Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Venkataraman vs M/O Finance on 13 June, 2024
1 O.A.1257/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01257/2016
Dated, Thursday, the 13th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. MANISH GARG, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER(A)
S. Venkataraman,
Dark Room Technician,
MSME Testing Centre,
Micro Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Institute,
65/1, GST Road,Chennai 600032. ....Applicant
By Advocate M/s.S.Retnaswamy
Vs
1. The Union of India
represented by the Secretary,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, New Delhi
2. The Additional Secretary &
Development Commissioner,
Ministry of MSME, Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi 1.
3. The Director,
MSME-Development Institute,
65/1, GST Road, Chennai 600032. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr.G.Dhamodaran
2 O.A.1257/2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Shri Manish Garg, Judicial Member) In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"(i) To quash the second Respondent's order dated 16.07.2014 and direct the Respondents to grant the Scale of Pay of Rs. 4500-7000/- (pre-revised) (PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 plus Grade Pay Rs.2800/- revised) to the applicant with effect from 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits.
(ii) And pass such further order or orders as this Honourable Tribunal deemed it and proper in the circumstances of the case including cost and thus render justice."
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated by the learned counsel for applicant, are as under:-
2.1 The applicant was appointed as Dark Room Technician in the scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/- (pre-revised). An application, filed by similarly placed persons like the applicant working in the same office seeking up-
gradation of their scale of pay from Rs. 4000-6000/- to Rs.4500-7000/-, was allowed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 702 of 2010 in its order, dated 09.11.2012. It was allowed on the basis of the Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, in Notification No. G.I. M.F. Notification No. F.No.1/1/2008-1C, dated 28.07.2009. The said order was implemented by the Respondents in their order, dated 21.01.2014, with effect from 01.01.2006. The applicant is similarly placed like the applicants in O.A. No. 702 of 2010. Both are coming under the highly skilled category. Hence, the applicant has given representation to the Respondents seeking upgradation of his scale of pay from Rs.4000-6000/- to Rs.4500- 7000/-, as was given to 3 O.A.1257/2016 similarly placed persons like the applicant. However, the Respondents have rejected the representation, vide their letter, dated 16.07.2014, on the ground that it is applicable in the case of those Workshop Staff whose primary and sole duties are to work with their hands and that their skills of hand, acquired over a life time, are utilized by the Government in workshops only. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA, seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply statement refuting the avernment made in the OA except those which are admitted on facts.
3.1 They have submitted that the Department of Expenditure, vide Notification, dt. 28.07.2009, revised the pay scale for the post of Highly Skilled Worker. But the pay scale for the post of Dark Room Technician was not revised by the Department of Expenditure. They further submitted that the applicant cannot compare himself with the Skilled Worker (Grade-I) re- designated as Instructor, since the duties of the Instructor post are higher than that of the Dark Room Technician post.
3.2 They also submitted that the educational qualification for the post of Instructor is much higher than that of the Dark Room Technician. An instructor is inducted into service as a Grade II Instructor only on successful completion of a course from an Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in workshop related trades. A certificate is given only on passing of a prescribed examination. Whereas, a Dark Room Technician is inducted into service merely on the completion of a 6 month course and 1 year practical experience. The nature of duties and educational qualifications are not similar. While hands and skills are required in the performance of any task, the skill that is required in a workshop is far greater than the skill required in performance of tasks in a dark room. Further, the nature of work attached 4 O.A.1257/2016 to a workshop is far more hazardous and, hence, involves greater responsibility. Hence, the applicant who holds the Dark Room Technician post is not similarly placed like applicants in OA 702/2010 who are Instructors, and, thus not entitled to the relief prayed for in the OA. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. We have heard learned counsels, Mr.S.Retnaswamy, for the applicant, and Mr.G.Dhamodaran, for the respondents, and perused the materials available on record.
