Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Shri K.Venkatamuni Reddy vs The Secretary (Rep. Uoi) on 20 February, 2009
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: HYDERABAD BENCH:
HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.314 OF 2006
DATE OF ORDER: 20th FEBRUARY, 2009
BETWEEN:
SHRI K.VENKATAMUNI REDDY,
S/o K.Venkatraya Reddy,
Aged 59 years,
Lab. Assistant (Physics Department),
Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1,
Tirupati 517 507.
.. APPLICANT
AND
1. The Secretary (rep. UOI),
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
(Department of Secondary & Higher Eduction),
Government of India, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001,
2. The Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi 110 016,
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan,
Hyderabad Region, Picket,
Secunderabad 500 009,
4. The Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1,
Ramnagar Area,
Tirupati 517 507.
RESPONDENTS
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr. S.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Mr.M.C.Jacob, for
Mr.B.Narasimha Sarma, SC for KVS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. BHARATI RAY, MEMBER (JUDL.)
HON'BLE MR. HRIDAY NARAIN, MEMBER (ADMN.)
ORDER
(PER HON'BLE SHRI HRIDAY NARAIN, MEMBER (ADMN.) This OA has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:-
(i) To call for the records pertaining to the fixation of pay of the applicant and the inaction on the part of the respondents to grant Senior Scale and Selection Grade Scales of Pay to the Laboratory Assistants including the applicant, as the Laboratory Assistants were already treated on par with the teaching staff and declare that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not deciding the status of the Laboratory Assistants duly granting the requisite scales of pay, as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and for extraneous considerations and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(ii) To direct the respondents to grant the Senior Scale and Selection Grade scales of pay, as was granted to the teaching staff and as recommended by the Vth Centra; Pay Commission (CPC) vide para 104.62 of the Report, re-designating the Laboratory Assistants as Laboratory Technicians Grade-II and further Grade-I after completion of five years of service; and
(iii) To further direct the respondents to treat the difference of pay of Rs.60/- which was ignored while fixing the pay of the applicant, as personal pay adjustable in further fixation of pay and grant arrears of pay correspondingly; with all consequential benefits.
2. The applicant states that he is working as Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry Department) in Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Tirupati since 1966. He passed Intermediate and was attending to Physics practical classes for Classes IX, X, XI and XII. Originally, the pay scale of Laboratory Assistants was Rs.290-500, which was revised later to Rs.330-10-EB-380-15-500-EB-15-530 with the revision of corresponding selection grade scale to Rs.530-20-610, as per the orders of Ministry of Education dated 3.3.1983. The minimum qualification for the post of Laboratory Assistant was also revised from Matriculation with Science to Intermediate/Senior Secondary with Science.
3. The applicant states that the 2nd respondent issued communication dated 27.3.1981 addressed to the All India Non-Teaching Association to the effect that while Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), New Delhi has classified Laboratory Assistants as Non-teaching posts in the Sangathan, the category of Lab. Assistants had always been considered by the Government of India as a necessary adjunct to the various teaching posts and that their scales were revised from time to time along with the teaching staff. The Regional Office of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bangalore vide letter dated 6.3.1996 indicated the categories that form part of teaching staff in which the cadre of Lab. Assistant was also included.
4. The applicant further states that the National Commission on Teachers headed by Prof. D.P.Chattopadhyaya had recommended revision of pay scales and service conditions of teachers working in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan all over India in the year 1986. In the course of implementation, the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi published certain clarifications on 3.11.1987.
5. Based on the clarifications made by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), vide Point-9 of their letter dated 3.11.1987, the Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 31.5.1990 addressed to the General Manager, Ordinance Factory, Kanpur had clearly ordered that the Laboratory Assistants working and included in the SRO-199, are treated as Teaching Staff and the Laboratory Assistants are also made eligible to get the benefit as recommended by the Pay Commission. Similar benefits to the Laboratory Assistants working in the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Mines were also extended, whereas inspite of the recommendations made by the Vth CPC, the KVS had not acted upon.
