Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
P.R. Gurumurthy And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(2)SLJ50(CAT)
ORDER Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Member (J)
1. Six applicants, who were initially appointed as Tracers in the pay scale of Rs. 260-350 in the office of Respondent ('R' for short) No. 3 have filed the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Direct the respondents to revise the pay scales on par with the draughtsmen in other departments in terms of Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 13.3.84 (Annexure A-3) and 19.10.94 (Annexure A-4), while quashing the Office Memorandum No. NAL/5(20) Vig-2000 dated 4.9.2001 (Annexure A-14).
(ii) While declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the benefits of revision of pay scales is arbitrary, discriminatory. Direct the respondents to extend the corresponding raising scales in all grades.
(iii) Direct the respondents to draw arrears of pay and other allowances to the applicants consequent upon such revision of pay scales as prayed for hereinabove with interest.
(iv) Pass any other order or direction as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal including an order for award of cost of this application in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay in administration."
2. Admitted facts of the case are that the applicants were initially appointed as Tracers in the scale of Rs. 260-6-326-EB-8-350 in the office of R-3 and on the basis of policy decision taken by R-2 they were categorised into distinct groups and grades based on entry level qualification and accordingly placed in Group II Grade 2. The grievance raised by the applicants is that Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, vide O.M. dated 13.3.1984 (Annexure A-3) based on award of Board of Arbitration, revised the pay scale to the category of Draughtsmen as under:
Vide the above O.M. it had been decided that the scale of pay of Draughtsman Grade III, II and I in the offices of Government of India other than CPWD would stand revised as above provided their recruitment qualification were similar to those prescribed in the case of Draughtsmen in CPWD. However, it was stated that those who do not fulfill the above qualification will continue to be placed in the pre-revised scale. The benefit of the revised pay scale was made applicable notionally with effect from 13.5.1982 and actual benefit being allowed with effect from 1.11.1983.
3. Later, another Office Memorandum dated 19.10.1994 (Annexure A-4) was issued whereby the requirement of educational qualification as prescribed in the earlier O.M. dated 13.3.1984 was dispensed with and Para 2 of the said O.M. dated 19.10.1994 provided as under:
"2. The President is now pleased to decide that the Draughtsmen Grade I, II and III in offices/departments of the Government of India other than in CPWD may also be placed in the scales of pay mentioned above subject to the following:
(a) Minimum period of service for placement from the post carrying scale of Rs. 975-1540 to Rs. 1200-2040 (pre-revised Rs. 260-430 to Rs. 330- 560). 7 years (b) Minimum period of service for placement from the post carrying scale of Rs. 1200-2040 to Rs. 1400-2300 (pre-revised Rs. 330-560 to Rs. 425- 700). 5 years (c) Minimum period of service for placement from the post carrying scale of Rs. 1400-2300 to Rs. 1600-2660 (pre-revised Rs. 425-700 to 550- 750). 4 years
Para 3 of the said O.M. further provided that once draughtsmen are placed in the regular scales, further promotions would be made against available vacancies in accordance with the normal eligibility criteria laid down in the recruitment rules. The grievance raised is that the R-2 and 3 have not granted the benefit of revised pay scale to the applicants as prescribed vide O.M. dated 19.10.1994.
4. On an earlier occasion the applicants had filed O.A. No. 83/2000 before this Bench and the same was disposed of vide order dated 1.6.2001 (Annexure A-12) with direction to the respondents to re-examine the case of the applicants as indicated in the minutes of the meeting held on 2.12.1996 and to pass appropriate and speaking orders. In the said order it was observed that while considering the applicants' case for reconsideration, the respondents would keep in mind that the other sets of employees in the organisation have been given similar revised pay scales as that of the other Department, otherwise it may amount to discrimination between two sets of its employees. Subsequently R.A. No. 13/01 filed against the said order was dismissed (Annexure A-13). Further C.P. No. 96/01 was also dismissed vide order dated 28.9.2001 (Annexure A-15). In the meantime R-2 vide O.M. dated 4.9.2001 (Annexure A-14) considered the claims made by the applicants but rejected the request of the applicants for revision of pay scales. This communication dated 4.9.2001 has been impugned in the present proceedings. It would be necessary to extract the relevant portion of the said O.M., which reads as under:
"I am directed to state that as per the directions of the Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore Bench on the petition filed by Shri P.R. Gurumurthy and Ors. of your Laboratory, the matter has been reconsidered by the Competent Authority in the light of minutes of the meeting held on 2.12.96 in pursuance of direction of the Hon'ble Tribunal.
The cases as indicated in the minutes of the meeting held on 2.12.96 relate to revision of pay scales of JTAs in Group-III (1) and STAs in Group-III (2) and not to the employees in Group-II like the petitioners. Even in the case of Gr.-III(1) and III(2) employees, the request was considered by the Competent Authority but was not agreed to as the hierarchical structure and career progress in CSIR to the post of Gr-III(1) and (2) employees are different from the Govt. Departments and are governed by the flexible complementing (Assessment) Scheme for their promotion which is different from the DPC system. The Competent Authority has, therefore, rejected the request of the applicants for revision of pay scales on the same grounds.