5. ANALYSIS 5.1 The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is coming under Workshop Staff, holding the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000/-. He placed reliance upon the report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, wherein, it is stated that the lower technical staff of SIDO (which is now MSME), including the Dark Room Technician, are essentially Workshop Staff and, hence, recommended review of the cadres of lower technical staff for suitable relief in respect of promotional avenues. (A-4). He further submitted that the duties of Dark Room Technician are highly skilled in nature and their competency is adjudged by the external auditors from the National Accreditation Board for testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), New Delhi, which is coming under the Ministry of Science and Technology. The Dark Room Technician's duties are highly skilled in nature. His primary and sole duties are to work with his hands and the skill acquired in this manner, over a life time, is utilized by the Government. It involves the following among other things:
➤ Loading films in cassettes and film pouches along with Lead sheets. ➤ Preparation of chemical for film processing.
➤ Exposing the samples under radiation to get Latent image. 5 O.A.1257/2016 ➤Developing, rinsing, fixing, washing and drying in Drying Chamber. ➤ Preparation of images and comparison with standard film for further interpretation as per ASTM standards.
➤ Onsite testing for weldments using X-ray machine. ➤ Periodical repair and maintenance of X-ray machine, Penetrometers (both wire and hole type).
➤ Up-keeping suitable chemicals and environment to make the process suitable for film processing.
➤ Periodical maintenance of Dosimeter and film batches to upkeep the suitability and use them as per BARC guidelines. ➤ Metallurgical properties verification like Microstructure, Grain size, depth of decarburization for both Ferrous and Non-ferrous materials. ➤ Preparation of photo film using Dark Room facilities i.e. taking photograph of Microstructure, developing, fixing negative preparation and taking photo prints for further interpretation.
➤ Testing like Macro examination Die penetrant test and magnetic particle inspection on the weldments and Sulphur print test for billets. ➤ Testing of TMT rod, structural steel and other non-ferrous material for tensile strength, bend test properties etc. ➤ Testing of Cement Concrete Cubes and other building materials for its suitability as per IS specification.
➤ Conduct third party inspection - witness for NDT - Ultra sound testing on MS plates.
➤ Element analysis using Optical Emission Spectrometer for ferrous materials.
Hence, the representation given by the applicant has been recommended for upgradation by the third Respondent, vide letter, dated 11.06.2014. The relevant portion of the same is extracted as follows: 6 O.A.1257/2016
"Recently the post of Instructors pay have been upgraded in the scale of Rs.5200 20200 with GP Rs.2800/- as on 1.1.2006. The Dark room Technician Scale is Rs.5200- 20200 with GP Rs.2400/-. The duties and responsibilities of Dark Room Technician are higher than Instructors. In this connection, it is to inform that throughout India, only 4 posts of Dark Room Technician is available. In this post, there is no promotional opportunity and this is an isolated post.
It is requested that, the pay Grade pay of Dark Room Technician may be upgraded (from GP Rs. 2400/- to GP Rs. 2800/-) equal to Instructor's pay wef 01.01.2006".
5.2 The point for consideration in the present OA is whether the applicant is similarly placed like the applicants in OA 702/2010 and is entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- or not?