6. The applicant further states that the Rashtriya Kendriya Vidyalaya Adyapak Sangh, Madras Region filed Writ Petition No.10764 of 1989 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which was disposed vide judgment dated 5.3.1990 directing the Commissioner, KVS, New Delhi to consider the representation of the petitioner therein taking note of the fact that one other wing of the Government of India i.e., the Ordnance Factory, had given the benefit of teaching allowance to the Laboratory Assistants as per the recommendations of the Prof. D.P.Chatopadhyaya Pay Commission. The Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education vide its orders dated 12.4.1990 decided to sanction teaching allowance of Rs.100/- per month with effect from 1.1.1986 to the Laboratory Assistants also.
7. On implementation of the IV CPC report, the scale of the Laboratory Assistants has been prescribed as Rs.1200-2040 plus 100/- Teaching Allowance. The Ordinance Factory, vide its order dated 31.5.1990, granted the scale of pay of Rs.1200-2040 plus Rs.100/- Teaching Allowance to the Laboratory Assistants and the scale of pay i.e., Senior Scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600 plus Rs.100/- Teaching Allowances in accordance with the provisions of Ministry of Defence O.M. dated 2.2.1989. Some of the Laboratory Assistants in Bangalore filed W.P.No.6903-6913 of 1990 seeking thle grade of Senior Scale and the Selection Grade scales of pay to the Laboratory Assistants, which was disposed vide order dated 26.9.1996 directing the respondents therein to consider the representations filed by the petitioners therein for grant of selection grade scales of pay in accordance with law and in accordance with the Government orders. It was ordered that the applicants therein be allowed the benefits that are applicable to the selection grade posts.
8. It is stated that consequent on the implementation of the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission contained in Part-C, the equivalent scale of Rs.120030-1560-40--2040 of the applicant was revised to Rs.4000-100-6000. Consequently, the applicant had reached the maximum of the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 at the very first day of the implementation of the Vth Pay Commission scales. However, the applicant's pay was fixed at Rs.6000/- as on 1.1.1996 as against the pay drawn by him at Rs.6060/- prior to implementation of the Vth CPC, as the applicant had already reached the maximum in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 drawing the pay at Rs.6060/-. The applicant states that in such a situation, it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to protect the pay of the applicant treating the difference as personal pay. But, contrary to the rule, the excess pay of Rs.60/- drawn by the applicant was ignored and the pay of the applicant was fixed at Rs.6000/- only ignoring the actual pay drawn at Rs.6060/-. The applicant has been drawing stagnation increments only @ Rs.100/- in the year 1998, 2000 and 2002 and is presently drawing a pay of Rs.6300/- as on date.
9. The applicant contends that prior to the implementation of the Vth Pay Commission scales, the Primary Teachers and the Laboratory Assistants were having the same scale i.e., Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040. But the Vth Pay Commission has created an artificial and unwarranted imbalance in the situation by proposing higher scale to Primary Teachers in the scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 and Rs.4000-100-6000 to Laboratory Assistants.
10. The applicant states that the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education introduced revised Senior Scale and Selection grade Scales of pay to Primary Teachers vide its order dated 4.4.2002 retaining the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 at entry level and Rs.5500-175-9000 (as against Rs.5000-150-8000) as Senior Scale and Rs.6500-200-10500 (as against Rs.5500-175-9000) as Selection Grade. But at the same time, the Government ignored the justified demands of the Laboratory Assistants who are virtually suffering with stagnation of pay at the very first day of implementation of Vth Pay Commission, as in the case of the applicant.
11. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents to grant Senior Scale and Selection Grade Scale on par with Primary Teachers, the applicant submitted several representations on 5.12.2001, 17.7.2002, 9.7.2003, 25.11.2003 and 31.12.2003 to the 2nd respondent for which there was no response. Hence, the present OA.
