Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Rupesha R vs M/O Power on 8 March, 2023
1
OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00229/2020
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Rupesha R,
S/o Sri Ramachandrappa,
Aged 35 years,
Working as Mechanic (Electrical),
National Power Training Institute,
Hotline Training Centre,
26th KM, Kanakapura Road,
Somanahalli Gate,
Bangalore 82 and
Residing at No. 52,
Mahanthalingapura Village,
Bannerghatta post, Bangalore - 83 .... Applicant
(By Shri M. Subramanya Bhat, Advocate)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of Power,
Shramashakti Bhavan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001
2. National Power Training Institute,
Rep. by the Director General
NPTI Complex, Sector 33,
Fairdabad 121003, Haryana
2
OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The Director,
NPTI, Hotline Training Centre
26th KM, Kanakapura Road,
Somanahalli Gate, Bangalore 560 082
4. The Principal Director,
NPTI Complex, Sector 33,
Fairdabad 121003, Haryana. ....Respondents
(By Shri S. Prakash Shetty, Senior Panel Counsel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or directions quashing the impugned letter bearing No. NPTI/HQ/HLTC/6813 dated 18.02.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent, produced at Annexure-A10, in the interest of justice and equity, as the same is arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondents No. 2 and 3 to refix the pay and emoluments of the applicant in the post of Mechanic (Electrical) in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- with GP of Rs. 4200/- under 6th CPC w.e.f. the date of appointment and pay the arrears thereof along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, to meet the ends of justice"3
OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he is presently employed as Mechanic (Electrical) in the office of the 3rd respondent. He possesses the qualification of Diploma in Engineering, which is the minimum required qualification for the post of Mechanic (Electrical). The pay scale attached to the post held by the applicant is as per the Central Pay Commission recommendation issued from time to time. It is stated that in response to the communication received from the District Employment Exchange, Bangalore, the applicant applied for the post of Mechanic (Electrical). After he got through all the required tests, he was issued with an order of appointment dated 27.06.2012 to the post of Mechanic (Electrical) in the pay scale of Rs. 5200- 20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 2400 on a probationary period of 2 years. The applicant reported to duty on 23.07.2012. His probationary period was declared to be satisfactory by an order dated 12.05.2015 with effect from 23.07.2014. Ever since then, the applicant is working in the same post for the last 8 years. There is no promotional avenue for the applicant from the post of Mechanic (Electrical).
4
OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
3. It is the grievance of the applicant that as per the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission, the post which required minimum qualification of Diploma in Engineering carried the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and the same was revised to Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4200 with effect from 01.01.2006 (6th Central Pay Commission). However, the post of Mechanic (Electrical) notified under the 2nd and 3rd respondents has not carried the said pay scale. This anomaly was noticed by him in the year 2016. Thereafter, the applicant submitted representation dated 03.10.2016 to the 2nd respondent through 3rd respondent seeking pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4200 at the time of direct recruitment as per the 6th Central Pay Commission and further to pay the revised pay scale under 7th Central Pay Commission. As the said representation did not receive any response, he submitted another representation dated 29.11.2017 to the Chief Grievance Officer of the NPTI followed by yet another representation dated 17.05.2018 which remained unconsidered. Another representation was submitted to the 2nd respondent during the month of August, 2018. In response to the said representation, with the approval of the 2nd respondent, Principal Director, NPTI has issued a letter dated 18.02.2019 to the 3rd respondent rejecting 5 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE the claim of the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
4. Learned counsel Shri M. Subramanya Bhat representing the applicant argued that by denying appropriate pay scale attached to the post of Mechanic (Electrical), the respondents have deprived the applicant his rightful remuneration, pay and emoluments. It is obligatory on every Central Government undertaking which adopts central pay scales to adhere to the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. Thus, it was incumbent upon the 2nd respondent to advertise the post of Mechanic (Electrical) by showing appropriate pay scales prescribed under the 6th Central Pay Commission since the revised 6th Central Pay Commission pay scales had come into force with effect from 01.01.2006 and these pay scales were prevailing as on the date of appointment of the applicant. Without considering these aspects in a right perspective, the 2nd respondent has rejected the claim of the applicant. The impugned letter dated 18.02.2019 is cryptic and no reasons, much less valid reasons, are assigned. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs Shri 6 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE Ram Kumar & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 4033/2001 DD 30.05.2011), judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of T.K. Peethambaran vs Union of India & Ors (OP (CAT) No. 3504/2011 (DD 30.06.2017) and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in the case of Jagdev Singh vs Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 4078/2012, DD 29.05.2015).