5.3 On perusal of the order, dated 09.11.2012, of this Tribunal, in OA 702/2010, it is seen that the applicants in the said OA are Skilled Workers Grade-I working as Instructors and equating their claim to that of Working Staff. Their claim for the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- was negated by the respondents on the ground that it was applicable in the case of those Workshop Staff whose primary and sole duties were to work with their hands and that their skills of hand acquired over a life time were utilized by the Government in workshops only. Challenging the same and claiming themselves as Highly Skilled Workers, they have filed the said OA for the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-. Though the respondents therein argued that, since the applicants therein were only working as Instructors, they could not be equated with Highly Skilled Workers employed in the Workshop operating the machineries by themselves, this Tribunal has gone into the duties and responsibilities of the Instructors in detail and held that they are Highly Skilled Workers and granted them the relief. 7 O.A.1257/2016 5.4 As far as the applicant, a Dark Room Technician, is concerned, it has been contended that he also comes under the category of Workshop Staff, as per the report of the Fifth Pay Commission, wherein it is stated that all the lower technical staff of SIDO are essentially Workshop Staff and the lower technical staff includes the Dark Room Technician. Further, looking into the duties and responsibilities of the Dark Room Technician, as stated by the applicant, it includes operation of X-Ray related machineries, etc., which necessitates the Dark Room Technicians to work with their hands and requires the skills of hand. Also, the nature of work attached to Dark Room Technicians is hazardous, as they are prone to exposure to chemicals and radiation during X-rays. Taking all these into account, the third respondent office, vide letter, dated 11.06.2014, has recommended the case of the applicant for upgradation of pay equal to the Instructor's pay, w.e.f 01.01.2006, stating that the duties and responsibilities of the Dark Room Technician are higher than that of Instructors and, throughout India, only 4 posts of Dark Room Technician are available, in which there is no promotional opportunity and it is an isolated post. But, the second respondent, without considering all these aspects, simply rejected the claim of the applicant on the same ground as stated in the case of the applicants in OA 702/2010, that it was applicable in the case of those Workshop Staff whose primary and sole duties were to work with their hands and that their skills of hand acquired over a life time were utilized by the Government in workshops only, which, in our considered opinion, may not be a proper reasoning. The reason for grant of relief(s) has drawn inference from OM, dated 28.7.2009, issued by GI, MF No. F No.1/1/2008 -IC. 5.5 In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 474-475 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 547-548 of 2021) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 8 O.A.1257/2016 VERSUS R.D. SHARMA AND ANR, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"It may be noted that this court has consistently held that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. This is because such job evaluation exercise may include various factors including the relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees, and such evaluation would be both difficult and time consuming, apart from carrying financial implications. Therefore, it has always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of equation of post and determination of pay scales to be best left to an expert body. Unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post, and that the court's interference was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues. A beneficial reference of the observations made in this regard in case of Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Associations and Ors. 1993 Supl. 1 SCC 153 be made. As held in State of Haryana and Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association 2002 (06) SCC 72 "equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government."
5.6 The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" can only be invoked when employees are similarly situated and there is wholesale identity between holders of the two posts. (Ref: State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009 (13) SCC 635). 5.7 We may highlight that it is not in dispute that the post of Dark Room Assistant has no promotional avenues and is an isolated post. The applicant who is working as Dark Room Assistant cannot be equated on the hypothesis that they are also treated as Instructor/Work Staff. From the letter, dated 11.06.2014, wherein it is mentioned that:- "In this connection, it is to inform that throughout India, only 4 posts of Dark Room Technician is available", it appears that the Dark Room Assistant is a dying cadre, due to scientific advancement and advent of new technology in the medical field, for which, 9 O.A.1257/2016 for compelling reasons, the government may, in its wisdom, grant alternative post/re-designation and pay benefits for proposed conversion into Technician Radiology or similar post, i.e., X- Ray Technician with appropriate pay scale, after appropriate training is given in the said field. It is also to been seen as to whether the duties from the applicant are taken as X- Ray Technician after advanced training has been given. However, no such material has been produced on record to show in support thereof from either side except those highlighted herein above.
6. CONCLUSION In the light of the above discussion(s), we find that the decision taken by respondents for the reasons mentioned herein above cannot be said to be irrational or arbitrary. No interference on this count is warranted, at this stage. We, however, cannot ignore the fact, for the reasons mentioned in para 5.7 of this order. The Competent Authority amongst respondent(s) may re-examine/re-visit, the ground realities and ground scenario, as such, taking an independent decision, un-influenced by the observation(s) made herein, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision, so taken, be communicated to the applicant.
The OA is disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Manish Garg)
Member(A) Member(J)
13.06.2024
MT