Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Murali M N vs Kudremukh Iron Ore Company, M/O Steel on 25 July, 2023
1 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/0
NO.170/00017/2021
2 TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
DATED THIS THE 25
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri
hri Murali M.N.,
S/o Late Sri H.B.N.Murthy,
Aged about 61 years,
Formerly working as Junior Officer,
KIOCL, Corporate Office,
Bangalore and
Residing at No.71, "SUDAMSHU"
Aakruthi Greens Layout,
Near Ramabai Nagar, Gurur Post Office,
MYSURU -570008. ...Applicant
(By Advocate,
Ad Shri M.Subramanya Bhat )
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by
b its Secretary,
Ministry of Steel,
Udyog Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. The KIOCL Ltd.,
Represented by the
Chairman
Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
nd
Koramangala 2 Block,
Bengaluru 560034.
5600
3. The Company Secretary,
KIOCL Ltd., Koramangala 2nd Block,
Bengaluru - 560034.
4. The Director (Finance),
KIOCL Ltd. Koramangala 2nd Block,
Bangalore -560034.
5. The General Manager (HR),
KIOCL Ltd., Koramangala 2nd Block,
Bangalore -560034.
6. The Joint General Manager (HR),
KIOCL Ltd. Koramanagala 2nd Block,
Bangalore -560034.
7. The Senior Manager (HR),
KIOCL Ltd. Koramangala 2nd Block,
Bangalore - 560034. ....Respondents
(By Advocate,
Advocate Shri Aniketh B.C. represents M/s.Dua Associates for
Respondents No.2 to7)
to7
3 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs reliefs:
"(i) ISSUE Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or directions quashing the impugned communication bea bearing No.S/BC/8(11)/2019/1120 dated 02 02.12.2019 passed rd by the 3 respondent, produced at Annexure Annexure-A8, as the same is arbitrary, irrational and offending Articles 14, 21 and 300-A 300 A of the Constitution of India.
(ii) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the appropriate respondents 2 to 6 to continue the basic of non executive and fix the basic pay of Rs.37,960/ Rs.37,960/- w.e.f. 1.7.2014 along with admissible perks and allowances in the cadre of Section Officer with a further directidirection to extend consequential and corresponding pay revision w.e.f.
1.1.2017 with a further direction to pay the arrears thereof along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, in the interest of justice;
(iii) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the appropriate respondents 2 to 6 to pay the revised terminal benefits to the applicant upon fixing the revised pay and emoluments, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, w.e.f. 1.7.2018, to meet the ends of justice justice.
4 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(iv) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 to 6 to refund a sum of Rs.63,120/Rs.63,120/- recovered from the applicant along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, to meet the ends of justice.
(v) Issue any other incidental or consequential relief/s as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in aid of the main relief sought for, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he joined the service of KIOCL as Typist (Non-Executive). He worked as such till June, 2014 and his last drawn basic pay in the said post was Rs.21,380/ .
Rs.21,380/-. The applicant was promoted as Sec Section Officer (SS Scale) on 02.07.2014 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs.22,030/ Rs.22,030/- by giving one additional increment. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as Junior Officer on 04.01.2017 04.01.2017. In terms of tripartite settlement arrived at under Section 18(3) read with 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, revision of wages for Non Non-Executive Executive came into effect with retrospective effect from 01.01.2012 as per the settlement dated 27.02.2017. Accordingly basic pay of the applicant in the post of Assistant Assistan Grade-II was fixed at Rs.34,720/ Rs.34,720/- with effect from 01.01.2012 and his basic pay as on 01.09.2013 was Rs.36,850/ Rs.36,850/-. It is 5 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the grievance of the applicant that after his promotion to the post of Section Officer, basic pay of the applicant was fixed at Rs.22, Rs.22,030/- as on 03.07.2014 reducing the basic pay from Rs.36,850/ Rs.36,850/- to Rs.22,030/-, his basic pay ought to have been fixed at Rs.37,960/ Rs.37,960/- as on 03.07.2014.