5. Learned counsel Shri S. Prakash Shetty representing the respondents submitted that as per the Gazette Notification dated 30.09.1997 under Part 'B' revised scales for certain common categories of staff have been notified to be implemented with certain conditions. It includes subordinate Engineering Cadre under which the existing scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300 has been revised to Rs. 5000 - 8000 whereas the post of Mechanic in HLTC, Bangalore carries pay scale of Rs. 380-560 (pre-revised)/Rs. 1320- 2040 (revised). NTPI had implemented revised scales of pay as per 5th Central Pay Commission and 6th Central Pay Commission for various posts and, accordingly, two posts of Mechanic were notified in the pay band of Rs. 5200 - 20200 + Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 to be filled on direct recruitment basis vide advertisement 7 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE dated 25.05.2011. Nominations from Employment Exchange were also called vide letter dated 29.06.2011. Pursuant to 55 names forwarded by the District Employment Exchange, Bangalore, letters were sent to all the candidates, including the applicant, mentioning that their names have been forwarded by the District Employment Exchange for the post of Mechanic (Electrical) in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 to be filled by the said institute. After following the selection procedure, offer letters of appointment to the selected candidates for the post of Mechanic in the pay band Rs. 5200 - 20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 2400 were issued.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was one of the candidates who was issued offer of appointment to the post of Mechanic in the pay band of Rs. 5200 - 20200 + Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 vide letter dated 22.02.2012. The applicant having accepted the offer of appointment with the pay band of Rs. 5200- 20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 2400, formal appointment letter/order was issued. Thus, the learned counsel argued that the post of Mechanic was notified as per existing Recruitment Rules and the same having been accepted by the applicant, the applicant cannot seek revision of his pay scale and Grade Pay at this stage.
8
OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. As per the Recruitment Rules of NPTI, the pay scale attached to the post Mechanic (Electrical) Group C was Rs. 5200- 20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 2400 (Schedule to the Power Engineers Training Society - Recruitment Rules, 1988, Modified Recruitment Rules for Mechanic (Electrical) in NPTI/HLTC, Bangalore), (Annexure-R15), and the said post required technical and other qualifications for direct recruitment as under:
"Essential
i) Matric/SSLC
ii) ITI Certificate (Electrical Trade)
iii) 5 years practical experience in relevant field/T&D field/H.T. Electrical installation, erection, testing and repairs/maintenance."
9. The same was notified at the time of recruitment of post in the advertisement dated 25.05.2011. The arguments of the applicant that the pay scales attached to the diploma holders 9 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE specified in Part 'B' of first schedule has to be applied to the applicant cannot be countenanced since the post of Mechanic in HLTC, Bangalore carries pre-revised scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 revised pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 + 2400 Grade Pay as per the relevant Recruitment Rules, revised scales for certain common categories of staff (in Part-B) of the notification dated 30.09.1997 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. Clause IX of Part-B, contemplates 'Subordinate Engineering Cadres' as under:
(a) Diploma Engineers 1400-40-1800-50-2300 5000-150-8000 50.23 & 50.24 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx Clause XXII reads thus:
'Other Technicians':
(a) Posts requiring Matriculation with some 4000-100-6000 52.111 experience as minimum qualification for direct recruitment
(b) Technicians with either a Degree in Science 5000-150-8000 52.111 or Diploma in Engineering 10 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
10. Advertisement dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure-R6) specifies that the applications in the prescribed form are invited for recruitment of Mechanic (2 posts - Unreserved) in the pay band Rs. 5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 2400 in the said institute (National Power Training Institute). Qualification required is mentioned as under:
"a) Essential: Matriculation or equivalent, Diploma in Electrician trade, Electrical Supervisory Competency certificate, Practical experience of 5 years in erection, repairs and maintenance of HT Electrical Installations.
b) Desirable: Trade Certificate from a recognized vocational Institution 10 (Ten) years experience as Lineman of erection, repairs & maintenance of HT lines. Ability to read and write.