12. One of the grounds urged by the applicant is that the Vth Pay Commission had not considered the situations and anomaly of the nature as contended by the applicant in the cadre of Laboratory Assistants, and had unsettled the settled equality in pay between the Primary Teachers and Laboratory Assistants who were in the scale of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 till the recommendations of the IVth Pay Commission.
13. The applicant states that he is suffering with stagnation at the maximum of scale at Rs.6000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 from the first day of implementation of Vth Pay Commission i.e., from 1.1.1996 for no fault of him and had drawn only stagnation increment at the rate of Rs.100/- for the years 1998, 2000 and 2002 and is drawing the pay at Rs.6,300/- only as on date, since the implementation of Vth Pay Commission scales.
14. It is stated that the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and the Government of India have repeatedly promised to consider the case of the applicant and the similarly situated officials for implementation of the Senior Scale and the Selection Grade scales of pay since 1997 but have miserably failed to bring them into effect. The inaction on the part of the respondents had resulted in financial loss and humiliation and miscarriage of justice towards the applicant.
15. The applicant has further stated that he is treated as Teaching Staff for the purpose of payment of teaching allowances, for the purpose of duties and responsibilities and for the purpose of recognition of service associations, whereas for the purpose of scales of pay, implementation of senior scale and selection grade scales of pay, he was treated differently, which is discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
16. The respondents have filed reply statement on 25.7.2006 stating that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan is an autonomous organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 and fully financed by the Government of India. There are 933 Kendriya Vidyalayas and they cater to the educational needs of children of transferable Central Government Employees and Defence personnel. The KVS functions through its General Body called the Sangathan, its executive committee called the Board of Governors and other committees. The Chairman of the KVS is the Minister of HRD and the Minister of State is the Deputy Chairman. The Board of Governors i.e., executive body through which it discharges its responsibilities to fulfill the objectives set forth in the Memorandum of Association. The pay and allowances for the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is regulated from time to time as per the decision of Board of Governors.
17. The applicant was appointed as Laboratory Assistant with effect from 29.7.1966 in the 4th Respondent's School in the then pay scale of Rs.75-95. The said cadre belongs to non-teaching staff classified as Group-D and the educational qualification for appointment was pass in the middle class at the relevant time. However, the Board of Governors in their meeting held on 18.3.1972 and 31.10.1972 directed to stop recruitment of Laboratory Assistants and created the post of Laboratory Attendant and further decided that the Laboratory Assistants working as on the said date in the KVS will continue till their superannuation. In view of the same, with effect from 30.4.1974, only Laboratory Attendants were recruited in the revised scale of Rs.200-250 and the prescribed minimum qualification was middle class pass. Subsequently, the existing Laboratory Assistants were granted the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
18. The respondents further state that the applicant filed O.A.No.206/2005 for grant of senior scale and selection grade scales treating him on par with the teaching staff by declaring that inaction on the part of the respondents in not deciding the status of the Laboratory Assistants as arbitrary and illegal. The said OA was withdrawn by the applicant which was permitted by the Tribunal granting liberty to file proper application within two months from the date of the order. Since the applicant had not filed the present OA within the time prescribed by the Tribunal, the present OA is not maintainable on that ground alone and is liable to be rejected.
19. During the pendency of the O.A.No.206/2005, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 27.4.2005 stating therein that the matter pertaining to implementation of Assured Career Progression scheme for Laboratory Assistants in the KVS was under consideration of Government of India, Ministry of HRD and after careful consideration, the Ministry vide letter dated 4.4.2005 conveyed that the ACP scheme may be implemented by the KVS in the case of Laboratory Assistants as per the guidelines and the clarifications issued by the Department of Personnel & Training from time to time. By virtue of the said letter, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 29.6.2005 issued Office Order granting the applicant second stage ACP upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 12.10.2000 and the applicant was granted arrears of pay and fixation as per the relevant rules.
