Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
R.C. Paswan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 May, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.1032/2012 Order reserved on: 12.04.2013. Order pronounced on: 08.05.2013. Honble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A) R.C. Paswan, S/o late Shri Gogal Paswan, Working as Principal, School for Mentally Retarded Children, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Under Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. -Applicant (By Advocate Shri Yogesh Sharma) -Versus- 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through the Chief Secretary, New Sectt. New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, CLNS Complex, Delhi Gate, New Delhi-2. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri Vijay Pandita) O R D E R Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A):
Through this OA the applicant has made the following prayers:
(i) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 06.02.2012, only to the extent by which the applicant has been granted the revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 instead of granting the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200, declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to grant the revised pay scale of Rs.10,000-15200 to the applicant w.e.f. 29.09.1996 with all the consequential benefits including the difference of pay and allowances with interest.
(ii) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for granting the benefits of ACP & MACP scheme from the date of completion of 12 years and 20 years service with all the consequential benefits.
2. Briefly stated, case of the applicant is that he has been working as Principal of the School for Mentally Retarded Children (SMRC, for short) under the Government of NCT of Delhi since 29.09.1996. He was appointed in the scale of Rs.2000-3500, which was later on revised to Rs.6500-10500. This was also the scale that was given to the Head Master/Mistress of Primary Schools following the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission (V CPC, for short). On representation, demanding parity with the Principals of Institutions like Blind School and Government Lady Noyce School for Deaf and Dumb (GLNS, for short) enjoying the grade of Rs.10,000-15,200/- the scale of Principal SMRC was upgraded to Rs.7500-12000, which was lower than the scales of the former. This scale corresponds to the scale of Vice-Principal in those Institutions. Not satisfied with this, the applicant has preferred this OA, giving the following arguments/grounds in support of his contention:
i) The scale given to the Principal SMRC is the grade for Vice-Principal in Blind School and GLNS.
ii) While Principals in other schools have been given the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200, only the Principal SMRC has been singled out for giving the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, later on revised to Rs.7500-12000 (pre-revised).
iii) The posts of Principal of these schools are inter-changeable and, therefore, they have to be in the same grade.
iv) It has also been argued that SMRC imparts education to a higher level (below degree level), as compared to secondary level in other two schools.
v) The educational qualification for all the Principal is the same.
3. From the side of respondents it has been contended that this Tribunal is barred from considering the demand of the applicant with regard to granting him higher grade, as it is the job of the Pay Commissions, which go into the problem of pay scale at great depth and happen to have a full picture before them and, therefore, are the appropriate authority to decide upon such issues. The fixation of pay scale and claim to parity in pay scale is the function of the Executive. Learned counsel of the respondents relied upon the following case-law in this context:
a) Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 3 SCC 568.
b) State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72.
4. Referring to the merits of the case, learned counsel of the respondents submitted that the SMRC is not up to secondary level while other schools, referred to by the applicant, are up to secondary level and impart education below degree level and also gives certificates of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to its students. The posts of Principal of these three schools are not inter-changeable, though at times Principal of one school may hold the charge of another school on temporary basis. Referring to the Recruitment Rules (RRs, for short) for the posts of Principal, GLNS and Govt. School for the Blind Boys (generally referred to as Blind School) it was submitted that the pay scale of these posts are Rs.3000-4500 (pre-revised), which were fixed in the scale of Rs.10000-15200, as per the V CPC. The scale of the post of Principal, SMRC has been in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, subsequently revised to Rs.6500-10500. Significantly, it was also submitted (Para 4.4 of Counter) that the concerned department has re-fixed the scale of Principal, SMRC as Rs.7500-12000, as the scale of Teachers was revised from the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to Rs.6500-10500 by the V CPC.
