Calcutta High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Brindaban Mallick And Ors. on 15 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2002)2CALLT47(HC)
Author: A. Kabir
Bench: Altamas Kabir
JUDGMENT A. Kabir. J. 1. Five Switch Board Operators of the Ordinance Clothing Factory, Avadi, (C. Kannan & Ors.) filed an application before the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, being O.A. No. 357 of 1988, claiming the same benefit of the scale of Rs. 260-400 which had been given to Switch Board Operators in the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, on the ground that they were similarly circumstanced and performing the same nature of duties as were being performed by switch Board Operators in the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi. 2. It appears that pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, an Expert Classification Committee was set up by the Ministry of Defence in 1974 to evaluate the various trades and grades prevailing in the various units under the Ministry of Defence and to suggest appropriate scales on the basis of such evaluation. The said Committee submitted its report in 1979 and on the basis thereof orders were passed on 16th October, 1981, implementing the pay scales as revised in respect of industrial employees. Thereafter, an Anomalies Committee was constituted to examine the anomalies in the scales of pay arising out of the recommendations of the Expert Classification Committee. The Anomalies Committee, Inter alia, recommended that semi-skilled Jobs in the pay scale of Rs. 210-290 in the other Defence establishments, whose nomenclature was the same and the job content and skill were comparable with those jobs which had already been considered, should also be elevated to the skilled category and be given the pay scale of Rs. 200-400 with effect from 16th October, 1981. 3. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by its Judgment dated 23rd June, 1989, directed the respondents to extend the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 to the applicants with full monetary benefit from the date the same benefits were extended to the same category of staff in the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi. It was, however, made clear that the said directions would not apply to those who were recruited after the Ministry of Defence letter dated 17th October, 1983, and communicated in the letter of the Ordnance Factory Board dated 10th February, 1984. 4. Thirty one applicants functioning as Switch Board Attendants in the Metal and Steel Factory, Ichapore, filed an application, being O.A. No. 987 of 1993, before the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal for being given the benefit of the judgment of the Madras Bench in O.A. No. 357 of 1988. The said application was disposed of on 24th April, 1995, with a direction on the applicants to make representations to the appropriate authority for granting them the benefit of the judgment in O.A. No. 357 and the appropriate authority was directed to consider the same after giving a personal hearing to the representative of the applicants. It appears that pursuant to the representations made in terms of the directions given by the learned Tribunal, the writ petitioners herein by an order dated 20th March, 1994, granted the benefits of the aforesaid judgment of the Madras Bench in O.A. No. 357 and notionally fixed the pay of the respondents in the revised scale with effect from 26th March, 1993, which was the date on which the respondents filed their applications. 5. The said order was challenged by 15 of the original 31 applicants of O.A. No. 587 of 1993, before the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 700 of 1995, claiming that they were entitled to get the same benefit as was granted by the Madras Bench to the applicants in O.A. No. 357 of 1988. 6. On behalf of the said applicants it was claimed that the impugned order was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the directions given by the Tribunal on 15th September, 1993, in O.A. No. 980 of 1993 and also the Judgment and order of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 357 of 1988. The said applicants prayed for the entire benefits, Including the arrears of pay, as directed in the Judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 357 of 1988. 7. The claim of the said applicants, who are the respondents No. 1 to 15 herein, was strongly opposed on behalf of the present writ petitioners. Upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal came to a finding that similarly-circumstanced persons should not be discriminated against in the matter of implementation of orders of the learned Tribunal and the Court. The learned Tribunal was of the view that the impugned order dated 25th March, 1994, could not be sustained in view of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution, since, by virtue of the decision of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal the applicants in O.A. No. 357 of 1988 were given the monetary benefit of the revised scale of pay not with effect from the date of the application made by them but with effect from 16th October, 1981, when an order was passed on the recommendation of the Expert Classification Committee. 8. The learned Tribunal disposed of the application by observing that if arrears of pay pursuant to the refixation was paid to the applicants before the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 357 of 1988, the applicants in O.A. No. 700 of 1995, were also entitled to get the same benefits. In such event the arrears were directed to be paid to the applicants within three months from the date of communication of the order. 9. The present writ application has been filed by the Union of India and the authorities of the Ordnance Factory Board and the Metal and Steel Factory, Ichapore, against the said judgment of the learned Tribunal and the directions contained therein. 10. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. Sardar Amjad All, learned Advocate, urged that the question at Issue in the present writ application is not whether the respondent Nos. 1 to 15 should be given the benefit of the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 357 of 1988, but from what date. Mr. All submitted that while in the case of C. Kannan & Ors. (O.A. No. 357 of 1988) the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had directed that the applicants be given the benefit of the scale of pay of Rs. 260-400 (skilled scales) with full monetary benefits as was extended to the same category of staff in the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, that is with effect from 16th October, 1981, in subsequent decisions by the same Bench such benefit was given only from the date on which the parties applied to the learned Tribunal. 11. Mr. All specifically referred to the decision of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the application filed by B. Ravichandran, being O.A. No. 285 of 1990, wherein, while extending the benefit of the earlier decisions, the learned Tribunal extended the benefit of the revised scale of pay of Rs. 260-400 to the applicants therein with effect from 16th October, 1981, but on a notional basis. The applicant was allowed monetary benefits of such refutation only from the month of April, 1990, when he filed the application before the learned Tribunal. 