Trade licence as per Indian Electricity Rules Or Valid certificate in Hot Line Maintenance Techniques with one year experience."
11. Learned counsel has placed much emphasis on the letter dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure-R7) addressed by the NPTI to the Employment Officer with reference to the requisition sent in the prescribed form for filling the vacancies to the DEE (General) vide No. NPTI/HLTC/Admn/Rect/ 2011/256 dated 25.05.2011. Placing 11 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE reliance on this document it was contended that Diploma in Engineering was the essential qualification required for the post of Mechanic and, as such, the applicant is entitled to the pay applicable to the diploma holders in Electrical Engineering. We cannot accede to this submission. Diploma in Electrician trade cannot be equated to Diploma course in Engineering. As could be seen from Modified Recruitment Rules for Mechanic (Electrical) (Annexure-R15), Essential qualification is, i) Matric/SSLC ii) ITI Certificate (Electrical Trade), as such, Diploma in Electrician Trade is mentioned in the recruitment advertisement. Possessing a higher degree than required would not entitle the candidates to claim the pay scale on par with the posts to which the said higher qualification is essential.
12. In the case of T.K. Peethambaran, supra, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has referred to the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2004) 1 SCC 347. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said decision are extracted and the same reads as follows:
"2. In the Irrigation Department of the State of West Bengal inter alia there existed two posts-Operator-cum-Mechanic and 12 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE Sub-Assistant Engineer. The First Pay Commission of the State of West Bengal in its report dated 31.12.1969 recommended the following pay-scales relating thereto:
Posts Pay scale recommended
Operator-cum-Mechanic Rs. 200-250
Sub-Assistant Engineer Rs. 350-600
3. It is not in dispute that by reason of statutory rules the minimum qualification required for recruitment for the said two posts were laid down as under:
"Operator-cum-Mechanic
(a) Pass in School Final Examination or its equivalent;
(b) Pass in Certificate course in the trade of Internal Combustion Engine from ITI or Technical School recognized by the Government.
Sub- Assistant Engineer
(a) Pass in School Final Examination or its equivalent;
(b) Pass in Diploma Course in Engineering from any Government Polytechnic"
Paragraph 5 of the said decision also has been extracted and the same reads thus:
"5. The Sub-Assistant Engineers, it is not disputed, are directly recruited through Public Service Commission whereas 13 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE no such procedure is laid down for appointment in the post of operator-Cum-Mechanic. It is not in dispute that some persons in the category of employees of operator-cum-Mechanic who were possessing Diploma in Engineering claimed entitlement to the nomenclature of the Sub-Assistant Engineer and the scale of pay prescribed therefore by filing two writ petitions in Calcutta High Court. The matters eventually came up to this court. A plea was taken in the said writ petitions by the appellants herein that the diploma holder engineers working as Operators-Cum-Mechanic in the Irrigation Department were not entitled to the said designation."
13. Thus, it has been held that it is quite obvious that there could be difference in the pay packet based on the higher qualification possessed by the persons concerned, though such persons are holding similar posts. It is apparent that Operator-cum- Mechanic prescribes a different qualification from that of the Sub- Assistant Engineer. Pass in certificate course in the trade of Internal Combustion Engine from ITI or technical school recognised by the Government, one of the essential qualification for Operator-cum- Mechanic cannot be equated with pass in Diploma course in Engineering from any Government polytechnic, an essential qualification for the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer. The 14 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE Recruitment Rules and the advertisement clearly specifies the qualification of Diploma in Electrician trade and the same cannot be considered as Diploma in Engineering, hence, the pay fixed by the respondents in the advertisement is valid.
