Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri K.P. Tripathi S/O Shri Abhay Ram ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. (The ... on 23 May, 2007
ORDER Neena Ranjan, Member (A)
1. By virtue of this OA, applicant, who is working as Instrument Mechanic in Central Water Commission, Ministry of Water Resources impugns order dated 30.5.2006 passed by respondent No. 4, Director (PCP Directorate) whereby applicant's request for grant of higher scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 has been rejected. In Central Water Commission the post of Instrument Mechanic is in the scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 and minimum qualification provided for this post is Matric plus ITI Certificate with five years experience. As per the Fifth CPC recommendation the post with equal qualification, i.e., the Electricians in Publication Division and Wireless Mechanics in Central Water Commission, Electricians in CPWD, D. Man Grade-III in Central Water Commission are allowed pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000.
2. The facts in brief are that applicant, in spite of several representations, has not been granted pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 in spite of recommendations of Fifth CPC. As per recruitment rules dated 22.4.1988 the under skilled category (sl. No. 5) Mechanic Grade.II cover the following trades:
Mechanics Jr. Mechanics Welder Assistant Mechanic Intercom Mechanic/Instrument Mechanic Workshop Helper
3. All the above tradesmen were awarded the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 except the Intercom Mechanic/Instrument Mechanic. The qualifications for the post of Instrument Mechanic is Matric plus ITI (2 years Diploma) plus seven years experience. The applicant contends that it be noted that Fifth CPC recommended the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to almost all technical persons working in the scale of Rs. 950-1400/1500 and did not recommend Rs. 3050-4590 to any cadre/technical staff. Earlier he had filed an OA No. 774/2005 seeking higher pay scale. The said OA was disposed of with the following directions:
It has not been established before us that the Central Pay Commission or the respondents (the competent authority) had effected comparison of applicant's post with the posts of Instrument Mechanic in other Ministries/Departments and then rejected applicant's claim for parity of pay scale with them. Thus, in our view, the representation of the applicant had not been considered in a comprehensive manner by the impugned order. The impugned order dated 11.2.2005, as such, is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to constitute a Committee of Joint Secretaries of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Department of Personnel and Training and Ministry of Water Resources, to consider and make recommendations within three months on the issue whether the post of Instrument Mechanic in CWC, which is held by the applicant, has the same academic qualifications, experience, duties and responsibilities as those of the post of Instrument Mechanic in various other Departments and Ministries. The competent authority shall then pass detailed and speaking orders on the recommendations of the above said Committee within a further period of three months. It is further directed that the Committee shall consider the present application also as a supplementary representation of the applicant.
4. Applicant has contended that once it is held that the post of Instrument Mechanic has same academic qualification, experience, duties and responsibilities as those of the Instrument Mechanic in various other departments by not granting them the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 is discriminatory.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents Mrs. Harivinder Oberoi, while denying above allegations submits that due to cadre restructuring of work-charged establishment of Central Water Commission, the posts of Intercom Mechanic got merged with the posts of Mechanics, Junior Mechanic, Welder, Assistant Mechanic and Workshop Helper and were grouped and placed under a single category of Mechanic Grade-II in the scale of Rs. 950-1400 granted by Third Pay Commission and Rs. 3050-4590 granted by the Fourth Pay Commission. The post of Instrument Mechanic was equivalent to the post of Intercom Mechanic and was thus merged with the post of Mechanic Grade-II. Accordingly, the applicant was granted First ACP in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000, being the next grade in the hierarchy. His representation on this matter was rejected and he challenged the same by filing OA 774/2005 which was disposed of on 29.11.2005 with the directions reproduced in para 3 above.
6. Respondents also argue that the case of applicant has been considered on merits and it is found that they were rightly placed in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Fifth CPC and also submitted that the duties performed by applicant are quite different from those who are in scale of Rs. 4000-6000 so they cannot seek parity for grant of pay scale. It is to be also noted that applicant is not part of the regular establishment. This is an isolated post and he is only a work charged employee and cannot seek parity with regular employee.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the record and gone through judgments.
8. In the matter of grant of pay scale, Apex Court has clearly held that in the matter of grant of pay scale it is not for the courts or Tribunals to grant higher pay scale as held in Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. :
It is true that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies and not for the courts, but where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same.
xxx xxx xxx xxx It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for, entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of equal pay for equal work would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to be applied to them, AIR 1962 SC 1139, Distinguished.
9. However, in this particular case as seen in para 3, direction in the earlier OA 774/2005 of the Tribunal were that the competent authority should pass a detailed and speaking order on the recommendations of the said Committee on the question of the parity of post of Instrument Mechanic in other Departments/Ministries with regard to their academic qualifications, experience, duties and responsibilities.
10. It is seen from recommendations of the Committee that detailed justification has not been given to show how this post lacks parity in work etc. with other similar ones. A detailed and speaking order on this aspect of needs to be undertaken.
11. In view of the above, OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass such a detailed and speaking order on the question of parity of applicant's post with other similar posts. If such a parity exists then applicant be granted pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 from the date the parity is maintained. This may be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(NEENA RANJAN) (SHANKER RAJU) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh
Without going into the aspect in great detail whether the position of the applicant within the work charged establishment, though on regular basis, as claimed by both sides is less arduous because it is an isolated post and hence there cannot be any parity with any other similar technical posts on regular basis.