12. Mr. All also referred to the decision in the applications filed by M. Karunamoorthy & Ors. and by the H.V.F. Employees' Union, being Original Application Nos. 715 and 849 of 1991, wherein, after considering various decisions, both of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, similar directions were given, and submitted that similar directions should be given in this matter also. 13. Appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 15, Mr. Purnendu Mukherjee submitted that following the Judgment in O.A. No. 357 of 1998 by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, several applications were filed by Switch Board Attendants working under the Metal and Steel Factory, Ichapore, before the Calcutta Bench of the said Tribunal and the same were disposed of with a direction to make representations for being given the same benefit as was given to the applicants by the Madras Bench in O.A. No. 357 of 1988. 14. Mr. Mukherjee also referred to the letter addressed by the Joint Director, Ordnance Factory Board, to the Additional General Manager, Metal & Steel Factory, Ichapore, wherein it was Indicated that in order to avoid disparities in pay scale of two group of similarly placed employees in the Ordinance Factories, the Judgment of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal, as approved by the Minister of Defence, be implemented. It was also indicated that the said Board had taken up the case with the Ministry of Defence for upgradation of pay scales of all Switch Board Attendants to skilled grade with effect from 16th October, 1981. 15. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that having extended the benefit of the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 357 of 1988 to one Section of employees in the Ordnance Factories, the writ petitioners could not deny the same benefit to other similarly placed employees in the same establishment in view of Article 16 of the Constitution. 16. In support of his submissions Mr. Mukherjee firstly referred to the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1998 SCC (L&S) Page 226) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the application of a Section of railway employees claiming the benefit of an earlier Judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the same had been filed beyond the period of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay in filing of the application and should have given the applicants relief on the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the earlier Judgment whereby a notification which adversely affected the pension of such employees had been declared to be Invalid. 17. Mr. Mukherjee also referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1989 SC Services Law Judgments, Volume 13, Page 481) where the issue was the same as in the Instant application and a direction was given to the concerned respondent to extend the benefit of the pay scale of skilled grade (Rs. 260-400) to the petitioners with effect from 16th October, 1981, including all arrears. 18. Mr. Mukherjee urged that in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents No. 1 to 15 who had initially moved the learned Tribunal in 1993 were also entitled to receive the actual benefit of the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 357 of 1988 with effect form 16th October, 1981, as had been held by the Calcutta Bench of the learned Tribunal and not from the date on which the application had been, made before the learned Tribunal as submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that no Interference was warranted with the decision of the learned Tribunal. 19. We have no hesitation in accepting the proposition that the applicants are entitled to have their pay scale revised in the scale of Rs. 260-400 in order to maintain parity of pay scales of all similarly circumstanced employees of the Ordnance Factories under the Ministry of Defence. The said position has also been accepted on behalf of the writ petitioners, as would be evident from the letter dated 3rd February, 1994, written by the Joint Director, Ordnance Factory Board, to the Additional General Manager, Metal and Steel Factory, Ichapore. 20. We, however, agree with Mr. Ali's contention that such benefit should be on a notional basis for those claiming the same long after such benefit had been extended on the basis of a Judicial order to a Section of the employees who had initially approached the Tribunal. Such a procedure was adopted by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the cases filed by B. Ravichandran (O.A. No. 283/90) in 1990 and by M. Karunamoorthy & Ors. and H.V.F Employees Union (O.A. Nos. 715 and 849 of 1991) in 1991. 21. The respondent Nos. 1 to 15 did not approach the Tribunal Initially but wanted to take advantage of the benefit of the judgment delivered on the application filed by C. Kannan and others, and that too at a stage much later than even the applicants in O.A. Nos. 283 of 1990 and O.A. Nos. 715 and 849 of 1991 who were given the benefit of the said judgment from the dates of their respective applications. While the judgment in C. Kannan's case was delivered on 23rd June, 1989, the applicants in the three above- mentioned cases approached the learned Tribunal for being granted the benefit of such Judgment in 1990 and 1991 respectively. In the instant case, the respondent Nos. 1 to 15 approached the Tribunal for the same relief firstly in 1993. 22. The two decisions of the Hon"ble Supreme Court cited on behalf of the respondents are, in our view, distinguishable from the facts of this case. In K.C. Sharma's case (supra), the applicants were claiming the benefit of an order declaring invalid a notification which adversely affected their pension retrospectively. Such benefit would have to be extended to all employees who were adversely affected by the notifications which was struck down. In such circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the case was a fit case where the bar of limitation was liable to be condoned. Incidentally, it may be noted that in the said matter the applicants claiming the benefit of the earlier Judgment approached the Tribunal within four months from the date of the earlier Judgment. 23. In Bhagwan Sahal Carpenter's case (supra) the petitioners filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1984 claiming upgradatlon of their pay with effect from 16th October, 1981, when the orde allowing such upgradatlon had been issued on the basis of the report of the Expert Classification Committee, and not from 15th October. 1984, as was allowed to them. In the said set of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the matter on 15th March, 1989, directed that such upgradation should be made effective from 16th October, 1981. 24. The facts of this case are entirely different from those decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While C. Kannan's case was decided by the Tribunal on 23rd June, 1989, the respondents No. 1 to 15 who wanted the benefit of the said decision moved the Tribunal only in 1993. 25. In our view, having come at a late stage, the said respondents No. 1 to 15 cannot get the actual monetary benefit of the order of 16th October, 1981, from the said date, as was granted in the case of C. Kannan and others, but from the date when they Initially moved the learned Tribunal. They would be entitled to notional benefit of the said order with effect from 16th October, 1981, till the date of their initial application, for computation of subsequent benefits. 26. We, accordingly, allow the writ application and modify the order of the learned Tribunal to the extent that the writ petitioners will extend to the respondents Nos. 1 to 15 the benefit of the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 357 of 1988 with notional effect from 16th October, 1981, and with actual effect with full monetary benefits from the date of the application made before the learned Tribunal, being O.A. No. 980 of 1993. All arrears on account of such re-fixation are to be paid to the said respondents within three months from date. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order if applied for. Is to be supplied to the applicant expediUously, subject to compliance with all the required formalities. A.K. Basu, J.
27. I agree.