KIOCL granted 10% of revised basic pay as fitment benefit treating the same as personal pay vide order dated 22.12.2017. This benefit was not considered as a component of pay when the pay was revised from 01.01.2017 in terms of the Circular dated 19.10.2019 issued by KIOCL, Bangalore and an amount of Rs.63,120/ Rs.63,120/- which was paid as personal pay was recovered recovered from the arrears paid to the applicant. Applicant retired from the service of KIOCL K OCL under voluntary retirement scheme on 31.08.2018 Thereafter on 07.11.2019, the applicant submitted a detailed representation to the 2nd Respondent explaining the injustice caused to him on account of the denial of corresponding revision of his pay after his promotion to Executive cadre. In response, 3rd Respondent issued a reply stating that the fitment of his pay is in accordance with law and the same has been done to maintain parity with executives and to avoid anomaly. Again on 12.12.2019, the applicant submitted yet another representation to Respondent No.4. A reference was also made to the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.2016 6 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH issuedd by the Coal India Limited. The same having not yielded any positive reply, the applicant got issued a legal notice dated 06.06.2020 to all the respondents to set right the pay anomaly crept in his pay fixation. The 6th Respondent issued a reply date dated 27.07.2020 justifying the pay fixation of the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant had filed OA No.456/2020 before this Tribunal seeking an appropriate direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of pay fixation and proper fitment of his pay at Rs.37,960/ Rs.37,960/- as on the date of his promotion with effect from 03.07.2014 in the cadre of Section Officer. The said OA was withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to file fresh application. Hence this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri M.Subramanya Bha Bhat representing the applicant argued that the revised basic pay of the applicant as on 30.06.2014 in the Non-Executive Non Executive cadre ought to have been taken into account for fixation of basic pay from the date of his promotion as Section Officer with effect from 01.07.2014 in all fairness to protect his last drawn revised basic pay in the feeder cadre. However, the applicant was fitted in far lower pay stage with an unreasonable and arbitrary stand to maintain pay parity with his seniors seniors. In the guise of 7 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH avoiding ing pay anomaly to the seniors, the legitimate pay and emoluments cannot be deprived to junior. Referring to the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.2016 issued by the Coal India Limited (Annexure A10), learned Counsel submitted that similar pay anomaly issue has as been effectively addressed by the Coal India Limited by fixing same basic pay for both and treating the difference between the pay of junior and the senior as differential pay to be reckoned for the purpose of DA, leave encashment, pension, annual incr increment etc. The 2nd Respondent ought to have adopted the same method to alleviate the pay anomaly between the senior and the junior. Learned Counsel further submitted that the respondents have recovered an amount of Rs.63,120/ which was paid as personall pay at the rate of 10% Rs.63,120/- 10%, from the arrears paid to the applicant sans providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Personal pay is nothing but the component of the pay granted to the applicant upon fixation of his pay in the promoted cadre. Thee recovery so made is without any authority besides being illegal and irrational. Thus the learned Counsel sought for allowing the application as prayed for.
8 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4. Detailed reply statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned Counsel Shri Shr Aniketh B.C., M/s.Dua Associat Associates representing the Respondent no.2 to 7 argued that settlement of wage revision for Non-Executives Non Executives was arrived on 27.02.2017, the revised wage was paid to the eligible Non-
Non-Executives with effect from 01.01.2012. The The wage negotiations were done as per the guidelines of DPE OM dated 13.06.2013. As per Clause 2(iv) of the said OM, the negotiated scale of pay of Non-Executive Non Executive should not come in conflict with the existing scales of Executive and Non Non-unionized Supervisors.
ors.
