Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Darshan Singh Through Lrs Satya Bai vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 20 February, 2020
1 OA No-2388/14
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No-2388/2014
MA No-3566/2019
New Delhi, this the 20th day of February, 2020
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
1. Darshan Singh, S/o Gurdayal Singh, Age-44
2. Naimuddin, S/o sirajuddin, Age 40
3. Rajdulara, S/o late Pitam Singh, Age 51
4. R.P. Sharma, S/o Padam Dutt Sharma, Age 54
5. Ramesh Kumar, S/o Ilam Singh, Age 54
6. Sanjay, S/o Raghuvir Singh, Age 42
7. Rishi Raj, S/o Karan Singh, Age 44
8. Karambir Singh, S/o Kitab Singh, Age 52
9. B.K.L. Karan, S/o J.L. Dass, Age 54
10. Balvinder Singh, S/o Dharm D.K. Singh, Age 50
All working as Bulldozer Operator under the control and
supervision of Executive Engineer (SLF), Office of E.E. (SLF)
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Behind Primary School
Lalita Park-Near Metro Station
92, Vikash Marg, Delhi. ...Applicants
(through Sh. R.K. Shukla)
Versus
1. The Commissioner
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Central Establishment Department
Udyog Sadan, 419 Patparganj
Industrial Area, Delhi-110092.
2. The Administrative Officer/CED
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
2 OA No-2388/14
Central Establishment Department
Udyog Sadan, 419 Patparganj
Industrial Area, Delhi-110092.
3. The E-in-C
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Central Establishment Department
Udyog Sadan, 419 Patparganj
Industrial Area, Delhi-110092.
4. The Director (Personnel)
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Central Establishment Department
Udyog Sadan, 419 Patparganj
Industrial Area, Delhi-110092.
5. The Commissioner
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Civic Centre, JLN Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi.
6. The Commissioner
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Civic Centre, JLN Marg
Minto Road, New Delhi. ...Respondents
(through Sh. K.M. Singh for R.Nos. 1-4, Ms. Anupama
Bansal for R. No. 5 and Sh. R.K. Jain for R.No. 6)
ORDER (Oral)
Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman MA No. 3566/2019 OA No. 2388/2014 was dismissed for default on 16.04.2019. This MA is filed with a prayer to restore the OA. It is stated that the absence of the learned counsel for the applicants on 3 OA No-2388/14 16.04.2019 was neither wilful nor deliberate, but was under
inevitable circumstances.
2. In the MA, the reasons that led to the non appearance of the learned counsel for the applicants, are indicated. There is no reason to disbelieve them. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the MA is ordered and the order dated 16.04.2019 is set aside. The OA shall stand restored. OA No. 2388/2014
The applicants are working as Bulldozer Operators, in the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC). The pre-revised pay scale for that post was Rs. 4000-6000. Drawing parity with the Bulldozer Operator in the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), they claim enhancement of the pay scale to Rs. 4500-7000. The applicants contend that the nature of duties to be discharged by the Bulldozer Operator in the EDMC on the one hand and the DJB on the other, are one and the same, and that, there is no basis for maintaining such a serious disparity. They further contend that in the subsequent revisions, the discrepancy is still widened.
2. In this OA, the applicants seek direction to the respondents to upgrade their pay scale, to be on par with the pay 4 OA No-2388/14 scale of the Bulldozer Operator in the DJB, and to implement the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, in this behalf.
3. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the posts in the Municipal Corporations on the one hand and the DJB on the other, are substantially different, and the applicants cannot draw comparison.
4. We heard Sh. R.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sh. K.M. Singh for R.Nos. 1-4, Ms. Anupama Bansal for R. No. 5 and Sh. R.K. Jain for R.No. 6.
5. The OA was heard on 17.02.2020 and learned counsel for the parties were directed to make available, the relevant material in this behalf, obviously to have an idea about the comparison.
6. Today, learned counsel for the applicants has placed before us, the pay structure that is existing in the DJB. There are two categories of Bulldozer Drivers, i.e., Grade I and II. For Grade I, which is also called as Dredger, the pay scale is 4500- 7000 and for Bulldozer Driver Grade II, pre-revised pay scale is 4000-6000. The Grade Pay in the revised pay scales is Rs. 2800/- and Rs. 2400/- respectively. The applicant is comparing the posts of Bulldozer Operator with that of Grade I/Dredger in 5 OA No-2388/14 DJB. We are informed that the Bulldozer Driver Grade I/Dredger is a promotional post to Bulldozer Driver Grade II. The applicants are drawing pay scale, that is attached to Bulldozer Driver Grade II, in DJB. Therefore, they cannot compare with the promotional post.
7. We do not find any merit in the OA and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.K. Bishnoi) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member (A) Chairman /ns/