Further, as regards, the comparison of the scales of pay attached to the posts of Draftsmen in Govt. Deptts., and the Assistants and Sr. Stenographer, it is stated that the Draftsmen in CSIR are appointed in Technical Category in Group II and are governed under the Assessment Promotion Scheme in which they are considered for promotion irrespective of availability of posts. They can get at least 4 promotions in their career. Thus, the career progression of Draftsmen in CSIR is quite different and better than their counterparts in Govt. Deptt. but in the case of Assistants and Sr. Stenographers, promotion is linked with availability of posts in those grades."
5. On notice, the respondents have filed the reply and opposed the claim laid by the applicants by urging that they have their own recruitment and promotion policy. Keeping in view the said requirements no comparison can be drawn between the Government departments and the respondents organisation which is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. As plea about CSIR not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 based on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary, AIR 1975 SC 1329 has also been raised. It is admitted fact that R-2 and 3 introduced a scheme known as New recruitment and Assessment Scheme (hereinafter referred as 'NRAS') which came into force with effect from 1.2.1981. Under the said scheme all the Scientific and Technical and supporting staff down to the level of Group D/class IV, are included. The scientific and technical staff had been divided into two categories. Each group had a number of grades. Minimum entry level qualification for each group/grade had also been laid down after the introduction of NRAS, recruitment and assessment promotion had to be considered and regulated as per the provisions of NRAS. Subsequently CSIR promulgated its rules for recruitment for scientific, technical and supporting staff, which had been made applicable with effect from 1.4.1994. It is contended that based on the educational qualification prescribed for the post and acquired by the applicants they were placed in Group II Grade 2. As per Para 2.2 of NRAS, an official who is placed in Group II Grade 1, carrying pay scale of Rs. 950-1400, is entitled for promotion/assessment to the next higher grade of Group-II i.e. Grade 2 carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 after putting 7 years of residency period in the feeder grade of Rs. 950-1400. Under Group II there are five grades available i.e., grade 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. A person within Group II, can move to next higher scale of grade i.e. Grade 2 and so on, on completion of number of years of service prescribed therein. The respondents have also contended that as the recruitment and promotion rules are different, their promotional avenues/chances are different, the applicants' attempt to draw a comparison between the other Government departments and the respondent organisation is not warranted. It has also been contended that the earlier O.A. 1999/95 and 54-61/96 on the same cause of action i.e., seeking comparison and parity with the Draughtsmen CPWD was filed and rejected by this Tribunal vide order dated 2.1.1997.
6. The applicants have filed rejoinder and refuted the contentions raised by the respondents in their reply. It is admitted by the applicants that they were initially appointed as Tracer during 1982-1984 and later on redesignated as in the category of Draughtsmen. The applicants have made an attempt to seek comparison with the Draughtsmen employed in the DRDO, Ministry of Defence, as well as other Central Government offices. A reliance has been placed heavily on the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure O.M. dated 11.9.1987, which was made applicable by R-2 to all the National Laboratories / Institutes vide its communication dated 26.5.1988.
7. The O.M. dated 11.9.1987 basically extends the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 1.5.1985 in Civil Appeal No. 3121 of 1981 P. Savitha v. Union of India to all similarly situated placed Draughtsmen in other Ministries / Departments of Government of India. Vide communication dated 26.5.1988 it has been conveyed that the D.G., CSIR, based on O.M. dated 11.9.1987 as well as on the recommendation of the Committee is pleased to decide that the Draughtsmen who were in the pay scale of Rs. 205-280 prior to 1.1.1973 and were placed in the scale of Rs. 330-560/380-640 may be given the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 notionally from 1.1.1993 and actually from 1.9.1987.
8. Learned Counsel for the applicants has cited 2002 SCC (L&S) 633=2002(3) SLJ 42 (SC), a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others and has strongly relied upon Para 54 of the said judgment. Basically the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case was concerned with the issue, as to whether the CSIR is an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the correctness of the decision taken in Sabhajit Tewary, (supra) was an issue before the Hon'ble Constitution Bench. In Para 54 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that as far as the employees of the CSIR are concerned the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, CCS (Conduct) Rules subject to such modification as may be required under the provisions of the said rules are applicable to them. Similarly it was noted that the scales of pay applicable to all the employees of the CSIR are those prescribed by the Government of India for similar personnel, save in the case of specialists (Bye-law 14) and in regard to all matters concerning service conditions of employees of CSIR, the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules framed by Government of India and such other rules and orders issued by Government of India from time to time are applicable. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this paragraph is of a general nature and cannot be construed as if it is the declaration that the pay scales notified by Government of India are mutatis mutandis and automatically applicable to the personnel of CSIR. In our considered view the reliance placed on Para 54 of the said judgment in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case (supra) is of no assistance to the applicant particularly when it has not been established by any expert body that the applicants who are working in the laboratories of CSIR are similarly placed to the officials working in the various Ministries/Departments of the Government of India. Learned Counsel for the applicants also relied upon 1997 SCC (L&S) 838=1997(2) SLJ 127 (SC), Union of India and Anr. v. P.V. Hariharan and Anr. and contended that there is a hostile discrimination meted out to the applicants in comparison to the similarly situated officials placed in the Central Government offices. It is settled law that fixation of pay is not the function of this Tribunal and it is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendation of the Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. This exercise is generally done by the Pay Commission or the expert bodies. It has not been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in respect of the category to which the applicants belong, any decision has been taken by the respondents to equate them with the employees of the Central Government and its offices. We do not find any similarity or equivalence between the applicants and the Central Government employees. Reliance placed by the applicants Counsel on P.V. Hariharan's case to contend of hostile discrimination, in our view, is misplaced.