The Committee constituted in this regard had examined the matter and submitted its report, based on which basic pay was revised and fixed from 01.01.2012. The applicant was paid all the benefits of Non Non-
Executive employees as per the entitlement oof tripartite settlement till he got promoted as Supervisor/Executive. The Committee constituted in this regard has studied the matter and observed that the employees who become Supervisors from Non-Executive Executive to Executive after 01.10.2012 will draw much higher basic pay 01.10.2012, compared to the Supervisors who were promoted prior to 01.01.2012. Accordingly, based on the Committee's recommendation, the applicant applicant's pay was fixed in pre-revised pre revised basic pay vide office order dated 22.12.2017. No 9 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH objections were raised raised by the applicant on the office order dated 22.12.2017 at the appropriate time. After retirement under VRS, the applicant submitted a representation dated 07.11.2019 to the respondents and registered grievance through Centralized Public Grievance Redress Redress and Monitoring Systems (CPGRMS) on 13.11.2019. The respondents suitably replied to the said grievance. Learned Counsel submitted that Office Memorandum issued by M/s.Coal India Limited cannot be compared. Learned Counsel further submitted tha that the executive revision was implemented on 19.10 19.10.2019 in the respondent Company and since the personal pay was adjusted with the basic pay fixation made to the applicant with ef effect from 01.01.2017, the excess personal pay paid to the applicant from 01.01 01.01.2017 till the date of implementation of the wage revision of Executives or ddate of separation was recovered while releasing the arrears amount to the applicant and other respective employees. Hence justifying the action of the respondents, sought for dismissal of the application.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
10 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(1) Whether the applicant is entitled for basic pay of Rs.37,960/- with effect from 01.07.2014 along with admissible benefits in the cadre of Section Officer and the conseque consequential revised terminal benefits?
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled for refund of a sum of Rs.63,120/- recovered covered from the applicant along with interest interest?
7. Re. Point No.1 - The applicant holding the Non Non-Executive post as a Typist in KIOCL K CL was promoted as Section Officer (SS Scale) (Executive) on 03.07.2014.
.07.2014. It is not in dispute that the pay scales of Non-Executive Executive were revised in terms of tripartite settlement dated 27.02.2017 retrospectively with effect from 01.01.2012. This benefit was admittedly given to the applicant for the period from 01.01 01.01.2012 to 30.06.2014. The applicant was promoted as Junior Officer with effect from 04.0 .01.2017.. Office Order dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure A5) discloses the pay fixation of the applicant consequent to revision of pay scales for Non-Executive Non Executive with effect ffrom 01.01.2012 and 11 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH subsequent promotion to the Supervisory grade. The details of which are as under:
Basic DA Ba DA% Fam Plng Pay Scale
pay % sic Incentive
Pa
y
Effective Existing Revised Ex Re Incr Pers. Allowan Existi Revis
Date ist vi Mth Pay ce/perks ng ed
in se
g d
01-Jan- 20140 56. 34720 0.0 SEP Allowan 11330 12470
2012 70 ce - -
17230 18960
01-SEP- 20750 61. 35770 3.00 SEP Allowan
2012 50 ce
01-SEP- 21380 78. 36850 14.10 SEP Allowan
2013 90 ce
On 22030 91. 22030 91.30 SEP 3156 47% 12600 12600
Promoti 30 - -
on 03- 32500 32500
JUL-
2014
01-SPE- 22700 91. 22700 91.30 SEP 3156 47%
2014 30
01-SEP- 23390 102. 23390 102. SEP 3156 47%
2015 60 60
01-SEP- 24100 114. 24100 114. SEP 3156 47%
2016 80 60
04.JAN- 24830 119. 24830 119. SEP 3156 47% 16400 16400
2017 50 50 - -
40500 40500
Note:
1. Personal Pay = (Pre revised Basic pay + Pre revised DA) as on 01 01- 01-2012 2012 X 10%. Personal Pay will be adjusted in the next Wage Revision for Supervisors and Executives.
1. Pay Scales of Non Executives was revised w.e.f. 01.01.2012 whereas Supervisors & Executives are continuing in the Pre Pre-revised Scale of Pay w.e.f. 01.10.2007."
01.10.2007.
