Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Asha Rani vs Csir - Indian Institute Of Chemical ... on 5 July, 2023
1
OA. No. 3603/2022
Item No. 77 (C-5)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3603/2022
This the 05th Day of July, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
1. ASHA RANI (DOJ: 28.05.1997), W/O SH. VIKRAM CHOPRA, SR.
TECHNICAL OFFICER (2), CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030
2. JAGESHWAR R KHAPEKAR (DOJ: 30.05.2005) S/O RAMCHANDRA
KHAPEKAR, SR. TECHNICAL OFFICER (1), CSIR-CENTRAL
SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30,
CHANDIGARH- 160030
3. ARUN KUMAR (DOJ: 15.07.2003) S/O SH. OM PARKASH,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030 '
4. GORAJ SINGH, (DOJ: 13.05.2005) S/O SH. RAKSH PAL SINGH, SR.
TECHNICAL OFFICER (1), CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030
5. ASHOK KUMAR (DOJ: 20.05.2005) S/O SH. MANI RAM, SR.
TECHNICAL OFFICER (1), CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030
6. SUPANKAR DAS (DOJ: 25.05.2005) S/O SH. NIMAI DAS, SR.
TECHNICAL OFFICER (1), CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
7. SARVESH KUMAR (DOJ: 25.05.2005) S/O SH. AMAR LAL, SR.
TECHNICAL OFFICER (1), CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030
8. MANISH KUMAR (DOJ: 26.05.2005) S/O SH. MALKHAN SINGH, SR.
TECHNICAL OFFICER (1), CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
2
OA. No. 3603/2022
Item No. 77 (C-5)
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
9. VINOD MISHRA (DOJ: 20.03.2008) S/O SH. JAGAT RAM, SR.
TECHNICAL OFFICER (1), CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
10. ANUPMA SHARMA (DOJ: 02.05.2008) W/O SH. DEEPAK SHARMA,
SR. TECHNICAL OFFICER (1), CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
11. DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH (DOJ: 26.04.2007) S/O SH.
RAMESH KUMAR SINGH TOMAR, TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-
CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR
30, CHANDIGARH- 160030.
12. DEEPAK KASHYAP (DOJ: 27.03.2008), S/O SH. NANU RAM,
TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH- 160030.
13. HARBIR PAL SINGH (DOJ: 03.06.2009) S/O SH. SURJEET SINGH,
TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH- 160030.
14. MAMTA SHARMA (DOJ: 05.06.2009) D/O SH. SURINDER NATH
SHARMA, TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
15. SANDEEP KUMAR (DOJ: 09.06.2009), S/O SH. JAI PAL, ASSISTANT
ENGINEER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH- 160030.
16. HISHWINDER SINGH (DOJ: 09.06.2009), S/O SH. JATINDER
SINGH, TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
17. DEEPA SRIVASTAVA (DOJ: 11.06.2009), W/O SH. AMARENDRA
GOAP, TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
18. OMENDRA SINGH (DOJ: 17.06.2009), S/O SH. SAHAB SINGH,
TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
ORGANISATION, CHANDIGARH- 160030.
3
OA. No. 3603/2022
Item No. 77 (C-5)
19. SHIV RAM MISHRA (DOJ: 17.06.2009), S/O SH. A.N. MISHRA,
TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH- 160030.
20. AMARENDRA GOAP (DOJ: 18.06.2009), S/O SH. RAM RAJ SINGH,
TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH- 160030.
21. MUKESH KUMAR (DOJ: 22.06.2009), S/O SH. LAXMI NARAYAN
MAHTO, TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
22. SURAJ PARKASH (DOJ: 29.03.2010), S/O SH. NAFE SINGH,
TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
23. HIMANSHU KUMAR SINGH (DOJ: 07.05.2010), S/O SH. PARAM
HANS SINGH, TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
24. VARUN DHIMAN (DOJ: 14.05.2010), S/O SH. RAJ KUMAR,
TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH- 160030.
