Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rajinder Kaur L.H.V. W/O Balbir Singh vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 9 December, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA. No. 060/00376/2014
(Reserved on 20.11.2014)
Chandigarh, this the 9th day of December, 2014
CORAM:HONBLE MRS.RAJWANT SANDHU,MEMBER(A)
HONBLE DR. BRAHM A.AGRAWAL,MEMBER(J)
1. Rajinder Kaur L.H.V. W/o Balbir Singh, House No. 3, Dayal Bagh, Near Hanuman Mandir, Ambala Cantt.
2. Pushpinder Kaur L.H.V. W/o Jaswinder Singh, House No. 1874/2, Nahan House, Near Krishanmandir, Ambala Cantt.
Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. State of Haryana, Health and Family Welfare Department, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh through its Commissioner-cum-Secretary.
3. Director General Health Services, Sector 6, Panchkula.
4. Deputy Commissioner Cum President, District Red Cross Society, Ambala.
5. Secretary, District Red Cross Society, Ambala.
..Respondents
Present: Ms. Sangita Dhanda, counsel for the applicant.
None for respondent No.1.
Sh.Dhirender Shukla,counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3.
Sh. K.K. Gupta, counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5.
ORDER
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER(A):-
1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
(i) Issuance of a direction to respondent No. 4 and 5 to grant service benefit of pay fixation under 6th Pay Commission to the applicant as she is fully eligible for the same.
(ii) Issuance of a direction to respondents No. 4 and 5 to grant service benefit of ACP 1st and ACP 2nd grade to the applicant as she has already put in more than 33 years of service and she is fully eligible for the same.
2. The background of the matter is that the applicant No. 1 was appointed as Lady Health Visitor (LHV) in Family Welfare Planning Centre, Ambala Cantt. in the grade of 140-6-170/8-210/10-250 plus usual allowances against a vacant post by District Red Cross Society in the regular pay scale vide appointment letter dated 26.09.1979. Applicant No. 2 was appointed as ANM under District Red Cross Society, Ambala in the regular pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-4800-EB-100-6000 plus usual allowances against a vacant post by District Red Cross Society vide appointment letter dated 25.1.2002. The applicants were appointed by the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Secretary, District Branch of Indian Red Cross Society Ambala for their Family Welfare Planning Centre, Ambala . The applicants joined the services of respondent on the express terms and conditions to the effect that all Rules (including that of leave and salary) applicable are the same as applicable to the Haryana Government employees. The respondent Society vide their Resolution No. 5 dated 07.07.1970 (Annexure A-3) had specifically resolved/accepted that all benefits of salary (including pay revision), leave would be given to the employees of the Red Cross Society as are available to the employees under Haryana Government.
3. Averment has been made in the OA that the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Director General Health Services, Haryana, Panchkula vide Memo No. 31/1 counter FW-04/1532 dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure A-4) was pleased to allow the ACP Scales to all the employees of The District Red Cross Society, Ambala as per ACP rules, 1998 with effect from 01.01.1998. So much so the matter regarding the pay scale was considered before the Executive Committee meeting held on 01.08.2001 under the chairmanship of the then President, District Red Cross Society, Ambala. It was decided in the meeting that keeping in view the welfare of the employees of District Red Cross Society, Ambala, ACP scales would be provided to all the employees of District Red Cross Society, Ambala.
4. It is further stated that on 01.09.2005, one employee namely Raj Kumari ANM of Family Welfare Centre of Ambala under District Red Cross Society, Ambala filed a Civil Suit claiming arrears of her ACP scales w.e.f. 01.01.1998 to the date of her superannuation. This suit was decreed in her favour vide order dated 07.06.2006 (Annexure A-5) and defendants were directed to pay all arrears of her ACP scales w.e.f. 1.1.1998 to 31.5.2004 the date of her retirement along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date it became due till its realization. Both the applicants were granted the monetary benefits of pay revision upto 5th Pay commission and they have been granted annual increments regularly. Despite clear and specific Rules and instructions granting benefits of Assured Career Progression (AC) Scheme, applicants have been denied the same till date. The similarly situated employees of District Red Cross Society are getting the same benefits. The applicants had sent at least 11 representations (two copies of representastions dated 17.9.2012 are annexed as Annexure A-6 collectively). As no action was taken on the representations of the applicants, they filed OA No. 1469/CH/2013 before the CAT Chandigarh Bench which was decided vide order dated 29.10.2013 and the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the applicants within a period of two months (Annexure A-8). Ultimately, the impugned order dated 13.2.2014 was passed by the respondents. Hence this OA.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, it has been stated that respondents implemented the National Family Welfare Programme in their State in public interest. The answering respondents after receiving the grant in aid from Union of India, respondent No. 1, allocated the same to District Red Cross Societies on the basis of their achievements. The applicants are working in Urban Family Welfare Centre. These Centres are being run with 100% grant from Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare through Director General Health Services, Haryana, respondent No. 3. The matter regarding granting the benefits of ACP and 6th Pay Commission was considered by the Government of India. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi vide their letter No. 12012 dated 17th June, 2009 conveyed as follows:-
promotion of any kind cannot be granted to the staff working in Urban Family Welfare Centres/Urban Health Posts run by voluntary organizations/NGO under National Family Welfare Programme.