20. The respondents state that the main contention of the applicant was that he was stagnated without any promotional avenue, nothing more survives in view of the proceedings referred above.
21. The respondents further state that the further contention of the applicant that he should be treated on par with the teaching staff is untenable as the educational qualifications prescribed for the teaching staff is quite different and there is no similarity of their work. Hence, non granting of pay scales applicable to the teaching staff to the applicant cannot be faulted. Even after implementation of the the IV Pay Commission scales, the promotion avenue opened to the teaching staff based on Chattopadhyay's Commission such as Senior Scale and Selection Grade were not granted to the Laboratory Assistants. Further, the lVth Pay Commission also did not recommend parity of pay scale between teaching staff and the Laboratory Assistants and as such claiming the same after two decades is also unsustainable and liable to be rejected. In view of the extension of ACP scheme and granting second financial upgradation to the applicant, the relief sought by the applicant no more survives more particularly when the said proceedings are not under challenge.
22. The respondents further state that the qualification prescribed for the post of Laboratory Assistant was middle class pass at the time of recruitment of the applicant and the recruitment rule clearly states that the said post comes under non- teaching cadre. The subsequent revision of minimum qualification of Intermediate with Science is also not equivalent to the qualification prescribed for the primary teachers which is Intermediate with two years JBT or Plus two with one year JBT. It is stated that for selection to the post of Teachers, the ability to teach is paramount and the same cannot be equated for selection to the post of Laboratory Assistant. Even though the minimum educational qualification being the same, the pay scale can be different depending upon the duties and responsibilities attached to the said post. For example, a Degree is only specified for Assistants in the Central Government and the same is the qualification prescribed for the All India Service also. Hence, the contention of the applicant based on the qualification has no relevance and the same is liable to be rejected.
23. The National Commission on Teachers headed by Professor D.P.Chattopadyaya did not recommend any pay scales to the Laboratory Assistants and the said recommendations were only for the teaching staff. The KVS follows the instructions/decisions of the Ministry of HRD and as such any decision taken by the Ordinance Factory is not applicable to the KVS. The pay scales given to the Teachers with effect from 1.1.1996 were on specific recommendations of the Vth CPC and no such recommendation in regard to Laboratory Assistants was made and hence the replacement pay scales were given them. The cadre of Laboratory Assistant is a dying cadre and no recruitment is being made in the said post as in their place only Laboratory Attendants were recruited. The recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission in regard to Laboratory Assistants working in the Senior Secondary Schools and Secondary Schools of Delhi are not applicable to the Laboratory Assistants working in the KVS. It is stated that the said recommendation calls for re-designation of Laboratory Assistants as Laboratory Technicians Grade-I, II & III commencing from Group-D pay scale of Rs.950-1500. The respondents further state that since there was no direction to grant similar pay scale of Teachers to the Laboratory Assistants even in the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission for the said category in the schools in Delhi, other contentions based on the same are also liable to be rejected. The respondents have prayed that the OA deserved to be dismissed.
24. The applicant has filed rejoinder on 16.3.2007 reiterating the submissions made in the OA. It is stated that the posts of Laboratory Assistants were upgraded as Group-C correspondingly revising the educational qualification to that of Matriculation with Science and further to Intermediate/Sr.Secondary with Science. The applicant states that he being initially recruited as Group-D in the post of Laboratory Assistant, though he was initially SSLC failed candidate, after joining the post, he got himself qualified in SSLC and also Intermediate examination. As on the date the post was upgraded to Group-C and he was fully qualified and, therefore, he being eligible to be continued in the post of Laboratory Assistant which was upgraded to Group-C, he was issued with the revised scale applicable to the post of Laboratory Assistant. Therefore, the contention of the respondents in this regard has no legs to stand.
