Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Nanu Ram vs Engineering Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 3 February, 2025
1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.No.060/1044/2021 Chandigarh, the 3rd day of February, 2025 HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A) NanuRamsonofSh.RaituRam,agedabout49years,Residentof H.no.1267, Housing Board Flats, Dhanas, Chandigarh-160014, Employee-Group-D, Casual Labour. ...Applicant (Advocate: Sh. Vikas Duggal) VERSUS 1. Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh Secretary through Secretary, Engineering Department, Sector 9 U.T Chandigarh - 160009 2. The Superintending Engineer, (Electricity) Operation Circle, Chandigarh Electricity Department, Sector-9 Chandigarh-160009 3. Executive Engineer (Electricity), O.P, Division No.2 Phase -1, NPH Chandigarh. PIN code: 160002 4.AsistantExecutiveEngineer,ElectricityStore,SubdivisionPhase no.1 NPH, U.T, Chandigarh. PIN code: 160002 ...Respondent(s) (Advocate: Sh. Vinod K. Arya) 2 O R D E R Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J): 1. Applicant has preferred the present Original Application against orderdated11.06.2021(AnnexureA-5)wherebyRespondentNo.3has rejectedclaimoftheapplicantforgrantofminimumbasicpayofgroup 'D' post on completion of 20yearsofservice.Applicanthassoughtthe following reliefs: "a) To quash the dated 11/06/2021, bearing memo no. OP2/2021/5216 whichispassedbytheExecutiveEngineer,Electricity.O.PDivisionno.2. U.T,Chandigarh.andisannexedasAnnexureA-5videwhichrespondent no.3 has rejected the claim of the applicant of granting him minimum basic pay of group 'D' post even on completion of 20 years of service. )Todirecttherespondentsforconsiderationofthecaseoftheapplicant b for granting him the minimum basic pay of post Group 'D'. )Anyotherrelieftowhichtheapplicantisfoundentitledunderthefact c and circumstances of the present case my kindly be granted." 2. Averments made by the applicant are as follows. The applicant was appointed as Sewer Man in Chandigarh Electricity Department on 09.06.1998. It is averred that the applicant is performing his duty without any break for thelast22yearscontinuouslyandhisworkand conductisuptothemarkofthesuperiorsandthereisnothingadverse againsthim.Inthebeginningtheapplicantwaspaidwagesfor4hours andsometimesitwasincreasedto5hoursandagainfor6and7hours. The applicant is being paid as per the rates ofthewagesfixedbythe DeputyCommissioner,Chandigarhfromtimetotime.Itisaverredthat the applicant is always available throughout the working hours in the maintenanceboothfrom9AMto5PMbutnotpaidfullsalarywhich,it is contended by the applicant, is against theprincipalofequalpayfor equal work as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various Judgments. Copy of duty roaster of the maintenance staff working at maintenanceBoothshowingworkingsoftheapplicantfrom09:00AMto 05:00PM is annexed as Annexure A-1. 3. Itisaverredbytheapplicantthattheapplicanthasmadeseveral verbalrequeststohisconcernedofficialstopayhimtheminimumbasic 3 paybutnoactionwastaken.Theapplicant,throughhisadvocate,sent alegalnoticedated11/02/2020totheconcernedauthoritiesregarding grantinghimminimumbasicpayofGroup'D'postwhichisannexedas Annexure A-2. Respondent no.4 rejected the claim of the applicant vide reply dated 11/03/2020 bearing memo no.446 which is annexed as Annexure A-3. Thereafter the applicant approached this Tribunal through O.A/60/430/2020 and challenged the said reply dated 11/3/2020 vide which respondent no.4 rejected the claim of the applicant. This Tribunal passed order dated 10/07/2020 in O.A/60/430/2020(AnnexureA-4).Relevantportionofthesaidorderis as under: " 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submittedthatsincerespondents have not passed any order, therefore, he has impugned their reply to legal notice. . Considering that an order is to be challenged before this Court, 4 therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to pass a formal order on claim raised by the applicant so that applicant can approach the court of law. The O.A stands disposed of in the above terms." 