Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sudarsan Pramanik vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 16 February, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.2599/2008 This the 16th day of February 2010 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) 1. Sudarsan Pramanik s/o Shri A G Pramanik working as Tracer in Rifle Factory, Ishapore (WB) 2. Sanjeev Narayan Khamari s/o late Sh Shree Nivash Khamari working as Tracer in Ordnance Factory Badmal, Distt. Bolangir (Orissa) 3. Siddheshwar Chhatria s/o Sh Krushna Chandra Chhatria working as Tracer in Ordnance Factory Badmal, Distt. Bolangir (Orissa) 4. Dilip Shripati Patole s/o Sh Shirpati Vishnu Patole working as Tracer in Ordnance Factory, Dehu Road 5. Budha Ram Wadhai s/o Shri Bhiwaji Wadhai working as Tracer in Ordnance Factory, Chandrapur (MS) ..Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence South Block, New Delhi 2. The Secretary Ministry of Defence Department of Defence Production & Supplies Govt. of India, South Block, New Delhi 3. The Chairman ordnance Factory Board 10-A Shaheed Khudiram Bose Road Kolkatta ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri VSR Krishna) O R D E R
Shri Shanker Raju:
Tracers in Ordnance Factory Organization under Ministry of Defence have challenged impugned order dated 27.5.2003 whereby clarification dated 25.11.1997 as to non-existence of seven years qualifying service for grant of revised pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 from the date of appointment as Tracer w.e.f. 13.5.1982 with benefits has been denied to the applicants.
2. Applicants, who are direct recruit Tracers, are working in Ordnance Factory. Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence vide order dated 15.9.1995 decided to revise the pay scale of Tracer on the basis of award of Board of Arbitrator placing them from the pay scale of Rs.975-1540 to Rs.1200-2040 and minimum period of service with placement was seven years. However, on 25.11.1997, a decision has been taken to the effect that Tracers re-designated as Draftsman Grade III as per Govt. of Indias order dated 15.9.1995 and yet to be placed in Draftsman Grade III due to non-completion of the length of service as per para 4 (a) of the letter dated 15.9.1995, can be straightaway placed in the scale of Rs.4000-6000 but with a condition that they should be directly recruited as Tracers with a qualification of matric + 2 years diploma in Draftsmanship or equivalent as per the recruitment rules.
3. However, on 20.4.1999, Ministry of Defence placed the Tracers in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with seven years of service on the date of which of the order, which was challenged before the Madras Bench of this Tribunal in OA-1214/1996. The revised scales were granted w.e.f. 13.5.1982 or on completion of seven years of service as Tracer, whichever is later, vide Ministry of Defence circular dated 27.5.2003. As a fall out, compliance of order dated 27.5.2003, applicants were granted revised scale on completion of seven years of service as Tracer on 10.8.1991.
4. Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for applicants has a grievance that whereas the addendum-2 dated 25.11.1997, which has done-away with the requirement of seven years of service, was not made part of the earlier order, for which representation preferred was not disposed of.
5. Learned counsel for applicants stated that in the matter of pay scale, no limitation is attracted, as the matter was under consideration and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Dev Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi & others (OA-104/2008) decided on 17.11.2008.
6. Learned counsel further contended that having complied with the conditions laid down in circular dated 27.11.1997, they have to be given the revised pay scale from the date of their appointment or w.e.f. 13.5.1982, whichever is later but not from the date of completion of seven years of service. It is stated that clarification when issued is deemed as part of the original circular of 1995. As such, the circular issued on 20.4.1999, which has been set aside only with respect to its being given effect to from retrospective effect by the Court, as confirmed by the Apex Court, yet 2003 order has not taken into consideration this aspect.
7. On the other hand, Shri V S R Krishna, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that the applicants are seeking quashing of the order issued in the year 2003 by filing an application in 2008 is highly belated and is not tenable under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
8. Learned counsel would also contend that order dated 25.11.1997 would only apply when an option has been exercised by erstwhile Tracers, which is a dying cadre to be merged as Draftsman Grade III. As the applicants, despite giving option, have not exercised, the same would not apply to them.