25. The applicant further states that he was appointed as Laboratory Assistant but not as Laboratory Attendant. Though the post of Laboratory Assistant had initially the lower qualification, consequent on creating the posts of Laboratory Attendants, the minimum qualification and the scales of pay for the post of Laboratory Assistant was upgraded and the applicant had fulfilled the revised minimum educational qualifications as prescribed and he continued as such till his superannuation. Since the existing Laboratory Assistants were considered for grant of benefits of Pay Commission from time to time, the applicant was also granted the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 with effect from 1.1.1996 as per Vth Pay Commission scales of pay.
26. The applicant further states that as the post of Laboratory Assistant was brought on Group-C which is equivalent to the post of Teachers, which is also in Group-C, there is no disparity between the Teachers and the Laboratory Assistants. Therefore, the post of Laboratory Assistant is not inferior to the post of Teacher, as the qualification prescribed for both the categories of Primary Teachers and the Laboratory Assistants is one and the same, except requirement of Junior Basic Training in respect of Teachers. Keeping in view of this situation, as the post of Laboratory Assistant also requires coaching the students in the Laboratory which had always been considered by the Government of India as a necessary adjunct to the various teaching posts and the scales revised from time to time along with the teaching posts. This was specifically reiterated in the clarificatory letter dated 27.3.1981 of the 2nd respondent. The applicant states that as the nature of duties and the qualification required for the post of Laboratory Assistant is one and the same, in all other corresponding posts, the respondents ought to have taken the matter for granting the recommended scale of Vth CPC. It is exactly this anomaly that has deprived the applicant from getting the benefit of senior scale and selection grade scales.
27. The applicant further states that the post of Laboratory Assistants cannot be isolated when the element of imparting teaching is taken into consideration. Therefore, the post of Laboratory Assistant cannot be segregated from the post of Teachers.
28. The applicant has submitted that the pay scales are fixed in Group-wise. A particular Group viz., Group-C will have a common scales of pay, even though the designations differ from Department to Department and the qualifications prescribed also may vary. He states that though the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of Laboratory Assistants and Teachers are different, the Laboratory Assistants were considered on par with Teachers and the same level of scales were prescribed in all the pay commissions, except in the Vth CPC, which provisions were not brought to the notice of the HRD Ministry, nor to the Vth CPC itself and hence his contention in this regard in the OA cannot be taken as if the applicant had admitted that the qualifications, duties and responsibilities are different.
29. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant mainly relied upon the submissions made in the OA and in the rejoinder. The counsel for the respondents basically relied on the reply statement and submitted that there was no merit in the OA.
30. We have carefully considered the rival arguments and have gone through the materials on record. It is true that the Laboratory Assistants were having the same scale of pay as that of the Teachers till the IVth Pay Commission but the Vth Pay Commission recommended different scales of pay to the Teachers and the Laboratory Assistants. Despite lengthy arguments of the applicant, the fact remains that the duties and responsibilities of the Teachers and the Laboratory Assistants are different. That by itself may not necessarily mean that they are not entitled to the same scale of pay as the Teachers. But the moot question is that in such matters, Courts have very limited scope to interfere. The applicant has himself stated that in the Writ Petitions, the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court have recommended the Government to consider the cases of the Laboratory Assistants. The applicant has stated that he made several representations to the 2nd respondent which have not been responded to. We, therefore, direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representations of the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. We are unable to grant any of the reliefs prayed by the applicant except directing the respondents to dispose of the representations of the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents, in their reply statement, have not denied receipt of the representations but have not said any thing about the same. As regards grant of Rs.60/- as personal pay, the applicant has not cited any rule in support of this claim. Hence, we cannot grant this relief to the applicant. The applicant has mentioned this matter in his representation dated 9.7.2003, a copy of which is appearing as Annexure A-XVI in the OA. Therefore, it is hoped that this matter shall also be considered by the respondents.
31. In short, the OA is disposed by directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the applicant's representations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HRIDAY NARAIN) (BHARATI RAY) MEMBER (ADMN.) MEMBER (JUDL.)