moulana Agaz Road, At Post New Delhi 110 011. tea Union of India, through Director Incharge, CO Central Drugs Testing Laboratory-Mumbai, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. Medical Store, Department Compound, | Opp. Sahil Hotel, Belasis Road, Mumbai Central, At post Mumbai 400 008.
4. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, At Post New Delhi 110001... Respendents in all the OAs.
(By Advocate Shri NA. Rajpurotut ORDER {Oral} Per: RN. Singh, Menther (2) © Heard Shri V.A. Nagrani, learned counsel for the Applicants and Shri WN.K. g pe a. In ali the aforesaid five CAs yrited LO under Section Lo OF the Aaminist.xr ative tribunals Act, L885. The applicants are admittedly Similarly placed inasmuch as at 3 td Now 731) $3, $3293, P3313, P3813 & F353 by, they have been working as Junior Lab Assistant (7LA} a Group 'dD! post under the respondents and all of them have been aggrieved of the same/similar orders dated:
18.05.2012, 22.02.2012, -- 30.12.2011 and 13.07.2012 (Annex Ani (a) ;An1(b), A-it{c} & A-
i{a} and the aforesaid applicants have prayed for the following reliefs in the respective OAs:~ .
"Sap This Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to call for the records af the case regarding implementation of recommendation of Mh Pay Commission above Lab Asstt. Ministry of Health and FW and pass orders uphalding that applicants are entitled to similar benefits.
&b} Ouash and set aside letter & decisions proposal dated 18.05,2012, 22.2.2012, 36.11.2011, {3.72012 and Alfa), Alf), Alte} & Al(d) respectively, &.c)} Hold and declare that withholding af benefits to applicants although same granted to Lab Assistant in CIPL NICD NMEP is discri iminalory, S.d} Be further graciously pleased ta allow the OA and direct respondents to extend all he nets granted by Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench order is OA No.1935/2005 to CIPL Lab Assistant WP challenging it dismissed by Hon'ble High Court, Delhi) within 3 months with all consequential benefits such as arrears, affixation of pay, rectification af pay conferential in further grades.
&e} Hold and declare that non extending of similar benefits to similarly placed person is discriminatary.
af Direct respondents £0 consider representations sent by applicants on 17.12.2008 4 OA No, P3LG3, P3203, PIRATE, P3813 & FISTS (Ext. AL) within 2 months by issuing speaking and reasoned arder.
8.2) Any other and such further reliefis} as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal S.A Cost ofc an be saddled on respondents and paid to applicant.
a. With the consent of the parties, all the aforesaid OAs are being disposed of by a common order, However, OA No.?3L/2013 has been taken as a lead case by the learned counsels for the parties and accordingly the facts are being taken from the pleadings in OA BS Oo, P3L/2013..
4, The precise facts of the case(s} are noted as under;
4 he Apolicants were holding Technical Posts i.e. the post of Junior Lab Assistant feo a beg the Central Brug Testing Laboratory, Mumbai under the Ministry of Health. This litigation inasmuch te eet fe Low. ' aye eed ae 3 2 LS TNS Secmrra Found Of "
as in the first round of litigation, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by os 3 wo : ' : ' om A ' 4 ~. Py filing respective OAs i.a. OA Nos. 3230/2 ay , : fy "> fo PN 331/200, B32 /2008, S33/2009 & 3334/2009 undexr Section 1¢ of the Acministrative ©@ Paes =! : sooas a he _ ere Tribunals Act, 1885 and the same Serr : ; ey * se Ay sea Sadak Aakers disposed of by a common order/Judgmant dated 3 OA No P3113, 732093, 733/13, $3413 & FI33 14.07.2010 (Annex. RJ 20). The relevant portion of the order / Judgment dated 14.07.2010 reads as under:
"3. ot ty alse brought to our notice by the learned counsel for applicants that the respondents have eanstituted Anomalies Committee ta resolve the whole issue and submits that a suitable direction be given fo the respondents to treat the present OAs as representations within the meaning of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and place the same before the Anomalies Committee for proper appreciation of the grievances oF the applicants,
4. The learned counsel for applicants has alse brought to our notice order dated 11.07.2006 passed by Division Bench of this Tribunal, sitting at the Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA No. 1935/05 -- (Sanjay Kumar & 8 others Vs. Union of India & Ors.) wherein similar issue had been raised by Laboratary Assistants w orking at CiPL, Ghaziabad and they have been granted similar benefit of pay revision based on the recommendations of the F) ith Central Pay Commission. The applicants are also similarly situated and, therefore, cannot be discriminated against.