4. On the directions issued by Tribunal, Respondent no.3 passed a formal order dated 11/06/2021 bearing memo no.OP2/2021/5216 (Annexure A-5), vide which respondent no.3 has rejected theclaimof theapplicantofgrantinghimminimumbasicpayofgroup'D'posteven on completion of 20 years of service. It is contended by the respondents that in the said order while rejecting the claim of the applicant the respondent has admittedly stated that the applicant is working with the department for the last 20 years as part time employee and was often doing his duty for 7 hours a day. 5. Ld.counselfortheapplicanthasrelieduponjudgmentpassedby Hon'bleHighCourtofPunjabandHaryanainC.W.P2596of2015,titled as Bimla Devi Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal decided on 10.09.2018(AnnexureA-7),whereinitisheldcontractualworkerswho havecompleted20yearsofserviceasparttimewagersareentitledto the minimum basic pay of post Group 'D' post. 4 6. In reply to this OA, it is submitted by the respondents that the applicant was never appointed as Sewer Man by Chandigarh Administration, but engaged as Sweeper purely onparttimebasison D.C.rates for cleaning the maintenance booth situated at Sector 28 Electricity Colony, Chandigarh as well as for clearing the blockage of flushes, pipe sewerage line etc. of Government Houses in different Electricity Colonies under the jurisdiction of Electricity Store Sub Division, U.T. Chandigarh initially for 4 hours and was increased/decreased to 5,6, & 7 hours on the basis of work requirement. Sh. Nanu Ram/applicant was never given any regular appointment and was paid for his services as pertheratesprescribed by the office of Deputy Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh for part time workers/sweepers as allowed from time to time. 7. It is further submitted by the respondents that services of the applicant are being utilized in residentialcoloniesatdifferentlocations forlimitedhoursasperrequirementwhichchangedfromtimetotime. Itisfurthersubmittedbytherespondentsthattheapplicantwasnever engaged for more than 3 days a week. 8. We have heard ld. counsel for both sides and perused the materialonrecord.Fromthepleadingsitself,itisadmittedfactthatthe applicant was appointed by the respondents as sweeper on part time basis since 09.06.1998, and has served as such for over 22 years. 9. Hon'ble High Court of PunjabandHaryanahasdealtwithsimilar matter in the case of Bimla Devi Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has cited its order dated 02.03.2015 in CWP No.9167-CAT-2007 titled UnionofIndia&Ors.Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby similar controversy hasbeen dealt with and Hon'ble High Court has held as under: " [20]Surely,therespondentscannotbemaderegularintheabsenceof sanctioned posts, but then what is the public purpose sought to be achieved through the policy dated 30.06.2014? The Executivewhohas authored the policy is also competent to create or sanction the posts. Depending upon the total expenditure now being incurred on the 5 r etention of respondents, we have no reason to doubt that the petitioners can rationalize their resources and sanction some regular posts every year so that the respondents can be adjusted on regular basis without any unbearable additional financial burden on the Department,butbeforetheyleavethedepartmentonattainingtheage of superannuation. [ 21]Thepetitionersmighthaveincurredhugeexpenditureindefending multiple litigation initiated by contractual employees who are now a diminishing cadre. This is for the petitioners to take a pragmatic view and divert this unproductive expenditure towardssanctioningtheposts in a phased manner for adjusting the respondents. [ 22]We,thus,directthepetitioner-authoritiestorevisitthewholeissue in its right perspective and complete the exercise tore-formulatetheir policyandtakeadecisiontosanctionthepostsinphasedmannerwithin a specified time-schedule. Let such a decisionbetakenwithinaperiod of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. [ 23]Tilltheexerciseasdirectedabove,isundertaken.therespondents shallcontinueinservicewiththeircurrentstatusbutthoseofthemwho have completed 20 years as part-time daily wagers, shall be granted 'minimum' basic pay of Group 'D' post(s) w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and/or the date of completion of 20 years contractual service, whichever is later." The aforesaid order of Hon'ble High Court has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.07.2016 in SLP(C)No. 13072-13073 of 2016. 10. This Tribunal has considered the matter and is of the view that theapplicantisentitledto'minimum'basicpayofGroup'D'postw.e.f. date of completion of 20 yearsofserviceintermsoforderpassedby Hon'bleHighCourtdated02.03.2015inCWPNo.9167-CAT-2007titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed. Annexure A-5 dated 11.06.2021 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant minimum basic pay of Group 'D' post to the applicant w.e.f. date of completion of20yearsinservice, and pay the consequentialarrearstotheapplicantwithineightweeks of the receipt of this order. No costs. (ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) s*