Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gurnam Singh vs M/O Home Affairs on 14 November, 2017
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
( O.A. NO. 060/00314/2016) 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 060/00314/2016
Date of decision: Chandigarh this the 14th day of November, 2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A)
...
Gurnam Singh, aged 58 years, son of Sh. Joginder Singh, working
as Section Officer, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Sector 36-
A, Chandigarh (Group-B).
....Applicant
Argued by: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director-cum- Chief Forensic Scientist, Directorate of
Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India, Block NO. 9, 8th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi-110003.
3. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Expenditure, E. III (B) Branch North Block, New Delhi.
4. The Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory,
Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India, New
Delhi.
Argued by: Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate
....Respondents
O R D E R (Oral)
P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A) The applicant in this Original Application (OA), is seeking parity with the Section Officers (SOs) of Central Secretariat Services (in short ( O.A. NO. 060/00314/2016) 2 'CSS' ) in the grant of Non-Functional Pay (NFP) of Rs. 8000-275- 13,500/- on completion of 4 years of approved service. The Government of India (GOI) in February 2001 set up a Committee to review pay scale of SOs of CSS working in various Ministries. The Committee submitted a recommendation that SOs of CSS should be given a NFP of Rs. 8000- 275-13500/- which was accepted by the (GOI) on 13.11.2003.
2. The matter regarding grant of above NFP to SOs working in a subordinate office like Directorate of Forensic Science (in short DFS) is the relief sought in this OA. This matter was considered by a Committee headed by the Director-cum-Chief Forensic Scientist on the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC). The Committee recommended that SOs of DFS are equal to SOs of CSS with reference to the responsibilities and duties assigned to the post and hence entitled for grant of the NFP. The applicant in this O.A. who was working in the DFS was granted and enjoyed the NFP and also went on deputation to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) as Recovery Officer in scale of pay Rs. 10325-15200/- . While so serving in the DRT on deputation the Second respondent withdrew NFP granted to him and reduced the pay scale of the applicant to Rs. 6500-2100-10500/-, ordering recovery of the excess amount paid to him.
3. Applicant argues that Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. NO. 817-CH-2007 earlier filed by him has passed an order, directing the respondents to take up the case of the applicant for grant of Non-Functional Grade (NFG) of Rs. 8000-13500/- with the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Finance in the light of judgment of the Principal Bench rendered in the case of S.C. Karmakar & Ors. Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure, O.A. NO. 377/2006, dated ( O.A. NO. 060/00314/2016) 3 1.5.2007, read with the recommendations of the 6th CPC. Second Respondent, Ministry of Home Affairs accepted the recommendations of the Third respondent DFS, and recommended to the Ministry of Finance that the ministerial posts in DFS are on the pattern of CSS in the matter of pay-scale, method of recruitment and source of recruitment and also have a historical parity with the CSS. The Ministry of Finance did not accept the recommendation of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Applicant challenged the aforesaid order in O.A. NO. 1035/CH/2011 (Gurnam Singh Vs UOI & Ors), which was disposed of vide order dated 28.7.2014, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant and passed a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The Second respondent communicated to DFSS that DFS is a attached office of MHA and DOP&T orders dated 13.11.2003 is not applicable to them, thereby denying them benefit of historical parity between the posts of SOs of CSS and SO of DFS.
4. The historical parity drawn with regard to the Indian Cost Guard Organization, Armed Forces Head Quarter, CSS, CSSS and Secretarial posts in Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Parliament Affairs was argued by the applicant in Writ Petition © No. 116/2013 titled Sh. Kaushik Paik Vs. Union of India & Ors. before the Delhi High Court, which was also cited in its judgment of 6.9.2013. The reasons so cited, argues applicant in this O.A., are also applicable to his case. The Kaushik Paik (supra) case was challenged before the Supreme Court of India in SLP © NO. 3402/2014 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kaushik Parik & Ors. and was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated ( O.A. NO. 060/00314/2016) 4 3.3.2014. Hence the judgment dated 6.9.2013 of the High Court of Delhi in Kaushik Park case (supra) has attained finality with respect to the historical parity of the CSS personnel working in field offices and subordinate services. The applicant in the instant O.A. prays for extending the benefit of NFP scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/- to the SOs of DFS on similar grounds as he is similarly placed as Indian Cost Guard Organization.
5. The respondents in their reply statement argue that the NFSG was not applicable to the AO/SO of DFSS cadre. However, the mode of recruitment, pay scale, service conditions and recruitment rules for employees of DFSS is the same as for the CSS cadre. It is further stated that the NFSG has been granted to the CSS of the Head Quarter officials of the respondent organization though it is not made applicable to the subordinate/attached office of MHA or any other Ministry and hence the NFSG was withdrawn. The respondent does not make any other argument that the NFS pay scale cannot be extended to its subordinate/attached offices. They, however, submitted that the CFSL, Chandigarh is under the administrative control of DFS which is not a Head Quarter service.