3. After hearing the learned counsel of parties and perusing the pleadings, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be- met if direction is given to the respondents to place the case of the applicant before the Anomalies Committee and to expeditiously take flnal decision in respect of their grievance (applicants) taking into consideration the present OAs by treating the 3 same as a representation, within the meaning of Section 20 af the Administrative Tribunals dct, 1985. Final decision to be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a capy af 'this order.
a Needless ta say, while considering the above said representations and the OAs af the applicants, the Anomalies Committee will also taken' into consideration the fudgment of the Principal Beneh in OA 1935/03 (supra) and a al so the fact thet & G4 No. FELIS, 732683, PIRIS, P3813 & FIDE the said judgment has been implemented by the respondents in respect of Laboratory Assistants working at CIPL, Ghaziabad. in ease the . applicants are still aggrieved, in any manner, by the decision taken by the respondents in thetr respective cases, they will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in aceardance with law.
6, With the above said directions and observations, all the five Ods stand dispased of leaving the parties to bear their awn costs."
5. Prom the aforesaid, it is evident that the Tribunal had reiied upon. the i order/fudgment dated 11.07.2006 of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1935/2005, titled Sanjay Kumar & 8 Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. The relevant portion of the order/judgment dated 21.07.2006 in Sanjay Kumar (supra) reads as under:
2 dtis trite law that equals cannot be treated unequally. This will vielate the principle of equality -
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Merely because there had been delay in approaching the respondents would not render the continuous cause of action of grant of pay and allowances as redundant. We find that there is no reasonable justification to deny the pay scale from 1.1.96 when if hax been extended to all those whe are similarly circumstanced. We alsa note that recommendation of the 3° CPC are accepted by all the Ministries and Departments yet the department situated in the same Ministry is denying the benefits to the applicants and ultimately they have to' approach for extension of benefit, which is unfortunate.
3, In the result, we find that extending the benefit front 19.4.2008 and withholding from 1.1.96 cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly, OA is © 7 O4 Nos hel 3, P3203, 733/13, 734/13 & T3513 partly allowed. Impugned order is set aside to the extent that the benefit af pay af Rs.4000-6000 from 19.4.2005 has been extended. Respondents are directed ta accord to the applicants the pay scale of Rs.4060-6000 wef LLG6 with arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a capy of this order. No casts."
6. Tt is admitted fact that . the order/dudgment dated 11.07.2006 of =the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Sanjay Kumar (supra) attained finality inasmuch 4s the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by dismissing the WP(¢) No. 1873/2007 vide order/ judgment dated Bh oo tas hy 4 oe ot ow O07 in the case of Secretary, Government of India & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. f{Annex.RJ-9) and the same has furthe x been implemented by the respondents as could be evident from the office order dated 11.06.2007.