25. PREETISMITA BORAH (DOJ: 25.10.2011), W/O SH. DEEPAK
KASHYAP, TECHNICAL OFFICER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
26. MANU SHARMA (DOJ:10.04.2017), S/O SH. RAM AVTAR SHARMA,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
27. AJAY KUMAR (DOJ: 17.04.2017) S/O SH. CHANDROOP SINGH,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
28. ANIL JANGRA (DOJ: 17.04.2017) S/O SH. BHAGWAN DASS,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
4
OA. No. 3603/2022
Item No. 77 (C-5)
29. KRISHNA GOPAL MEENA (DOJ: 17.04.2017) S/O SH. JAGAN LAL
MEENA, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
30. VINOD KUMAR (DOJ: 20.04.2017) S/O SH. ROHALI RAM,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
31. HARKIRAT SINGH (DOJ: 27.04.2017), S/O SH. BHUPINDER SINGH,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
32. PERWEZ ALAM (DOJ: 28.04.2017), S/O MR. SHAH ALAM
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
33. PARDEEP KUMAR (DOJ: 01.05.2017), S/O SH. ASHOK KUMAR,
JUNIOR ENGINEER, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH- 160030.
34. ABHINAV KAUSHAL (DOJ: 02.05.2017), S/O SH. UMESH
KAUSHAL, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
35. SONALI VATSYAYAN (DOJ: 04.05.2017), W/O SH. AMBUJ
BHARDWAJ, HORTICULTURE ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL
SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30,
CHANDIGARH- 160030.
36. TARUN PANCHAL (DOJ: 04.05.2017) S/O SH. VIJENDER PANCHAL,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
37. INDERJIT SINGH (DOJ: 04.05.2017) S/O SH. PALL SINGH,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
38. KEWAL KUMAR (DOJ: 19.04.2017) S/O SH. RAMESH KUMAR,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
5
OA. No. 3603/2022
Item No. 77 (C-5)
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
39. SANJAY KUMAR (DOJ: 15.06.2017) S/O SH. MUNNA LAL,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH-
160030.
....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Karan Singla)
VERSUS
1. DIRECTOR, CSIR-CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
ORGANISATION (CSIO), NO.1, SECTOR 30, CHANDIGARH -
160030.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL
RESEARCH (CSIR), NO.2, ANUSANDHAN BHAVAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 001
3. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN, NEW MEHRAULI ROAD, NEW DELHI-
110016 THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
.... RESPONDENTS
(By Advocates : Mr. Shashwat Sharma)
6
OA. No. 3603/2022
Item No. 77 (C-5)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) The applicants are aggrieved by an order dated 26.07.2019 vide which the benefit of a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- has been restricted only to those employees who were petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 34120 and 34121 of 2015.
2. The case of the applicants, as elaborated before us by their learned counsel, is that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras was in fact an in rem judgment whereas the respondents have restricted the benefit only to the petitioners in the said Writ Petition and denied the benefit of the same to the identically placed employees i.e. the present applicants.
3. Aggrieved by this inaction on the part of the respondents to grant a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the applicants have preferred the present OA seeking the following reliefs :
i) That the record of the case may kindly be called for perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
ii) That the impugned order / decision dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure A-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent it restricts the benefit of higher grade pay of Rs. 4600 7 OA. No. 3603/2022 Item No. 77 (C-5) w.e.f. 1.1.2006 or from the date of the petitioners in WPs were drawing Grade Pay of Rs. 4200.
iii) That orders / directions may kindly be issued to respondents to extend benefits of office orders dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure A-5) of higher grade pay of Rs. 4600 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 or from the date of the applicants were / are drawing Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 being similarly situated in all respects and squarely covered by Judgments Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court.
iv) That the damages, compensation and costs be imposed against respondents and awarded in favor of the applicant for causing undue harassment, mental torture and waste of time by using and misusing their power and authority.
v) Pass any order or direction or grant, any other relief to which the applicant is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
vi) That the joint OA may kindly be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to a recent judgment of this Tribunal dated 26.04.2023 passed in the OA No 3863/2022 submitting that the facts, circumstances and the issues involved in the said OA are identical to the present one and this OA can also be disposed of on a similar analogy.
