Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S S Chaturvedi vs M/O Consumer Affairs on 6 October, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 1782/2012
MA 1491/2012
MA 2241/2014
New Delhi this the 6th day of October, 2015
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)
1. Shri S.S. Chaturvedi
S/o Dr. G.S. Chaturvedi, aged about 53 years
Directorate of Sugar, Deptt. of Food and
Public Distribution
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & PD
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Shri V.K. Yadav
S/o Late Shri T.N. Yadav, aged about 49 years
Directorate of Sugar, Deptt. of Food and
Public Distribution
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & PD
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
3. Shri D.K. Verma
S/o Shri D.P. Verma, aged about 49 years
Directorate of Sugar, Deptt. of Food and
Public Distribution
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & PD
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
4. Shri S.K. Srivasava
S/o Shri V.K. Srivastava, aged about 55 years
Directorate of Sugar, Deptt. of Food and
Public Distribution
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & PD
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
5. Shri Deepak Yadav
S/o Shri R.C. Yadav, aged about 51 years
Directorate of Sugar, Deptt. of Food and
Public Distribution
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & PD
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
6. Shri M.K. Agrawal
S/o Late Shri K.M. Agrawal, aged about 56 years
Directorate of Sugar, Deptt. of Food and
Public Distribution
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & PD
2
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
7. Shri M.C. Katiyar
S/o Late Shri B.L. Katiyar, aged about 54 years
Directorate of Sugar, Deptt. of Food and
Public Distribution
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & PD
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi ... Applicants
(Through Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India through:
1. The Secretary
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Dept. of Food & Public Distribution
Government of India
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
2. The Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions
North Block, New Delhi
3. The Secretary
Department of Expenditure
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi ... Respondents
(Through Shri B.K. Berara, Advocate)
ORDER
Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A) The applicants are posted as Junior Technical Officers (JTOs) in the Directorate of Sugar in the Department of Food and Public Distribution. They seek pay parity with Section Officers (SOs) of Central Secretariat Service (CSS), who have been granted pay in Pay Band - 2 of Rs.9300-34800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- with further upgradation to Pay Band - 3 Rs.15600- 39100/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- after completion of four OA 1782/2012 years of approved service. JTOs have been granted 6 th Central Pay Commission (CPC) pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. Later, the Grade Pay has been increased to Rs.4600/-. The grounds raised for such claim are :
(i) that the JTOs have always enjoyed pay parity with the SOs of CSS Cadres right upto 5th Pay Commission. The 6th Pay Commission, for the first time, made a deviation and made the following recommendations for SO/ PS/ Equivalent;
Sl. Post Present Revised Correspo Para No. of the No Scale Pay nding Report Scale pay Band & Grade pay Pay Band Grade Pay (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) I OFFICE STAFF IN SECRETARIAT
1. Section 6500- 7500- PB-2 4800 3.1.9 Officer/ 10500 12000 PB-3 5400 PS/ 8000- (On (Modified equivale 13500 completi by Govt.
nt (On on of 4
completi years)
on of
four
years)
*This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/ services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS, Services like, AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/ Secretarial posts in Ministries/ Departments organizations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVS, UPSC, etc. would therefore be covered.
The learned counsel for the applicants states that along with SOs, the Pay Commission had also recommended same pay scales for PS and equivalent posts and, therefore, the JTOs also should have been considered being equivalent and given the same pay 4 scale. The recommendations of the Pay Commission also stated that the above pay scales will also cover organizations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVS, UPSC etc. It is, therefore, argued that JTOs should also have been considered because of the word `etc.' being mentioned in the Pay Commission recommendations.
(ii) that the JTOs are sometimes asked to look after the functions of SOs in the Directorate of Sugar and, therefore, it is evident that they discharge the same jobs and functions as SOs;
(iii) that the posts of JTOs and SOs are interchangeable in the Directorate of Sugar and they both discharge similar duties, therefore, their pay scales cannot be different; and
(iv) that the JTOs have been writing the ACRs of Assistants and it creates an ambiguity as Assistants are placed in the same Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- as JTOs.
2. In the above background, the applicants have sought the following reliefs-
i) To direct the respondents to place the applicants in the PB-2 scale of Rs.9300-34800 plus grade pay of Rs.4800/- and with further upgradation to pay band PB-3 Rs.15600- 39100/- plus grade pay of Rs.5400/- after OA 1782/2012 completion of 4 years of approved service in the grade at par with that of SOs of CSS;
ii) To direct the respondents to place the applicants in the revised scale with effect from 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits like arrears of pay and allowances etc.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents states that applicants No.4 to 7 were working as Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-5700 (pre-revised) prior to the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission. As recommended by the 6th Pay Commission vide para 7.12.13 of its report, the post of Technical Assistant in the scale of Rs.4500-5700 (pre-revised) in the Directorate of Sugar has been merged with that of JTO in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 (pre-revised)/ Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- with effect from 1.01.2006 vide notification dated 14.07.2009. It is stated that the applicants have not disclosed this fact in their application in order to claim parity with SOs in CSS Cadre. It is further clarified that the promotional avenues in JTO Cadre are totally distinct from that of SOs. The SOs belong to the CSS and are posted in Directorate of Sugar whereas JTOs are recruited for specific discipline and not only their functions are technical in nature but promotional hierarchy is also different.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings available on record.
5. The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Tribunal should not interfere in pay scale matters and it 6 should best be left to be decided by government on the advice of expert bodies like Pay Commissions [Union of India & Another Vs. P.V. Hariharan and Another, 1997 SCC (L&S) 838; Union of India Vs. Makhan Chand Roy, AIR 1997 SC 2391]. Therefore, we do not wish to interfere in this matter. In any case, the 6th Pay Commission has obviously gone through the job contents and nature of duties of the post held by the applicants as is evident from the facts placed before us and then made specific recommendations. The proper course of action for the applicants would be to place their grievance, if any, before the 7th Pay Commission.
6. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in this OA and it is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
( P.K. Basu ) ( Syed Rafat Alam ) Member (A) Chairman /dkm/