7. The grievances of the applicants in the present aforesaid GAs are that theugh in compliance of the directions of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Sanjay Kumar fsupra), the respondents have qranted cale of Rs. 4000-6000 toa ct eg! as) th he benefit of Pay the applicants Sanjay Kumar (supra) from different dates as applicable in the case of g OA No. P3213, 232/73, 733 Ta, O94 LS & P3393 - . the respective applicants, however, keeping in view the fact that the Pay Scale of Rs. 4500-1 o-6000_ has heen made applicable
2. f. G2.04.1996. However, in coinpl tance o£ the directions of this Tribunal in common sft order/judgment dat ed 14.07.2019 in the OAs filed ky the present applicants, the respondents have granted the Pay 'Scale of Rs.4000-100-6600 to the present applicants © only w.e.f. O1.02,.2006 vide arder dated | 30.11.2011 and therefore they have - been discriminated inasmuch they are similarly placed as the applicants in Sanjay Kumar (supra) and in spite of directions of this Tribunal in the common order/judgment dated 14.07 G, the applicants in the present = 20 he 9 OAs have not been placed in the correct Pay Scale w.e.f. the correct date 2.8. w.s.f. this Tribunal, the respondents have filed additional affidavit dated O1.01.2015, Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the ean at ' naples ye respondents submits that the impug med orders a 8 OA No. F313, 732/93, 733" 13 PINS & PISS are apt in Law. | Re further submits that the present applicants have not been granted the benefit of Pay Scale of Rs .4000-100-6000 [email protected]. O1.01.1996 and have been granted. w.e.f. O1.01.2006 for the reason that the applicants had neith raised the issue of anomaly before the Department not they nade any representation hefore the 5" cpe, He further submits that the applicants who have >", been working as Junicr Lab Assistant in- Central Drug Testing Laboratory, Mumbai are holding technical post4 and were performing the same nature oF duties and hold responsibility -- arid they are Similarly situated employees as the applicants in Sanjay Kumar (supra).
ir a. We have gone through the relevant pleadings and have considered the riva contentions, We have egain gone through the order/judgment dated Ll.O7,2006 of the ry oF ce) 3 be ty D ma rc oy QO rh ct ny fet if rd . "
55
ot in Sanjay Kumar (supra) as well as the CoTAMoOT ordex/judgment dated 14.07.2010 of this 'Bench and we find thah the respondents have not taken the defence that the benefits LG O4 No. ?4L73, 732443, $33693, 73413 & 735/13 cannot be granted te the applicants therein cr for the reason that they have not raised the it issue before the department or before the 5° CPC. Similariy ain the aforesaid common order/judgment dated 14.07.2016, a clear iT He ct O rt ® Ke direction was giv ondents to lace the matter before the Anomalies if i Committee and therefore lt was not incumbent upon the present applicants to raise the matter before the Anomalies Committee, before the 5** CPC or before the department.
Moreover, once it is admitted case that the present applicants are fully identical Rg and Similar nO Sanjay Kumar (supra) | such + technical objections raised by the respondents are not sustainable in the ayes of law.
10. The Applicants have also filed application seeking condonation of delay and tne applicants submit that the aforesaid OAs have been filed a few days beyond the period of Limitation i.@. one year from the date of of 'benefit of judgment which has already Y cr Tt a ts G Gn mh 3 my pe ee ct het i ag) 633 rs ro o % Cs © S a % rh QD re ct a ® LL O4 No. F3RI3, 732413, P3313, PRET & PISS applicants further argues that the extensi on of benefit of judgment should have been given to the applicants by the respondents at their own without compelling the applicants to approach this Tribunal again by the present OAS more particularly in view or the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.cC. Sharma Vs. Union of India, 1998 (1) ATSLI S54, Learned counsel for the applicants further arques that the issue in the present OA is about fixation of pay in the right pay scale and from the date From which the same has been granted to similariy a placed persons and on account of grant of Pay from the wrong date, the applicants are my ct 65 8 v o Ke re a iD fe be arn 6% suffering recurring los OAS are within limitation, however, the respective applications have been filed by a -
the applicants sseking comdonation of delay ey oF iTe aS @ matter of akundant precaution. delay is admittedly of around two months . $+ SS However, it is also found that no repli filed to such MAs by the respondents and hence in the facts and circumstances, the aforesaid MAs are allowed and the delay din $2 OA No. 730/13, 73203, P9313, 734613 & 733013 ways gs ; as : _ Tiliing of the respective OAs age condoned. id. in view of the aforesaid, the OAs are partly allowed with the following directions;
{i} The Respondents are directa to pass necessary order(s} to grant the Pay Scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 to the applicants from ~y i996 in place of w.e.f. O1.01.2006 as C3 peek » o> } t s ig ranted to the similarly placed persons in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) with all consequential benefits L.@. ayment of *Ch arrears.
(44) The Respondents are directed ~ te complete the aforesaid exercise within twelve weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order. . © ia. In the facts and circumstances, no (RN. Singh) (Dr. Bhagwan Sahai) Member (3) Member (A) Nt.
ye el4