6. The applicant draws our attention to the order passed in similarly placed O.A. NO. 180/00868/2014 titled N. Velayudhan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 9.3.2017 of the coordinate Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in support of his claim. The operative paragraphs of said order is extracted herein below for ready reference:-
" 5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused written submissions made. As per the specific recommendation of the 6th CPC, the Govt has extended a dual pay structure for SOs - basic Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- in PB-2 and Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 after 04 years of service thereafter (non-functional). The 6th CPC also recommended that this may be given to Services which ( O.A. NO. 060/00314/2016) 5 have had a historical parity with Central Secretariat viz. AFHQ, RBSS, MEA, M/o Parliamentary Affairs, CBEC, UPSC etc.
6.The Central Secretariat, referred to as the Headquarters Organization of the Government of India, has been dealt with by the 6th CPC on a different footing vis-a-vis Non-Secretariat Organization. The Commission specifically recommended that the two-tier pay structure for Section Officer/PSs with a initial pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 and the non-functional grade of Rs. 8000-13500 after 04 years, be extended to the Central Secretariat Stenographer service in all Secretariat Organizations, like the Railway Board, Armed Forces Headquarters, Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, .UPSC, etc. This recommendation, according to respondent, is not applicable to posts in Non-Secretariat Organizations without arguing why such a disparity is perpetuated or awaits a judicial intervention.
7. The judgment in OA No.527/1997 of 28th Sept. 1998 of CAT (PB) pertains to pay parity between Assistant working in Central Secretariat and in other lower formations. Respondent has not made out a case why a similar treatment cannot be extended to applicants, as this is also a case for extending parity to lower formations or field formations. The VI CPC had recommended grade pay of Rs.4800 in PB-2 and 5400 in PB-3 on completion of 4 years service to services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQCS/AFHQSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in organizations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC etc are covered but not AO-
II in MoD (Navy). And the respondent does not make out a case, why such a historical parity cannot be established now, on the same argument of extending HQ Secretariat service pay benefits to officials in lower formations and why the applicants are denied the benefit.
8. The respondent has no case that the nature of duties performed by applicants in the lower formations are any different from that performed by the headquarters' offices, thereby making out a case of non-entitlement on the ground of functional differentia. The historical distinction of Secretariat vis-a-vis non- Secretariat appears to be one perpetuated merely to deny the pay similarity, as the nature of duties has over several years after independence, grown and expanded to read like each other. The tendency to look down attitude of the Secretariat on the non- Secretariat has outlived, as the work in non-Secretariat has not only equalled the nature of duties and services in headquarters offices, but has overtaken the decentralized and delegated functions arising out of an expansion of organizations in the last 60 plus years of independence. This is a normal trend in the growth of any democracy in one of the largest populated country in the world. Such a growth would not normally end in a dilution but expansion of functions of government departments, and an increasing downward devolution and sharing of functions with the lower formations. Instead of aggregating and consolidating the same in the headquarters secretariat, in the interests of functional efficiency and decentralization, a delegation has been perpetuated to the lower levels. Such a downward devolution of power among the officer cadre away from the Secretariat formations would also reflect in the nature of duties assigned and performed by the non-Secretariat cadre. This should also reflect in the need to remove the distinction between Secretariat and non-Secretariat cadres.
9. We note that similarity of treatment has been extended to those who pursued their case through the judicial arm, it is denied to those who did not. Instead of maintaining and perpetuating such a disparity, an endeavour should have been made to extend the benefit to those who are denied the benefit only because they did not approach the Tribunal. The judgment ( O.A. NO. 060/00314/2016) 6 of High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.116/2013 has been extended to Staff Officer (Civilians) of Indian Coast Guard Organization. Just because nomenclature of applicants is Administrative Officer of Navy in non-headquarters organization, the decision to deny benefits is unacceptable."
7. Applicant in this O.A. is working in Directorate of Forensic Science which is a subordinate office of Ministry of Home Affairs. Respondents have no case that the subordinate office does not perform any function undertaken by the Head Quarter office as argued in above O.A.
8. Hence the doctrine of equal pay in equal work for persons recruited with same qualification by the same examination would be applicable. No dispute on qualitative difference in work or responsibility is argued for treating applicant and CSS officials differently as regards drawl of NFP is concerned. The mode of recruitment and service conditions being the same the applicant cannot be disentitled from the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, considering the fact that they are discharging the same functions and responsibilities. We are of the opinion that when two classes of employees perform same nature of functions, the denial by the State of equality of pay would be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution as the State is perpetuating a discrimination in prescribing different scale of pay for same nature of work. The Court finds that the classification made by the State in giving different treatment to the two classes of employees is not founded on a rational basis having nexus with the object sought of extracting work out of similarly placed persons.
9. For the reasons stated in the case of N. Velayudhan & Ors. (supra), this O.A. is also to succeed. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 15.9.2011 (Annexure A-6), 21.12.2015 (Annexure A-
12) and 18.1.2016 (Annexure A-13 colly ) are hereby quashed and set aside. The interim order dated 11.4.2016, staying the recovery, pursuant to impugned order is made absolute. The applicant is ( O.A. NO. 060/00314/2016) 7 held to be entitled for grant of benefit of non-performing pay scale i.e. 8,000-275-13,500/- as per letter dated 13.11.2003 (Annexure A-1). The respondents are directed to extend the said benefit of NFS to applicant from due date and pass necessary order in this regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(P. GOPINATH) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Dated: 14.11.2017 SK