14. In the case of Shri Ram Kumar and Ors, supra, the question that fell for consideration was whether Para 50.23 and 50.24 of the 5th Pay Commission Report is applicable. In that context, it has been held thus:
"12. It cannot be disputed that the recommendations made in paragraph 50.23 relates to the persons working in the Subordinate Engineering Cadre in different Ministries/ Departments and that it does not specifically deal with the respondents. However in the light of the Commissions recommendation in para 50.24 wherein the Commission has specifically mentioned that the pay scale specified in 50.23 will apply mutatis mutandis to diploma engineers in different cadres, the claim of the respondents has been dealt with, and therefore it is justified. For the sake of clarity the relevant para 50.24 is reproduced as under:
"These pay scales will apply mutatis-mutandis for diploma engineers in different cadres depending upon the availability of specific existing pay scales. We have also recommended specific pay structure for different engineering cadres."
13. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that Para 50.24 does not apply to the respondents since it deals with Sub- ordinate Engineering Cadres in the ministries specifically mentioned therein, cannot be accepted. If that was the case then 15 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE after recommending the pay scale in Para 50.23 which undoubtedly applies to "Sub-ordinate Engineering Cadre" there was no need for the Commission to specifically mention the fact that this pay scale would apply mutatis-mutandis to diploma engineers in different cadre. In addition in Para 50.23 the Commission is also categorical in mentioning that it has, as a general rule, decided to improve the initial recruitment pay scale of diploma engineers in the government. A perusal of the 5th Central Pay Commissions Report also reveals the intention of the Commission while dealing with the aspect of "Equal Pay For Equal Work‟, specifically in Para. 40.17 which deals with the aspect qualification based pay scales. Para 40.17 is reproduced as under:
"We are suggesting in a later chapter that there should be a permanent pay body, so that it can keep on studying the parameters of different jobs and develop more objective criteria for job evaluation than are available at present. Although it is not very scientific or conclusive, we felt that as a preliminary step towards rationalization, the entry qualification could provide a fairly reliable clue. It will be noticed that we have attempted a broad rationalization of pay scales across cadres and departments, depending on whether the entry qualification is middle pass, matriculation, 10+2, matriculation with ITI Certificate, 10+2 with a two year diploma, 10+2 with a three year diploma, an ordinary degree, a degree in agriculture, horticulture, law, engineering, etc. or a post graduate degree. The results may not be perfect, but one can have some justification that atleast the educational qualifications have been recognized."
15. This ruling was rendered in the context of two categories of Radio Technicians - Diploma Holders and Non Diploma Holders relating to the entry level in the technical stream in the office of Directorate of Coordination Police Wireless (DCPW). 16
OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE This judgment would be applicable when Diploma in Engineering is an essential qualification for the post.
16. In Jagdev Singh, supra, the applicant therein was a matriculate when he joined the service, which qualification went out of currency and has been replaced by 10+2 under the revised structure of education. The applicant had taken initiative to acquire 10+2 qualification whose equivalence has also been recognized and relied upon by the respondent organization. In that background, it was held that it would be travesty of justice where a person who has higher qualification does not get it recognized merely because at the time of entry into service he was possessing lower qualification. This judgment would be of no assistance to the applicant.
17. It is settled law that the candidate cannot challenge the advertisement/Recruitment Rules after conspicuously participating in the selection and accepting the offer of appointment. An acceptance is a manifestation of assent to the terms of the offer made by the employer in the manner invited or required by the offer. After accepting the offer with the specified conditions, the applicant is estopped from challenging the same on the ground that 17 OA.No.170/00229/2020/CAT/BANGALORE he was not aware of the impact of 6th Pay Commission. Indeed 6th Pay Commission was given effect from 01.01.2006 and the applicant was appointed and reported to duty in the year 2012. In other words, revision of pay scale is not claimed subsequent to any revision made in the pay post-appointment. Ignorance of law is not an excuse. Knowingly well the offer of appointment, having accepted with the specified pay scale and Grade Pay, the applicant now cannot seek for revision of the same. Even otherwise, the grounds urged for such revision do not merit any consideration as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Viewed from any angle, OA is bereft of merit.
18. In the result, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/