Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Anindita Samir Nandi vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 3 April, 2019
i OF Ne F3RT3, F32/23, (33413, 734613 & P33 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.731/2013 with MA No.961/2013 QA No.732/2013 with MA 962/2013 OA No.733/2013 with MA 963/2013 OA No.734/2013 with MA 964/2013 & OA No.735/2013 with MA 965/2013 Date of Decision: 03.04.2019. CORAM: DR. BHAGWAN SAHAI, MEMBER (A) RN. SINGH, MEMBER (2) Smt. Aditi Vinod Bandre. Age 34 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 008. Riat 4/2 Tata Colony, Khadegolawali (Gaon) Vithalwadi, Ralyan (BE). .. Applicant in O4 No. 731/13 Shri Vadukot Jose Justin Age 38 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 608. R/at Riddhi Siddhi Apartment 'A' Wing, 5" Floor, R.No.502, . Buisewadi, Thane (W). . <Applicantin OA No.732/13 Shri Santosh Dattatray Yadav, Age 38 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai. R/at Aat Niwas, Jimi Baug, Near Old Juni Baug, Old Swami Samarth Mandir, Kalyan (East)... Applicant in OA No. 733/13 Smit. Anindita Samir Nandi Age 34 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 008. R/at C3/40, . Hyde Park, Residencey, Near Tulsidham, Thane (W). .. wdpplicant in OA Ne. 734/13 Shri Amardeep Maruti Ningappagal Age 42 years, R/at ESIS Hospital, 16/9 Road No.33, Wagle Estate, Thane w 2 | C4 No. rt 3, 732/1 3, P3893, P3413 & PISLI3 CW), Pin -- 400 604. ve Applicant in OA No. 73813 (By Advocate Shri Vicky Nagrani) VERSUS 1. Seeretary Govt. of india, ' Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Moulana Aga Road, - At Post New Delhi 110 011. ba Drugs Controller General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan Moulana Agaz Road, At Post New Delhi 110 011. 3. Union of India, through Director Incharge, Central Drugs Testing Laboratory-Mumbai, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, _Gavt. Medical Store, Department Compound, © Opp. Sahil Hotel, Belasis Road, Mumbai Central, At post Mumbai 400 008. 4, Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, At Post New Delhi 110001... Respondents in all the OAs. (By Advocate Siri NK. Rajpurohit) : ORDER (Oral)
Per: BLN. Singh, Member 6) Heard Shri VA. Nagrani, learned counsel for the Applicants and Shri N-.K. Rajpurohnit, learned counsel for the Respondents.
2, Im ail the aforesaid ¥Five OAs filed wR yen gee wen ene te fn ey ¢ a te Sy os, edd ey f ste es oy 5 "
wunder Section 18 o£ th Administrative MM sa SOW eeen e : awit 7A eh = V4 5 eo are Tribunals Act, i885. The applicants are x, Pheeadiar simttariy taeed 4 amuch as admittedly similarly placed inasmuch as at the time of filing of the respective OAs, 3 OA No. F32613, 732093, FSIS, PI4IF & RATS they have been working as Junior Lab Assistant (JLA) a Group ''D'' pest under the respondents and all of -them have been aggrieved cf the same/similar orders dated' 28.05.2012, e2.02,2012, SO.11.2013 and 13.07.2012 (Annex .A-1l(a),A-1(b), A-l{c}) & A- iid} and the aforesaid applicants have prayed for the following reliefs in the respective OAs<¢- .
"Sc This Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to eall for the records of the case regarding implementation of recommendation of Vih Pay Commission above Lab Asstt. Ministry of Health and FW and pass orders upholding that applicants are entitled to similar benefits.
8.8} Quash and set aside letter & decisions proposal dated 18.08.2012, 22.2.2012, 30.11.2011; 13,7.2012 and Alfa), Alfb), Alte) & Alfa} respectively, &.G} Hald and declare that withholding of. benefits to applicants although same granted to Lab Assistant in CIPL NICD NMEP is discri iminatory.
bd Be further graciously pleased to allow the QA and direct respondents to extend all benefits granted by Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench order in O4 No.1935/2005 to CIPL Lab Assistant (VP challenging if dismissed by Hon'ble High Court, Delhi) within 3 months with all consequential benefits such as arrears, affixation af pay, rectification of pay conferential in further grades.
8g) Hold and declare that non extending of similar benefits to similarly placed person is"
discriminatary.
8H Direct respandents te -- eansider representations gent by applicants on 17 22.2008 d OA Na P3LGS, P2293, F333, 2 of Sad ah ea tag Re "at Sa hat Cn Sag (Exh.AlQ) within 2 months by issuing speaking and reasoned order.
&.2) Any other and such further relief{s}) as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 8&4} Cost of an be saddled on respondents and paid te applicant."
