Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Ramalingam vs D/O Revenue on 5 February, 2024
! OA 1307/2013 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI! BENCH OA/310/01307/2013 Dated day the / fe, day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM : HON'BLE MR.MANISH GARG, Member (J) HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A) 1, S.Ramalingam, 2. D.Vasantha Kumar. By Advocate M/s. V. Vijay Shankar Vs 1.The Union of India, rep by the Secretary to Government, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2.The Secretary to Government, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi, By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran ....Applicants --.-Respondents Stogt UT 2 OA 1307/2013 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A) Pursuant to the notification, dated 25.01.2024, the matter was heard in | detail. We have heard learned counsels, Mr.V.Vijay Shankar for the applicant and Mr.K.Rajendran for the respondents, and perused the records.
2. This OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following relief:-
"To call for the proceedings of the 2nd respondent relating to its F. No. 26022/2/2005-DRT dated 14.06.2012 (circulated to applicants only on 29.07.2013) and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant the applicants the benefits of higher pay fixation in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500/- with effect fom 2004 and consequently grant them Rs. 4600/- Grade Pay with effect from 01.01.2006 in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with all arrears and financial benefits and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and thus render justice."
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :-
The applicants are working as Recovery Inspectors in the Debt Recovery Tribunal (in short, DRT) at Chennai. They were appointed on 20.04.2007 and 16.01.2001, respectively. It is submitted that the post of Recovery Inspector in the DRT is similar to that of Inspector of Income Tax, as both involve recovery of government dues. Both, the posts of Income Tax Inspector and Recovery Inspector, carried the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. Apart from these posts, the posts of Enforcement Officer in the Provident Fund Organisation and Social Security Officer in the ESI Corporation were analogous and carried the same pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. However, in the year 2004, suddenly, the pay scales of Inspector of Income Tax was raised to Rs. 6500-10500/-. When the Recovery 3 OA 1307/2013 Inspectors of DRTs raised this issue, they were informed that the matter had been placed before the VI th Pay Commission for consideration. 3.1 The VIth Pay Commission submitted its report recommending that the three grades of Rs. 5000-8000, Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 be merged into a common pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with a common Grade Pay of Rs, 4200/-. Hence, parity was restored between Income Tax Inspectors and Recovery Inspectors of DRT. However, disparity again arose when Inspectors of Income Tax along with Enforcement Officers of Provident Fund Organisation and SSO of ESIC were granted higher Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- wef. 11.01.2006, pursuant to the orders issued by the Government of India, on 13.11.2009, envisaging grant of Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- to such government servants, drawing pay in the erstwhile pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. 3.2 The applicants submitted their individual representations, highlighting their grievance regarding pay parity. They referred to the fact that qualifications for the posts were similar, in fact, slightly higher for the post of Recovery Inspector and requested that their pay be upgraded to Rs. 6500-10500/- with effect from 2004, when the disparity arose. Consequently, the applicants sought réfixation of their pay in the Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-, w.e.f. 01.01.2006, onwards.
However, their representations were rejected, vide impugned order, dt.
14.06.2012. Hence, the applicants have filed this OA.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement opposing the relief 4 OA 1307/2013 claimed by the applicants and prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
2. The applicants have filed rejoinder reiterating the facts stated in the OA. -
6. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the posts of Recovery Inspectors in DRT, Income Tax Inspector, Enforcement Officer in Provident Fund Organisation, Social Security Officer in ESIC, initially, carried the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. In the year 2004, only the post of Income Tax Inspector was upgraded to the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-. The Vith Pay Commission rectified this anomaly by merging the pay scales of Rs. 5000- 8000/-, Rs. 5500-9000/- and Rs. 6500-10500/- into a common pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. However, the pay anomaly resurfaced by order, dt. 13.11.2009, by which the posts of Income Tax Inspector, Enforcement Officer and Social Security Officer got the enhanced Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- whereas no upgradation was made for the post of Recovery Inspectors in the DRT.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is an autonomous body and the duties and responsibilities of all categories, ie., Recovery Inspector, Income Tax Inspector, Enforcement Officer and Social Security Offier is the same, viz., recovery of government dues by exercising powers under the relevant acts. While the post of Recovery Inspector is classified under Group B, the post of Income Tax Inspector is classified under 5 OA 1307/2013 Group C. Therefore, it would be illogical to grant lower Grade Pay to the applicants. The Recovery Inspectors of DRT perform more arduous duties by working for 6 days a week, whereas it is not so for other categories. The total number of Recovery Inspectors in the DRTs is only 78, all over India, and, therefore, financial implications of enhanced pay would be very meagre.
8. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the educational qualification for the posts of Income Tax Inspectors and Recovery Inspectors int the DRT are different. The modes of recruitment to both the posts are totally different. The primary mode of recruitment to the post of Income Tax Inspectors is direct recruitment on all India basis, while for the post of Recovery Inspectors, DRT, it is on promotion/deputation basis. The matter of upgradation of Grade Pay of Recovery Inspectors of DRT from Rs. 4200/- to Rs. 4600/- has been considered in consultation with the Department of Expenditure. However, the Department of Expenditure had not agreed to their proposal, vide their Note, dt. 31.05.2012, stating therein, inter alia, that there is no relativity of the post of Inspectors, DRT with the post of Inspectors, Income Tax, as the modes of recruitment of both the posts were different, the nature of duties/responsibilities of both the posts were not similar, the hierarchical structure in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) were not the same. Also, since the post of Recovery Inspector, DRT, did not carry the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- as on 01.01.2006, there is no case for upgradation of a 6 | OA 1307/2013 Grade Pay from Rs. 4200/- to Rs. 4600/-, as per the Department's OM, dt. 13.11.2009. The post of Inspector, Income Tax, is a feeder post for Income Tax Officer, in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/-, however, in the DRTs, the next higher post is that ofRecovery Officer in the Pay Scale of Rs. 10000-15200/- which is to be filled up on promotion/deputation basis for which Inspectors, DRY, are not eligible. Also, there was no functional justification for upgradation of the post.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, dt. 05.11.2019, in WP(C) No. 5310/2015, in the case of Director, Directorate of Income Tax (HRD) & ors Vs. Ramesh Dang & ors. The Hon'ble High Court held as hereunder:-
"21. The CAT thus overlooked the clear fegal position as explained by the Supreme Court in State of UP v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989) 1 SCC 12] as under:
"The matter of pay scale does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done as primarily what is needed to be noticed is evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often than not, functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance, like the responsibility attached to a particular office. In such cases, it would not be open to the court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Government or the pay scales accorded to them is right or wrong, as such matters are exclusively within the province of the Government. Perhaps the only question the court can enquire into is whether appropriate policy has been adopted by the Government which does not result in hostile discrimination which is a very narrow and limited area of enquiry. When equation of posts had been done on some basis, the same should not be altered so as to equate with some other post and enhance their pay scales".
22. The position was elucidated succinctly in S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279 where was held:
"If posts A and post B have been carrying the same pay scales, merely because the pay scale of post A has been increased that by {) » 7 OA 1307/2013 itself cannot result in increase in the pay scale of post B to the same level, It is entirely on the Government and the authorities to fix the pay scales and to decide whether the pay scale of post B should be increased or not".
23. This was reiterated in Union of India v. Hiranmoy Sen (2008) I SCC 630 where it was observed as under:
"4, This Court in 8.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand 2007 (8) SCC 279 has held that the Court cannot fix pay scales as that is purely executive function. In the aforesaid decision one of us (Markandey Katju, f.) has discussed in detail the principle of equal pay for equal work and has observed that the said principle has been considerably watered down in recent decisions of this Court, and it is not applied unless there is a complete and wholesale identity between the two groups, and even there the matter should be sent for examination by an expert committee appointed by the Government instead of the Court itself granting the higher pay scale, The entire case law on the subject has been discussed in the said decision, Following the aforesaid decision in S.C. Chandra case this appeal has to be allowed. It cannot be said that there is a complete and wholesale identity between the Senior Auditors in the Office of Accountant General, Assam and Meghalaya and Assistants in the Central Secretariat."
24, In the absence of any recommendations of an expert body like the CPC or an Anomalies Committee, it was not open to the CAT to have itself ordered the grant of parity in pay scales.
25. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court sets aside the impugned order of the CAT. The petition is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs."
10. From the above discussion, it is clear that the modes of recruitment for both the posts, viz., Recovery Inspectors of DRT and Income Tax Inspectors, are not similar. Hence, these two dissimilar posts cannot be compared. Also, the duties and responsibilities envisaged in the respective posts are totally different. Considering all these aspects, the Department of Expenditure, after examining the proposal for upgradation of Grade Pay of Recovery Inspectors of DRT from Rs. 4200/- to Rs. 4600/-, rejected the same, vide their Note, dt. 31.05.2012.
if 8 OA 1307/2013 Also, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of the Director, Directorate of Income Tax (HRD) & ors Vs. Ramesh Dang & ors (supra), in the absence of any recommendations of an expert body, like the Central Pay Commission or an Anomalies Committee, it is not open for this Tribunal to grant parity in pay scale or Grade Pay.
11. With the above observations and considering the entire conspectus of the case, this OA is found to be devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.