5. We have gone through the contents of the said judgment and compared it with the contents of the present OA. Curiously this judgment being relied upon has also been passed by this very bench of the Tribunal, comprising these two members.
8OA. No. 3603/2022 Item No. 77 (C-5)
6. Although, Mr. Shashwat Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents fairly agrees that there may be some similarity but argues that the relief being sought by the applicants is individual in nature and each employee's claim has to be decided on its own merits. Merely because a particular Grade Pay has been extended to one set of employees against the background of peculiar circumstances can be no ground for extending the same to another employee who has to satisfy the test of eligibility on its own strength and merits.
7. While taking note of the opposition and reservation expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents, we have to observe that the two OAs bear a striking similarity to each other. Moreover, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being relied upon in support by the learned counsel for the respondents has been considered while passing the order dated 26.04.2023 in OA No 3863/2022. For a holistic appreciation of the facts and issues involved, it would be appropriate to quote the judgment verbatim :
By virtue of the present OA, the applicant seeks the following reliefs :9 OA. No. 3603/2022
Item No. 77 (C-5) I) To direct the Respondents more particularly the respondent No-2&3 to extend the benefits of Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- in PB-2 w.e.f the date of drawing GP of Rs.4,200/- in PB-2 under the respondent No-3 on the ground that similarly situated "Technical Staffs" of CSIR- CECRI, Karaikudi has been extended with the Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- in PB-2 in view of the order dtd-26.07.2019 passed by the Respondent No-2 under Annexure-A/12 within a time framed by the Hon'ble Tribunal.
II) To direct the Respondents to re-fix the Grade Pay of the applicant from Rs.4,200/- to Rs.4,600/- in PB-2 w.e.f the date of joining under CSIR-IMMT, Bhubaneswar. III) To pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper.
IV) Allow this Original Application with cost.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant places before us a judgment dated 28.03.2023 passed by this very bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 3641/2022. She submits that the issue at stake in the present OA bears close similarity with the aforesaid OA; even the facts are identical, she adds. Accordingly, the present OA can also be disposed of against the background of the afore-preferred judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents while agreeing that there may be some similarity between the facts and circumstances, argues that the relief granted in the said OA is person specific and in personam relief cannot by itself be extended to other persons even though they may be similarly situated.
4. Learned counsel reiterates the arguments put forth on behalf of the respondents in OA No. 3641/2022 that the 10 OA. No. 3603/2022 Item No. 77 (C-5) applicants have been fence sitters all this while and hence cannot claim the benefit on the ground of parity. He further submits that the benefit of the particular grade pay being sought was extended to certain applicants on account of intervention of the courts and not on account of any administrative decisions. Therefore, the same cannot automatically be extended in favour of the applicant.
5. He draws attention to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9849/2014 titled State of UP and Ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Srivastava and Ors. to substantiate this argument.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings in the present OA and the order passed in OA No 3641/2022.
7. We find that the opposition of the respondents and the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents have been duly recorded while disposing of the said OA and the learned counsel only reiterates those arguments today.
8. After giving a meticulous reading to both the cases, we are convinced that the similarity between the two is quite striking. The facts, the issues as also the relief sought are identical. Even the respondents in both the OAs are the same. Accordingly, there is no cause before us to take a view which would be at divergence from the order dated 28.03.2023 in OA No 3641/2022. For the sake of clarity, the said order is reproduced below verbatim : 11 OA. No. 3603/2022
Item No. 77 (C-5) "By virtue of the present OA, the applicants seek the following reliefs :
"a) To fix the Grade Pay of the Applicants at 4600 in the Pay Band-2 on par with other similarly placed employees in CSIR-CECRI which were granted to the applicants of Original Application No. 890 of 2011; S Stephenson Vs. The Director CECRI & Others & Original Application No. 891 of 2011; S P Karthikeyan Vs. The Director CECRI & Others in compliance of the Judgement & Order, Dated-25.07.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 34120 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 34121 of 2015 & Judgement & Order, Dated-10.04.2019 passed in Review Application No. 57 of 2018 and Review Application No. 58 of 2018 as well as Judgement & Order, Dated-04.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 20493 of 2019 as well as other Departments with effect from 01.01.2006 in terms of Circular No. 17/66/94-PPS, Dated-23.05.2006 regarding to Implementation of Court orders in other similar cases.
b) Grant pay of 5400 in pay band 3 from the date of promotion with the benefit of pay fixation,
c) consequently pay the arrears of pay due,
d) and pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus render justice."