3. With the consent of the parties, all:
the aforesaid: OAs i ih re being disposed of by a w Fys$ cammnon order. However, OR No.731i/2013 has ww sad ss case by. the learned ry © & oF ct ty a 0 4 > aK we f MO counsels for the parties and accordingly the facts are being taken from the pleadings in OA No. ?3i/2013
4. the precise facts of the case (s) are The Applicants were holding Technical Posts i.e. the post of Junior Lab Assistant in the Central Drug Testing Laboratory, Mumbai under the Ministry of Health. This is the second round of litigation inasmuch aS in the first round of Litigation, th iT applicants have approached this Tribunal by filling respective GAs i.e. GA Nos.330/2009, 3321/2004, 332 /2009 333 /2088 & 334 (2009 under Section iS oF the Administrative a ~ x ees . oe ned eo disposed of by a cx ormmen order/judagment dated @ ,O7 2015 fAnnex.Rd 160). . -
Or} at the 5 OA No. FSRI3, 732/13, 73RUS, P3413 & PR order /judgment qd © .O7.2016 reads as under:
"3. It is also Brought to our notice by the 313 ak ace learned counsel for applicants that the respondents -
have constituted Anomalies Cammittee to resolve the whole issue and submits that a suitable direction be given fo the respondents to treat the present OA as representations within the meaning of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and place the same before the Anomalies Committee for proper appreciation of the grievances of the applicants,
4. _ The learned counsel for applicants has alse brought to our notice order dated 11.07.2006 passed by Division Bench of this Tribunal, sitting at the Principal Bench, New Dethi, in OA No J933/05 | (Sanjay Kumar & & others Vs. Union of india & Ors} wherein similar issue had been raised by Laboratory Assistants warking at CIPL, Ghaziabad and they have been granted similar benefit of pay --
revision based an the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The applicants are also similarly situated and, therefore, cannot he discriminated against.
'5. After hearing the learned counsel af parties and perusing the pleadings, we are of the considered opinion that ends af fustice would be-
met if direction is given to the respondents to place the case of the applicant before the Anomalies Committee and ta expeditiously take final decision in respect of their grievance (applicants) taking into consideration the present OAs by treating the same as a representation, within the meaning of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Final decision to be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this arder.
Sf Needless to say, while considering the ahove said representations and the QdAs of the applicants, the Anomalies Committee will also taken into consideration the judgment of the Principal Bench in OA 1935/08 fsupra) and alza the fact that The relevant a 6 OA No P3113, 732/13, 733613, P3a1 3 & P3573 the said Judgment has been implemented by the respondents in respect of Laboratory Assistants working at CIPL, Ghasiahad. Jn case the applicants are still aggrieved. in any.manner, by the decision taken by the respondents In their respective cases, they will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
5. With the above said directions and observations, all the five OAs stand disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
5. From the aforesaid, it is. evident that the Tribunal had relied Woon. the order/judgment dated 11.07.2006 of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1935/2005, titled Sanjay Kumar & 8 Ors. Vs. Union of -- india & Ors. The relevant portion of the order/ 'Judgment dated 11.07.2006 in Sanjay Kumar (supra) reads as under:
"uaod dt is trite law that equals cannot be treated unequally, This will violate the principle of equality . enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Merely because there had been delay in approaching the respondents would not render the continuous cause of action ef grant of pay ane allowances as redundant. We find that there is no reasonable justification to deny the pay scale from L196 when tf has been extended to all those who are similarly circumstanced. We also note that recommendation of the S° CPC are accepted by all the Ministries and Departments yet the department situated in the same Ministry is denying the benefits fo the applicants and ultimately they have to approach for extension of benefit, which is unforttate, 3 in the result, we find that extending the benefit fram 19.4.2005 and withholding from 1.1.96 cannot be countenanced in law, Accordingly, OA is ® © 7 O4 No. P8heis, 732/74, FARTS, P3419 & FIS/149 partly allowed. impugned arder is set aside to the extent that the benefit of pay of Rs.4000-6000 from 19.4.2005 has been extended. Respondents are directed to accord to the applicants the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 wef 1.1.96 with arrears within a period af three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
6. Tt is admitted Eact that o the order /judgment dated 11.07.2006 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Sanjay 'Kumar (supra) attained finality inasmuch as > the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by dismissing the WP(C}) Oo, is73s/2oo7 vide order / judgment dated 12.03.2007 in the case ox Secretary, Government of India & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar ~ further ae the same ha th oy & Ors. (Annex.RJ-9) and been implemented by the respondents as could be evident from the office order dated Oy.
oad ;
Bent > a a The gxyievances of the applicants in the present aforesaid OAs are that though in compliance of the directions of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Sanjay Kumar (supra), the respondents have granted the benefit of Pay Scale of Rs.4000-6000 to the applicants Sanjay Kumar (supra) from different dates as applicable in the case of GS Of Nel 3hd3, 7373, 73843, $3413 & PINTS the respective applicants, however, keeping ¥ in view the fact that the Pay Scale of te 7 sfia 3 000-100-6000 | has been made applicable w.ee.f. O1,01.1996. However, in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal in common order/judgment dated 14.07.2010 in the OAs filed by the present applicants, the respondents have granted the Pay Scale of Rs.4000~-100-6000 to the present applicants @ only w.e.f. 01.01.2096 vide order dated 30.11.2011 and therefore they have. been dis criminated inasmuch they are Similarly fooed placed as the applicants in Sanjay Kumar C2 fsupra) and in spite of directions of thi Tribunal in the common order/judgment dat ' 4 TG ei "14.07.2010, the applicants in the present \\ OAS have not been placed in the correct Pay © bet ox oy ee:
tA Jan ape oa my: her ~~ ¥ . = LG w.e.F. the correct date i.e. wef.