It is further informed that the recommendations of 6th CPC are not applicable to the staff working in UFWC/UHP run by Voluntary Organizations/NGO running UFWC/UHP under National Family Welfare Programmes.
It is also informed that Government of India reserves the right to change or modify the nature, scope and pattern of salary, staffing and funding of the existing UFWCs/UHPs run by Vol. Organization/NGOs at any point of time. Moreover, the Civil Suit of Smt. Bhagwati, who was working as ANM in Family Planning Centre, Ambala Cantt. was dismissed on 20.9.2012. The operative part of decision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
the defendant has placed on record the instruction Ex.D2 (the letter No. 12012 dated 17th June, 2009 mentioned above) issued by Government of India to the Director General Health Services whereby specific directions have been issued by the Government of India to the Director General Health Services Haryana that promotion of any kind of recommendation of 6th CPC i.e. grant of ACP scales are not applicable to the staff working in the Urban Family Welfare Centre run by Voluntary Organization/NGOs. As such, the defendant organization would be covered under these instructions as the plaintiff has failed to show the defendant organization as a Government organization and not a voluntary organization. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for the grant of ACP scales and the benefits of 6th Pay Commission. Hence, the impugned order dated 13.2.2014 was passed in accordance with the rule of law, which is sustainable in the eyes of law.
6. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 4 & 5, it has been stated that both the applicants are working in Urban Family Welfare Centres which are being run with 100% grant from the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare which is received through the Director General Health Services, Haryana. The District Red Cross Society, Ambala is only the implementing agency of the said programme of the Central Government. Whatever grant is received from the Ministry, the expenditure on account of manpower deployed in the said Centres and other expenditure for running the Centres is met within the scope of the said grant. Separate accounts of these centres are maintained with regard to the receipt of grant and the expenditure being met out of the same. The District Red Cross Society, Ambala has no budgetary provision for meeting such expenses over and above the grant received from the Government of India for running such centres .
7. No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the applicants.
8. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard when they reiterated the content of the OA and the written statement respectively.
9. It is seen that similar claim for ACP benefit and Sixth Pay Commissions pay scales has been decided through order dated 2.12.2014 in OA No. 060/00375/2014 titled Permil Lata & Ors. Vs. UOI the operative portion whereof is as follows:-
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. Order dated 20.3.2009 in CWP No. 18396 of 2007 titled as Resurgence India Vs. UOI which has been referred in the impugned order dated 20.2.2014 is very relevant. In the order of 20.2.2014, it has been stated that persons appointed in the Family Welfare Centres run by the District Red Cross Society are paid from 100% grant-in-aid given by State Government. The Red Cross Society is only the medium to hand over the 100% grant given by the Government of India/State Government for the salaries of the employees of the Family Welfare Centres. Hence, it is clear that the staff of the Family Welfare Centres cannot have any additional claim against the District Red Cross Society. Further, directions have been given to the Red Cross Societies as a sequel to decision in CWP No. 18396 of 2007 that the District Red Cross Societies in Haryana are to stop all projects to generate income through them and they are not to take in hand any such projects for which no grants are received for generating income for the Society. Hence, in the present case, the salaries of the staff of the Welfare Centres cannot be supplemented by the District Red Cross Society itself. Besides, since the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India has clearly conveyed vide letter dated 17.6.2009 that the staff working in the Family Welfare Centres are not entitled to promotions or the 6th Central Pay Commission scales of pay and it is also seen that in the past when the quantum of grant was reduced, some of the staff had to be retrenched and they were taken back in service without the period of retrenchment being paid for in any manner, it must be concluded that the persons working in the Family Welfare Centres are only entitled to wage payments as per the norms fixed under the National Family Welfare Programme and any claim beyond this cannot be accepted. We also note that the FWCs are funded by Government of India and the funds are channelized through the State Government and then the District Red Cross Societies.
16. Hence, we conclude that the case law cited on behalf of the applicants is not material to the claim of the applicants in the present case. While the employees of the District Red Cross Society are entitled to benefit of Resolution No. 5 dated 7.7.1970 (Annexure P-2) and letter of DGHS Haryana dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure A-5), a claim for similar benefit by the applicants who are employees of the Family Welfare Centres being run by DRCS, a voluntary organization, under the National Family Welfare Programme is not maintainable keeping in view the content of letter No. 12012 dated 17.6.2009. Obviously therefore, the applicants cannot claim anything beyond the scope of the grant in aid released by Government of India under the National Family Welfare Programme.
10. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the claim in the present OA is rejected. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU)
MEMBER(A)
(DR. BRAHM A.AGRAWAL)
MEMBER(J)
Dated: December , 2014.
ND*
1
OA. 060/00376/2014