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are seeking benefit of Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- on the analogy of similar benefit having been granted to several other identically placed employees pursuant to various order/judgments of this Tribunal and the Courts, which he has referred to in para 8 (a) of the OA. He seeks extension of the benefit of such judgments'. Reiterating the ground that the present applicants are also placed identically to those who are given the benefit on the basis of the aforesaid orders and judgments.
12OA. No. 3603/2022 Item No. 77 (C-5)
3. Learned counsel for the respondents claims that the applicants, being fence sitters, cannot claim the benefit sought for in the OA. Prior to this, they have never approached any court and it is only after the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court that they have filed the present OA. He places on record a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9849/2014, State of UP vs. Anil Kumar Srivastava & ors., wherein the Court had held that the benefit cannot automatically be extended on the ground that such a benefit has already been granted to similarly situated persons, who have approached the court. He argues that in terms of the law laid down, the fence sitters do not enjoy the right to claim benefit on the ground that such a benefit has been awarded to similarly situated persons as they have chosen not to approach the court well in time.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant draws strength from the order passed by Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in OA No 567/2020.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. In order to decide the OA, we may record that the subject matter of this OA is extension of pay benefits. It was incumbent upon the respondents to extend the same to the applicants herein in pursuance of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 20493/2019.
6. It is not in dispute that this issue at stake has been decided by the Madras Bench of this Tribunal in OA No 889/2011 after passing the following directions :
" 27. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position set out above, it is not possible for this 13 OA. No. 3603/2022 Item No. 77 (C-5) forum to interfere in the matter particularly at a juncture when the VII CPC has been constituted and give any direction to the Respondents in the matter. The applicants may, if so desired, take up the case directly or/and through their Institutes/CSIR before the VII CPC which will no doubt look into the entire gamut of the issues raised in these OAs."
7. The order was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. Nos. 34120 and 34121 of 2015 on 25.04.2017, followed by a Review Petition No. 57 & 58 of 2018. The respondents approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 20493/2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to affirm the judgment in order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
8. The applicants are seeking the benefit of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP NO. 20493/2019. The contention of the respondents that the said judgment was only in personam not in rem cannot be allowed to sustain because the subject matter of the SLP was extension of pay scales, which the respondents in fact should themselves have extended to the applicant, while the applicants have been forced to approach this Tribunal by way of the present OA.
9. In the conspectus, this OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents to extend the grade pay of Rs. 4600/- to the applicants in PB-2 at par with other similarly placed employees in OA No. 890/2011. The said pay scale will be extended from the date it was extended to the applicants in OA No 890/2011. The above direction shall be complied with in a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
14OA. No. 3603/2022 Item No. 77 (C-5) There shall be no orders as to costs."
9. In view of what has been detailed above, the present OA is also allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in Pay Band-2 to the applicant at par with the similarly placed employees as has been recorded in the judgment dated 28.03.2023 in OA No 3641/2017 quoted above.
10. The respondents shall comply with these directions within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. The OA stands allowed with the aforesaid directions.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
8. Having established close similarity between the two cases, the present OA is also allowed with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to pass appropriate orders granting a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in PB-2 to the applicants w.e.f. the date similarly placed employees have been accorded this benefit in view of the judgment dated 28.03.2023 in OA No 3641/2017 which has been elaborately quoted in the judgment of OA No 3863/2022.
9. These directions shall be complied with as expeditiously as possible and certainly within eight 15 OA. No. 3603/2022 Item No. 77 (C-5) weeks' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. The OA stands allowed against the background of these directions.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/NISHA/