Cate he &.
co 4 | ted ie) <2 oy 5 &. In response to the notice issued by this Tribunel, the respondants have filed cepiy and oon the basis of such reply and NK. Rajpurehit, learned ccunsel for the weer maa md re om 3 Yaa a Rey AAwSA respondents submits that the imougned orders SE nnn ae naa na tana nana saree eee eee D % OA Ne F3h93, 732/83, 733/13, 73403 & 235003 are apt in law. He further submits that the present applicants have not been granted the benefit of Pay Scale of Rs.4000-100- 6000 oy and have been granted.
fet wie... OL. 01.1996 wee.f., 01.01.2006 for the reason that the applicants had neither raised the issue of anomaly befo the Department nor they made any Yrepresentation before the 5° cpc. He further submits that the applicants who have Assistant in tt been working as duniscr Lab dy.
Central Drug Testing Laboratory, Mumbai are holding technical posts and were performing the same nature of duties and hola responsibility and they are Similarly Situated employees as the applicants in Sanjay Kumar (supra).
8. We have gone through the relevant pleadings and have considered the rival contentions. We have again gone through the order/judgment dated 11.07.2006 of the Principal Bench of is Tr ibunal in Sanjay Kumar (supra) as well as the common order/judgment dated 14.07.2016 of this 'Bench and we find that the respondents have not teken the defence that the henefits L Y iG GA No 34/73, P2203, 733013, P3413 & T3593 cannot be granted te the applicants therein for the reason that they have not raised the issue before the department or before the 5 PC. Similarly in the aforesaid common - order/judgment dated 14.0 direction was given to the respondents to place the matter before the Anomalies :
Committee and therefo:4
upon the present applicants to raise the matter before the Anomalies Committee, o before the 3° CPC or before the department. Moreaver, once it is admitted case that the hee icants are fully identical] and '< bresent app a bod Similar ro Sanjay Kumar (supra) . such z technical objections raised by the © 'spondents are not sustainable in the eyes it of law. .
to Du.
id, The Applicants have also Fil CF is) rs QO.
oO 53 ty rt ft Ct m3 3 mH Q if ft py ae % s QO.
application seeking 2 aa Gy ct ct 34 it) oy Pty Ch hy @ {a B jas er oO et H the applicants submit th Pa 2 fet> z nave been filed a few days beyond the per limitation l.e. one year from the date of Rh o impugned orders. However, by the present VT, wean ~ Blas . oo a 4 GA, ENG appiicents have sought for extension Fyes 4 e {errr miek he 1 ees of cbenefit of judgment which has already attained finality. Learned counsel for the € at was not incumbent yy) it OA No F3iis, 73261 3, 93341 3, P3813 & f33443 applicants further argues that the extension of benefit of judgment should have been given to the applicants by the respondents at their Own without compelling the applicants to approach this Tribunal again by the present OAs more particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.¢. Sharme Vs. Union of India, i2988/(i}) AISLY 54, Learned counsel For the aoplicants further argues that the issue in the present OR is about fixation of pay in fhe right pay scale and from the date from which the same has been granted to similarly placed persons and on account of grant of Pay from the wrong date, the applicants are suifering recurring loss and therefore heir OAs are within limitation, however, the respective applications have been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of delay as @& matter of abundant precautior: The delay is admittedly of around two months. filed to such MAs by the respondents anc 4 and circumstances, the or 1?) ea a rs 3 pe as ct font b a tray oe Y a ih aforesaid MAs are allowed and the delay in id OA No. 731013, 32613, 733 31 3, ¥3h7F & F853 sea | . an oe | --
filing of the respective OAs age condoned. id. in view of the aforesaid, the OAs are partly allowed with the following directions;
{2}. The Respondents are .directd to pass necessary order(s) to grant the Pay Scale of Re,€000-100-6006 to the applicants from OL.0L.1996 in place of wie.f. 01.01.2006 as granted to the similarly placed persons in he case of Sanjay Kumar {supra} with all ct
5) consequential benefits L.e. payment of arrears.
{32} The Respondents are directed "~ to complete che aforesaid exercise within i2, In the facta and cireons tances, mo (RN. Singh) (Pr. Bhagwan Sahai) Member (J) Member (A)