12 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8. It is apparent that on promotion (with effect from 03.07.2014) the applicant's basic pay is fixed at Rs.22,030/ Rs.22,030/- +91.30% DA, whereas revised basic pay in the Non-Executive Non Executive ca cadre as on 01.09.2013 was Rs.36,850/ 850/- + 14.10% DA. Personal pay of Rs.3156/ Rs.3156/- was fixed with effect from 03.07.2014. Statement of arrears on revision of pay scales with effect from 01.07.2014 (Annexure (Annexu e A13) indicates that a sum of Rs.63,120/ s.63,120/- was adjusted towards the difference of Personal pay paid from 01.01.2017. This OA is filed on 01.12.2020 01.12.2020, the reasons for delay explained by the applicant that representations dated 07.11.2019, 12.12.2019 followed by legal notice dated 06.06.2020, not yielded any positive results, results in our view, cannot be considered as satisfactory explanation to condone the delay caused in filing this OA. For the reasons best known to the applicant, no voice was aired by the applicant during his service tenure in the respondents' company. After retirement, objections are raised regarding pay fixation made in the year 2017. As such, the OA suffers from delay and laches.
9. Even on merits, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure A8) for the following reasons:
13 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Indisputably the revised wage was paid to the Non Indisputably, Non-Executives with effect from 01.01.2012 and the negotiations were done vide DPE OM dated 13.06.2013. Clause-2(iii) Clause iii) and (iv) of the said OM reads thus:
"2. The wage negotiation and finalization will be subject to the following conditions:
conditions:-
(i)......................
(ii)....................
(iii) To avoid conflict of pay scales of executives/non-
unionized supervisors with that of their work workmen, CPSEs may consider adoption of graded DA neutralization and/or graded fitment during the wage negotiations.
(iv) The management of the CPSEs concerned have to ensure that negotiated scales of pay would not come in conflict with the existing scales of pay of executives/officers and non non-unionized supervisors of respective CPSEs."
10. Office Order dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure A5) depicts about the Personal pay of Rs.3156/-
Rs.3156/ paid to the applicant from 03.07.2014 to 04.01.2017. The Committee formed by the re respondents to study the issue and recommend the pay fixation for all Non Non-Executive employees who were promoted between the period from 01.01.2012 till implementation of Non Executive wage revision Non-Executive made some 14 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH recommendations. Based on the Committee's recomm recommendation endation applicant's basic was fixed from 01.01.2012 . Detailed fitment on revision is shown as under:
SALARY BEFORE FITMENT SALARY AFTER FITMENT FROM FROM 01.01.2012 01.01.2012 BASIC 20140 BASIC 20140 DA% 56.7DA% 56.7 DA 11420 DA 11420 TOTAL 31560 FITMENT OF 10% ON 3156 BASIC AND DA TOTAL 34716 TOTAL DIFFERNCE ON FITMENT SHOWN AS PERS PERS-PAY 3156
11. It is not in dispute that the last wage revision in respect of Supervisors/Executives was done in 01.01.2007 and next wage revision for executives after10 years was due on 01.01.2017 01.01.2017, where as the wage revision for Non-Executives Non Executives coming within 5 years of periodici periodicity, the applicant's promotion from Non-Executive Executive to Executive in SS Scale Grade on 03.07.2014 03.07.2014 comes after wage revision of Non Non-Executive from 01.01.2012.
12. It is pertinent to note that the Non Non-Executive employee when gets promotion to Executive cadre, the wage structure ffor Executive will be different from the Non-Executive.
Non Executive. While making the fitment, the basic drawn by the Non-Executive Non Executive was kept in line with the 15 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Executive from 01.01.2012 and the fitment was made. The difference of fitment of 10% MGB (Minimum Guaranteed Benefit) was kept as Personal Pay, Pay, which should be adjusted when the Executive wage revision will be implemented and the same was informed to the applicant vide order dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure A5). The same remained unchallenged.
unchallenged While hile fixing the revised pay as Executive, the basic pay of the applicant was fixed at Rs.22,030/ Rs.22,030/- with DA of 91.3%.