8A. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents has strongly contended that no comparison is permissible between the applicants who are employees of CSIR and its Laboratories and Institutes and Central Government employees. It is contended that the principles of equal pay for equal work is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. For this purpose he has relied upon the case of c, wherein it has been held that : "When the same principle has to be extended to compare pay scales in one organisation with pay scales in another organisation, although between employees doing comparable work, the stretching of the doctrine, if at all it is to be done, must be done with caution list the doctrine snaps. Many ingredients go into shaping of the wage structure in any organisation..... A simplistic approach, granting higher remuneration to other workers in other organisation because another organisation has granted them, may lead to undesirable results. Even within the same organisation, when the differential wage structure is based on similar considerations, the application of the doctrine would be fraught with danger, and may seriously affect the efficiency, and at times, even the functioning of the organisation. The doctrine is designed to correct irrational and inexplicable pay differentiation which can be looked upon as discrimination against an employee or a given set of employees." In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the issue of comparable position with (sic) to officers of State Bank of India and subsidiary Bank and it was held that the State Bank of India and subsidiary Banks are not in a comparable position in regard to the benefits claimed by the petitioners. The principles of equal pay for equal work was held to be inapplicable.
9. Similarly the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that in (1989) 4 SCC 459, Harbans Lal and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., it has been held that the principles of equal pay for equal work has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. Article 14 permits reasonable classification founded on rational basis. It is, therefore, not impermissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre on the basis of selection post on merit with due regard to the experience and seniority. In Para 11 of the said judgment it was held that: the discrimination complained of must be within the same establishment owned by the same management. A comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different management, or even in establishments in different geographical locations though owned by the same master. Unless it is shown that there is a discrimination amongst the same set of employees by the same master in the same establishment, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be enforced.
10. In our respectful view the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also relied upon 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153, Secretary, Finance Department and Ors. v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Ors., wherein it has been held that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. Court has jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have remedy only if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well, held the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case. To the similar effect is the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jagat Singh and Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 221.
11. As noted hereinabove, no sufficient material has been placed before us to record a specific finding as to whether there had been an arbitrary, discriminatory and hostile discrimination made to the applicants in fixation of their pay. The contention raised by the applicants that the CSIR had extended the benefit of the O.M. dated 11.9.1987 issued by the Ministry of Finance vide circular dated 26.5.1988 and similar benefit of O.M. dated 19.10.1994 should be accorded to the applicants is misplaced for the reason that the benefit of O.M. dated 11.9.1987 as extended by CSIR communication dated 26.5.1988 in respect of those officials who were in the pay scale of Rs. 205-280 prior to 1.1.1973, which is not the facts in the applicants case inasmuch as the applicants themselves have joined the respondent organisation in the year 1982-1984. Similarly vide O.M. dated 19.10.1994 an independent decision was taken, though no doubt on the same lines as taken in the year 1984 and 1987. R-2 and 3 have not taken any policy decision to extend the benefit of the O.M. dated 19.10.1994. This decision is within the realm of a policy decision of R-2 and 3. Admittedly no such policy decision has been taken by R-2 and 3 to extend the benefit of O.M. dated 19.10.1994. At this stage it would be relevant to note that R-2 and 3 have also evolved an assessment scheme of NRAS and subsequently known as MANAS. Under no circumstances the applicants who are working in the office of R-2 and 3 can be allowed to reap two benefits one as granted by the Central Government and secondly by the assessment scheme notified by R-2 and 3, which are known as NRAS and MANAS respectively. If the benefit of O.M. dated 19.10.1994 which was made applicable by the Central Government with effect from 13.5.1982 is extended to the employees of R-2 and 3 then it would amount to double benefit one under the NRAS with effect from 1.2.1981 and secondly under O.M. dated 19.10.1994 which had been made applicable with effect from 13.5.1982. Such an eventuality has not even been conceived by R-2 and 3. The promotion and assessment scheme prevalent in the office of R-1 as well as R-2 and 3 are different and distinct.
12. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove the applicants have not been able to made out any case for interference by this Tribunal and the claim of the applicants being devoid of any merits, this O.A. is liable to be rejected. Accordingly this O.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.