Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Yashoda Advani W/O Shri Lal Advani ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Through The ... on 7 March, 2007
ORDER V.K. Agnihotri, Member (A)
1. In this OA the applicants have sought directions to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicants in their respective scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986, instead of 11.09.1989, with consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are Electronic Date Processing (EDP, for short) personnel working as Data Entry Operators under respondent No. 3. They were earlier working as Senior Machine Operators/Machine Operators. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, Seshadri Committee was constituted to prescribe uniform pay scales and designations for EDP employees working in various Ministries/Departments. The recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the Government, vide MOF (DOE) O.M. dated 11.09.1989 with effect from the same date. Consequently the applicants were accordingly re-designated as DEOs (A, B & C Grades) and their pay scales were revised to Rs. 1150-1500, 1350-2200 and Rs. 1400-2300, respectively, w.e.f. 11.09.1989. Subsequently, by various judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi/Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi, the date of implementation of EDP revised scales were changed to 01.01.1986 instead of 11.09.1989, i.e. the date when the Fourth Central Pay Commission scales came into effect in various Ministries/Departments of Government of India. The applicants, vide their legal notice dated 28.03.2006, requested the respondents to allow similar benefits of re-fixation of pay to them in their respective scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986, instead of 11.09.1989. However, their request was rejected, vide impugned order on dated 16.06.2006 (Annexure A-1). Hence, the O.A.
3. The applicants have stated that the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommended that a Committee be constituted to revise the pay scales and re-designate the existing EDP posts in various Ministries/Departments in order to bring uniformity. Government of India constituted Seshadri Committee and its recommendations were implemented by Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) O.M. No. F(1)IC/86(44) dated 11.09.1989 w.e.f. 11.09.1989 in various Ministries/Departments. The effective date of implementation, i.e. 11.09.1989, was challenged in a number of Original Applications filed before this Tribunal by EDP Data Entry Operators (DEOs)/Data Processing Assistants (DPAs) of various Ministries/Departments and the Tribunal in the order of the Full Bench dated 31.07.2000 (OA No. 2639/1999) held that the DEOs/DPAs covered under MOF (DOE) O.M. dated 11.09.1989 are entitled to re-fixation of their pay in the respective scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986, instead of 11.09.1989, along with consequential benefits. Various other orders of this Tribunal on this subject, which have been implemented by the respondents concerned, are detailed as follows:
O.A. No. Implemented by Ministry/Department 1759/1997 NCRB, Ministry of Home 1599/1997 Department of Statistics 2289/1998 Department of Statistics 1763/1999 Ministry of Planning & Programme Implementation.
1558/2000 Ministry of Home Affairs 607/2001 Ministry of Defence, CGDA 2639/1999 (FB) Ministry of Commerce & Industry.
882/2003 UPSC 1715/2003 NCRB/Ministry of Home 2941/2004 Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation 3072/2004 Ordnance Services, Ministry of Defence 1299/2006, 1301/2006 & 1363/2006 Ministry of Statistics & Programme
4. The applicants have argued that the question referred before the Full Bench was whether EDP staff, working in different Ministries/Departments, were entitled to parity in pay scale with other EDP staff, who had been granted the pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 or w.e.f. 11.09.1989, as has been granted to them by O.M. dated 11.09.1989. The Full Bench held that benefit of aforesaid O.M. dated 11.09.1989 will accrue from 01.01.1986, along with consequential benefits, when the Fourth Central Pay Commission became effective. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 3612/2000 decided on 13.12.2001 upheld the Full Bench judgment of this Tribunal dated 31.07.2000 allowing re-fixation to EDP personnel covered under O.M. dated 11.09.1989 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 instead of 11.09.1989 with consequential benefits and it was implemented by Union of India.
5. The applicants have further averred that the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in its order dated 06.04.1992 in O.A. No. 249/1991 (Minaketan Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India) held that there could not be two effective dates for revision/re-fixation of pay scales of similarly placed employees and held that all the applicants working in Department of Census should be given the pay scales of Rs. 1350-2200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as was being enjoyed by EDP staff working in the Railways. The Apex Court dismissed the Review Petition No. 1145/1994 in SLP (C) No. 5526/1994 filed by Union of India against the said order on merits, vide its order dated 28.09.1994. Thus the order of the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal has attained finality.