10% fitment benefit arrived on wage revision of Non Non-Executive was paid as Personal pay, whereas the revised pay of the applicant as on 01.09.2013 was Rs.36,850 Rs.36,850 + 14.1%. It is clear that the revised pay as on 01.09.2013 (Rs.36850 ( + 14.10% 4.10% DA = Rs.42,045), (Non-Executive) on promotion as Executive on 03.07.2014, was fixed as Rs.22,030/- + 91.30% DA = Rs.42,143/-
Rs.42,143/ + Personal pay of Rs.3,156/ Rs.3,156/- .
13. The reliance made by the learned Counsel for applicant on the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.2016 issued by M/s.Coal India Limited (Annexure A10) is not binding on the respondents respondents. Even otherwise the anomaly between the senior Executive and junior otherwise, Executive has been resolved by M/s.Coal India Limited as under:
"c) Similarly, in case of junior executive (who entered in Executive Grade later i.e., after the implementation of NCWA NCWA-16 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
IX) with whom the case is compared, his basic would also be IX) grouped as Basic + Difference Difference of Pay, what has been granted to the Senior Executive as per Sl.No.(b). The example is given below:
Particulars Senior Executive Junior Executive
1.Basic as on 1.4.2016 Rs.22,000/ Rs.22,000/- Rs.32000/-
2.After grant Basic Rs.22,000/
Rs.22,000/- Rs.22,000/-
of DP Difference of pay Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
"
It is thus clear that after grant of DP, basic pay of the junior Executive has been reduced to Rs.22,000/-
Rs.22,000/ from Rs.32,000/ Rs.32,000/- on par with senior Executive and difference of pay has been fixed at Rs.10,000/- to both the cadres. What is to be noted is basic pay of the Junior Executive is reduced to bring it on par with Senior Executive. The methodology adopted by M/s. Coal India Limited not being a statutory rule, no direction to adopt the same could could be given to the respondents. T The application fails in this regard as well. As the applicant was drawing more basic pay than the senior level executives and to avoid this pay anomaly, 10% fitment benefit arrived on wage revision of Non Non-
Executive cutive was paid paid as Personal Pay and the basic pay on promotion was reduced enhancing DA from 14.1% to 91.3%. The applicant is claiming protection of basic pay in the Non Non-Executive cadre where DA 17 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH was 14.1% with revised DA of 91.3% in the Executive cadre, which is wholly unreasonable and cannot be countenanced.
14. Re. Point No.(2) - It is apparent that Personal Pay of 10% (Rs.63,120/ has been adjusted in the revision of pay of the applicant (Rs.63,120/-) with effect from 01.01.2017 in the Executive cadre. The applicant has availed the benefit of tripartite settlement in the Non Non-Executive cadre from 01.01.2012 to 02.07.2014, again from 01.01.2017 in the Executive cadre, the anomaly was from 03.07.2014 to 31.12.2016, hence 10% fitment benefit was extended as Personal pay due to Non- Executive revision as Personal pay till the pay revision of Executive has taken place. On revision of Executive pay, the Personal pay has been nullified by adjusting the amount while making fixation of basic pay with effect from 01.01.2017. Hence we find no fault in the Hence methodology adopted by the respondents in adjusting the sum of Rs.63,120/ basic pay in this manner. Indeed no anomaly has arisen Rs.63,120/-
subsequent to the pay fixation on promotion of the applicant in the Executive cadre.
15. It is not uncommon in following different methodology by different public sector units. Ultimately based on the 18 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH recommendations of the Committee constituted by the respondents' company to resolve the anomalies between the employees who were promoted from fro Non-Executive Executive cadre to Supervisory/Executive cadre vis-a-vis the seniors in the Executive cadre cadre, keeping in mind the DPE guidelines issued vide OM dated 13.06.201 13.06.2013, pay fixation of the applicant has been made and the same cannot be held to be unjustifiable.
iable.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, OA is bereft of merit. Accordingly, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
19 OA No.17/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH