Gauhati High Court
Purushottam Dass vs The Union Of India & Ors on 18 May, 2015
Author: P. K. Saikia
Bench: P. K. Saikia
1
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP (C) No. 912 of 2010
Shri Purushottam Dass,
Son of Shri Sunkaram,
Administrative Officer ,
Regional Meterological Centre,
Indian Meterological Department,
Government of India. N.E. Region,
Head Quarter, Borjhar, PIN-781015.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India represented
By the secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Science and Technology
And Ocean Development, New Mehrauli
Road, New Delhi- 110016.
2. The Secretary to the GOvernemnt of India,
Ministry of Earth Sciences, Mahasagar BHavan, Block-12. C.G.O,
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. The director General of Meterologiy
Indian Meterological Department,
Mausam Bhawas, Lodhi Road,
New delhi-110003.
4. The Deputy Director General of Meterology,
Regional Meterological Centre,
Indian Meterological Department.
Guwahati--781015.
....Respondents
WP(C) No. 912 of 2010
2
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR RAO, THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTNG.)
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. K. SAIKIA
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. S. C. Keyal
Asstt. S. G. I.
Date of hearing &
Date of judgment : 18.05.2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
(P. K. Saikia, J) This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.11.2009, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (in short, CAT, Guwahati Bench), in OA No. 277 of 2006 dismissing such applications filed by the present petitioner.
2. We have heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S. C Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner herein, who would also be referred to as the applicant hereinafter, initially joined as Observatory Attendant in India Metrological Department (in short, IMD) in 1971. Later, he was appointed/promoted as LDC, UDC and Administrative Officer. It may be stated that as per the recommendation made by 3rd Central Pay Commission the Administrative and Technical wing of IMD was separated. As per pre separated recruitment rules, UDC can seek promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant through Limited Departmental promotion. However, WP(C) No. 912 of 2010 3 5th Central Pay Commission prescribed a pay scale for the post of Administrative Officer in the range of Rs. 7500-12000/- subject to fulfilment of conditions, prescribed therein.
4. The grievance of the applicant was that though he was appointed as Administrative Officer, Group- B Gazetted but he was not allowed to draw his salary in the scale of Rs. 7500-12000/-. Rather his pay was fixed at Rs. 6500--10500/- since the post wherefrom he was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer carried pay in the scale of Rs.2,000/- to 3,500/-, and not in the pay scale of Rs. 2,375/- to Rs. 3500/- which was revised to Rs. 7500-12000/-.
5. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted representation dated 12.12.2005 seeking redress of his grievance which was, however, rejected vide notification dated 14/15.02.2005. The basic ground on which he prayed for pay in the scale of Rs. 7500-12000/- was that similarly situated Officers in Administrative Department had been allowed to draw pay in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/- and therefore, there is no reason why he cannot be allowed to draw pay in the pay scale aforesaid.
6. Controverting such a contention, State respondents submitted counter affidavit before the Tribunal stating that the 5th Central Pay Commission recommended that the pay of the Administrative Officers in IMD who were drawing pay in pre revised scale of Rs. 2375/3500/- would be revised to the scale of Rs. 7500-12000/-. But, no such recommendation was made in respect of Administrative Officers who were drawing pay in pre-revised scale of Rs. 2000- 3500/-.
7. Since the petitioner was drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- and not in 2375-3500/- and since there is no recommendation for allowing Administrative Officer drawing pay in the scale of Rs. 2000/- - 3500/- to draw their pay in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/-, the applicant cannot claim pay in the scale of Rs. 7500-12000/-. Such a contention was considered by learned Tribunal and pleased to reject the same by following observations: -----
WP(C) No. 912 of 2010 4"10. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for Applicant on 2006(9) SCC 406, K.T. Veeraooa vs. State of Karnataka and 2009 (2) GLT 350, Shyamlal Kanti Deb vs. State of Tripura and Ors. to contend that granting lower pay scale to Applicant amounted to down-gradation, which is impermissible. On examination of the matter, particularly with reference to the materials placed on record, we observe that sanction of the President to create 21 posts of Administrative Officer (Group B Gazetted) was conveyed vide O.M. Dated 07.04.1999 in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- in IMD by surrendering equivalent post of Assistant Meterologist Grade II (Group B Gazetted) also in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-. In is undisputed fact that at the time of implementation of 5th CPC recommendations, Applicant was not in pay scale of 2375-3500/-. The revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/- was allowed to those Administrative Officers who were in pre-revised scale of Rs. 2375--3500/-. Admittedly, Applicant was not enjoying said pay scale of Rs. 2375-3500/- prior to his promotion as Administrative Officer. Moreover, post of Administrative Officer had been created after recommendation made by 5th CPC and its implementation. We may also note at the cost of repetition that said posts were created vide O.M dated 07.04.1999 by which time implementation of 5th CPC had been undertaken. We may also observe that validity of said O.M dated 07.04.1999 creating the post in scale of Rs. 6500- 10000/- has not been questioned either in present proceeding or in any other proceeding initiated on that account. Grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/- is not automatic and ipso-facto. Furthermore, perusal of para 46.13 of 5th CPC recommendation reveals that hierarchy above the level of Office Superintendents compromises Assistant Administrative Officers and Administrative Officers and a small number of them were in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/-, but the majority were in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-, Rs. 2375-3500/- and 2200-4000/-. The revised designation of Administrative Officer was as Administrative Officer Grade -II in the pay scale of Rs. 2500-4000/-. Applicant did not fall in such category."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reasons, advanced by learned Tribunal is unsustainable since there cannot be 2 (two) categories of Administrative Officers basing on their pre-revised pay scale. In other words, State cannot be permitted to make a distinction between the Administrative Officers, discharging similar duties, basing on their pre-revised pay scale.
WP(C) No. 912 of 2010 59. Once posts with different pay scales are merged into one post, the incumbents in such post, cannot be treated differently basing on their pre-revised pay scales which is violative of fundamental principles of law. Such a contention was refuted by learned counsel for the respondents repeating the arguments which they have made before the learned Tribunal.
10. We have considered the rival submissions, and found that a distinction has been made by the State respondents creating 2 (two) classes of Administrative Officers basing on their pre-revised pay scales which is not permissible under the law.
11. Accordingly, the decision of the learned Tribunal allowing a distinction to be made amongst the Administrative Officers in the Department aforesaid is found to be unsustainable and same is accordingly quashed and set aside.
12. Even otherwise, the prayer of petitioner needs to be accepted since it is his specific claim that the Officers similarly situated with him in all respects were given the benefits, he had sought for in OA 277 of 2006. We have found nothing on record to disbelieve such a claim. Being so, in our opinion, the benefits which were already given to officers who are similarly situated with the petitioner are required to be extended to the petitioner as well.
13. Consequently, the prayer made by the applicant in OA No. 175/2008 stands accepted and State respondents are directed to give the petitioner all consequential reliefs in accordance with the established Rules and Procedures.
14. The department is directed to carry out the direction rendered herein within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTNG.)
Rupam
WP(C) No. 912 of 2010