6. The applicants have stated that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP 3118, 3119 and 3360/2002, while again upholding the order of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1649/2001 et al dated 28.01.2002, on 31.07.2002, have held that there is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioners (before the Tribunal) should be denied similar benefits when Union of India has already implemented similar judgments in a number of Departments/Ministries and any dissimilar treatment would be violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus the aforementioned order of this Tribunal has attained finality.
7. The applicants have argued that they cannot be treated differently when they are covered under same O.M. dated 11.09.1989 of MOF (DOE) and belong to the same Ministry. The respondents should treat various judgments of this Tribunal/High Court as judgments in rem and extend the same benefits to all similarly situated persons w.e.f. 01.01.1986 without compelling them to go to Courts.
8. The respondents have stated that the recommendations of Seshadri Committee were implemented by Department of Expenditure, vide their O.M. dated 11.09.1989. The benefits were accordingly granted w.e.f. 11.09.1989. Subsequently, various Ministries/Departments/attached offices etc. restructured the cadre of Data Processing Posts in conformity with the aforementioned O.M. of Department of Expenditure. The benefit in all these cases was given from 11.09.1989.
9. In the context of various other judgments cited by the applicants in support of their claim, the respondents have stated that the ratio of judgment was restricted to the applicants only as the judgment was not found acceptable on the basis of facts involved but the judgment was implemented as the Court's order had to be carried out. The ratio of the judgment in a case cannot automatically be applied to other cases.
10. In their rejoinder the applicants have reiterated and elaborated on the averments made in the main application.
11. In the course of oral arguments, Shri Deepak Verma, learned Counsel for the applicants, stated that the applicants' case was covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Babu Lal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. OA No. 2639/1999 decided on 31.12.2000. As a matter of fact, the respondents had provided the necessary relief to certain other similarly situated persons in the same Ministry.
12. Shri J.B. Mudgil, learned Counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the applicants and stated that since the judgment cited by the applicants' counsel was in persona, the said benefit cannot be extended to the applicants.
13. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
M No. 1181/200614. This application had been filed by the applicants Under Section 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for permission to join in one single application. No objection has been raised by the respondents. The M.A. is allowed.
OA No. 1427/200615. We find that the matter appears to have been already settled and it has also attained finality. In the case of Babu Lal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), the applicants were EDP personnel working as Data Entry Operators in the Ministry of Commerce and Industries. They had sought re-fixation of their pay in their respective pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986 instead of 11.09.1989. After examining various orders and judgments, the Full Bench of this Tribunal in the said case, ordered as follows:
9. In our judgment, if one has regard to the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation but to hold that applicants in the present O.A. are entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid O.M. of 11.9.1989 with effect from 1.1.1986.
10. The reference accordingly answered in the aforestated terms.
11. Present O.A. is accordingly allowed. Respondents will grant the benefit of the aforesaid O.M. dated 11.9.1989 to applicants with effect from 1.1.1986. They will accordingly grant the consequential benefits arising from this order to applicants within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. The order of this Tribunal dated 28.01.2002 in OA No. 1649/2001, 1650/2001 and 1651/2001, was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 3318, 3319 & 3360/2002. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its judgment dated 31.07.2002, held as follows:
10. Interpretation of the afore-mentioned OM dated 11th September 1989 undisputedly came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, several Ministries and Departments were represented. It has been held that re-designation had been made in respect of the existing posts only. Having regard to the fact that admittedly a decision of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal as also several other decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal have been implemented, we are of the opinion that there is no reason as to why the respondents should be discriminated against. The decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Secretary, Madras Civil Audit and Accounts Association and Ors. (supra) is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the same related to posts which were newly created ones. As indicated hereinbefore, in the instant case, no new posts had been created and merely they had been re-designated.
11. As noticed hereinbefore, even a similar judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench had been upheld by the Apex Court. Before us also, several office orders implementing the said decision of the Tribunal have been filed.
12. For the reasons afore-mentioned, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is absolutely no reason as to why the respondents herein should be denied the similar benefits.
17. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we find that there is no reason at all for the respondents not to extend the benefit prayed for to the applicants in view of the earlier orders of this Tribunal and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which have attained finality.
18. In the result, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the applicants in their respective pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986, instead of 11.09.1989, with all consequential benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.