9. Learned counsel stated that SRO of Ordinance Factory did not have the grade structure as Draftsman as prevalent in other Government Departments. As such, the clarification is not applicable to them. It is stated that the order issued in 2003 is in compliance of order of Apex Court and as seven years of service has been made as a condition precedent in OM dated 20.4.1999, applicants have been rightly accorded the pay scale. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the OA.
10. Learned counsel for applicants in rejoinder stated that no option was extended to them for being merged in Draftsman Grade III and the orders issued from time to time, including order dated 27.5.2003, were not implemented in case of qualified Tracers but were implemented in Draftsman cadre. However, these were implemented to the qualified Tracer equating them with Draftsman Grade III. It is stated that Tracer post has not become isolated as Draftsman is the promotional post of Tracer and Draftsmen were re-designated as Chargeman Grade II (Technical).
11. Learned counsel stated that in CA Nos.2125-33/1993, the Apex Court ruled that Tracer and Draftsman of Ordnance Factories had all along been treated as equivalent to Draftsman Grades III and II respectively of CPWD. SRO 14 (E) of 1989 pursuant to an award substantiates this contention.
12. Learned counsel alleges discrimination by referring to Ministry of Defence, like DGQA and other Govt. organizations where the three grade structure of Draftsman was in vogue, which is not applied in the Ordnance Factory.
13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
14. Ministry of Defence as a general order on 15.9.1995 decided to revise the pay scale of Draftsman Grades I, II and III on the basis of OM of 19.10.1994 on an award. It has also been decided to extend CPWD pay scales to Draftsman in all categories and this has been followed in this OM on a Presidential decision to revise the category of Tracer and Draftsman on any designation and also the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 with a revised designation as Draftsman Grade III. The minimum eligibility period was laid down as seven years in case of Tracer and the placement was automatic.
15. However, as despite option in other institutions under Ministry of Defence where the three grade structure of Draftsman was in vogue, those Tracers, who have been re-designated as Draftsman Grade III as per OM dated 15.9.1995 and are yet to be placed in Grade III due to non-completion of length of service, revised scale was to be allowed to them without insisting on seven years of service but admissible only to the directly recruited Tracers with qualification. This was an addendum, which was to be read as part of Ministry of Defence orders dated 15.9.1995 and 11.11.1997. However, another decision of the Defence Ministry on 20.4.1999 when extended the revised pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with three years of service in pre-revised scale, this addendum was not superceded and as a result, in this order of Ministry of Defence seven years of service in pre-revised pay scale was added. The aforesaid OM was challenged before the Madras Bench of the Tribunal and the date of extension of revised pay scale was not antedated from 13.5.1982 or completion of seven years of service as Tracer vide order dated 27.5.2003. Though the Tribunal has not at all gone into this aspect of the matter or eligibility, as the addendum was not before them, yet the respondents while implementing the revised pay scale to the Tracer in Ordnance Factory insisted on seven years of service in the grade, which has already been done-away with vide addendum dated 25.11.1997. It is trite that a clarification of an administrative decision would relate back and apply retrospectively, i.e., from the date of Ministry of Defence letter of 1995, as ruled by the Apex Court in S.B. Bhattacharjee Vs. S.D. Majumdar & others, (2007) 10 SCC 513.
16. In the above view of the matter, the preliminary objection with regard to limitation, as per the decision of the coordinate Bench in Dev Sharmas case (supra) where the Tribunal ruled that when all through the cases of the applicants have been considered and were never rejected, would have no application. In the instant case, the decision of 2003 when assailed by way of representation, no reply has come forth. Being a continuing wrong on revision of pay scale on higher side, the objection stands overruled.
17. As regards the option given to the applicants, it has been specifically denied that such an option has been extended, as in Ordnance Factory the grade structure of Draftsman did not exist. As such, as per the decision of Apex Court (supra), once the Tracer and Draftsman are treated at par in all respects, giving option or re-designation as Draftsman would not be material and the decision of the Ministry of Defence dated 25.11.1997 would have applicability in the case of the applicants.
18. Resultantly, we allow this OA with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicants for grant of revised pay scale from the date of their appointment or w.e.f. 13.7.1982, whichever is later, with arrears by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/