5. Having gone through the material placed on record and hearing the submissions of the learned counsels it is noted that the post of Principal, SMRC (Rs.2000-3500) has traditionally been in the lower pay scale, as compared to other two schools, namely Govt. Lady Noyce School for Deaf and Dumb and Govt. School for the Blind Boys which were in the grade of Rs.3000-4500. But it is also observed that the authorities have been upgrading the scales of other posts in the Department like Assistant Teacher, Trained Graduate Teacher etc. For example, vide Directorate of Social Welfare order No.F.12(1)/97-DSW/Estt./23764-883 dated 24.08.1998 the Govt. of NCT of Delhi updgraded the pay scales of Vice-Principal (Deaf & Dumb), Head Master/Head Mistress and Assistant Teacher (General) to Rs.7500-12000, Rs.6500-10500 and Rs.4500-7000 respectively. The post of Principal, SMRC, however, was only upgraded one notch above the scale of Teachers and made equal to that of Vice Principal of other Institutions. From the table containing the pay scales, as recommended by the V and VI CPCs (pages 42 & 45 of OA) it is interesting to note that while in respect of Primary School Teacher, TGT, PGT and Vice-Principal more than one grades have been mentioned against each of these posts, in case of Principal there is only one grade mentioned, i.e., Rs.10000-15200 and Rs.12000-16500 (PB-3) + Grade Pay Rs.7600. Apparently, the Pay Commissions have not envisaged distinction in the grade of Principals. Therefore, there does not appear anything on record to say that it is the Pay Commission, which has recommended the specific pay scale for the post of Principal, SMRC. The V & VI CPCs have, for the post of Principal, given a single scale. However, in the case of Principal, SMRC the respondents have revised the pay scale using the table showing the replacement pay scales and not on the basis of any specific recommendations of the CPCs.
6. With regard to inter-changeability amongst three Principals it is noted that such inter-changeability is not operating in the sense that Principals can be transferred amongst these schools but the order placed on record clearly shows that the Principal, SMRC had been given the charge of Principal of GLNS. It is significant to observe that the GLNS has a Vice-Principal in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 but instead of giving charge to the Vice-Principal, respondents have chosen to give charge to the Principal, SMRC who also happens to be in the same scale. This establishes the fact that the applicant is given a position superior to the post of Vice-Principal.
7. With regard to the educational qualification for the posts of Principal even though a claim has been made by the applicant that it is the same for all the three posts, the relevant RRs for the post of Principal, SMRC showing educational qualification, have not been produced.
8. During arguments, learned counsel for applicant insisted that SMRC was also imparting education up to secondary level, as is the case with other two schools. This was contested by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel of applicant was asked to produce supporting documents to show that SMRC was indeed imparting education up to secondary level. In response, learned counsel for the applicant has filed the note where there is no such document, directly establishing the claim, but it has been argued that SMRC is a special school, in which the posts of PGT, TGT and Assistant Teacher are sanctioned. It has been claimed that the PGT posts are sanctioned only in the schools imparting education up to secondary level. It has also been stated that the standard of students mentally retarded are assessed on the basis of their IQ. It has also been submitted that all other Teachers working in the schools in question, where the applicant is posted are getting the pay scale at par with the Teachers posted in other two schools of Social Welfare Department.
9. Taking a overview of these facts, the picture that emerges is that the Principal, SMRC was in a lower scale, as compared to other two schools referred to earlier when RRs were originally made. Subsequently, the grades of Vice-Principal, Headmaster/Mistress/Assistant Teachers (General) have been upgraded (page 28 of OA) and they have all been put in a common scale, which has been revised from time to time by the Pay Commissions, but the difference between the grade of Principal, SMRC and other two schools Principal, GLNS and Blind School continues to be maintained. Going by this fact of traditional relativity among the Principals of the three Schools, there is hardly any case for the upward revision of the pay scale of Principal, SMRC or granting parity with the other two Principles. At the same time, going by the facts that (i) there has been upgradations all around, upsetting relativity of Principal, SMRC with the Vice-Principals, Headmasters/Mistress and other Teachers, (ii) there is no other Principal in this grade (a fact not contested by the respondents), (iii) in practice, Principal, SMRC is being treated as superior to Vice-Principal in GLNS, who is also in the same scale, and (iv) the fact that the V and VI Pay Commissions have recommended single scale of Principal by designation while giving two-three scales for Teachers/Vice-Principals it is clear that there is something amiss in fixing the scale of Principal, SMRC. We, however, would refrain from recommending any specific scale of pay for the post of Principal, SMRC, but direct the respondents to examine afresh the demand of parity with other Principals under the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in the light of the facts mentioned above and pass a speaking order within a period of 03 months.
10. With these observations, OA stands disposed of. No costs.
(V.N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) San.