Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Khem Raj vs Union Of India Through on 8 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.2814 of 2011 Misc. Application No.2020/2011 This the 8th day of August, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) 1. Sh. Khem Raj Working as Driver Grade-II, Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand. 2. Sh. Udham Singh, Working as Driver Grade-II, Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand. 3. Sh. Subhash Chand Working as Driver Grade-II, Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand. 4. Sh. Skarma Sanstan, Working as Driver Grade-II, Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand. 5. Sh. Rameshwar Kumar, Working as Driver Grade-I, Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand. 6. Sh. Phurboo Tashi, Working as Driver Grade-I, Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand. 7. Sh. Dharam Singh, Working as Driver Grade-I, Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand. 8. Sh. Nand Lal, Working as Driver, Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand. 9. Waryam Singh Working as Driver Grade-I Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand. 10. Sh. Joginder Lal Sharma, Working as Driver Grade-II, S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand. Applicants ( By Shri Pradeep Dahiya, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, inistry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, Force Headquarters, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), East Block V, R.K. PUram, New Delhi 110 066. 3. Dy. Inspector General (Pers.), Office of Director General, Force Headquarters, SSB, East Block V, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. 4. The Director, SSB Academy, Srinagar, Garhwal, Uttarakhand. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
The applicants are Group C and D employees working as Driver, Driver Grade-II and Driver Grade-I in pay scales of Rs.3050-4590, Rs.4000-6000 and Rs.4500-7000 respectively, with the Sashstra Seema Bal (SSB). In the present Original Application, which is third attempt on their part for the same purpose, they seek a direction to be issued to the respondents to grant them same pay scales as are made admissible to their counterparts who, have been appointed as Combatised Drivers, with effect from 1.1.1996, with all consequential benefits. There is no specific prayer as to setting aside order dated 15.4.2011 which came to be passed by the respondents in compliance of the directions issued by this Tribunal, whereby the prayer of the applicants has been rejected, but we take it as if the said order has also been challenged.
2. The first Application of the applicants for the relief as mentioned above, bearing OA No.2020/2009, was decided on 30.7.2009 by simply giving a direction to the 2nd respondent arrayed therein to decide pending representations of the applicants. When the representations were rejected vide orders dated 14.9.2009, the applicants filed another OA No.3371/2009, which was disposed of on 4.1.2011 by a speaking order after hearing both sides, even though the directions, once again, were to decide the representations of the applicants. The parameters on which, however, the decision was to be taken were mentioned in our order, as would be made out from the operative part thereof, which reads as follows:
8. In view of the above discussion the OA succeeds partly. We direct the Respondents to reconsider the issue in the light of our observations, especially keeping in mind the fact that the essential difference to justify differentiation in the scales of pay would be the educational and other qualifications and the nature and duties of functions performed by both categories of drivers. The Respondents would consider these aspects and decide the representations of the Applicants after considering these factors. Should the Respondents not be inclined to accept the representations of the Applicants, we expect that a detailed and speaking order giving cogent reasons for not agreeing to the representations of the Applicants would be passed. We direct that the above consideration should be completed as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
3. Pursuant to directions aforesaid, a speaking order dated 15.4.2011 has now been passed. We may not refer to the background of the case given in the said order, which is only as regards the earlier OAs filed by the applicants and the result thereof, but it would be useful to reproduce rest of the order with a view to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case. Same reads as follows:
5. Qualification: So far as the qualification of both the cadre of drivers is concerned, it is agreed that there is no difference.
6. Medical fitness and training :
i) The method of recruitment is quite different for both the categories. For combatised drivers, strict medical fitness test, PET etc are the pre-requisites whereas for non-combatised drivers, the only requirement is that the prospective candidates should be medically fit.
ii) After the appointment, the combatised drivers are put through rigorous training like BRTC, Auto Fitter Course and other mandatory courses for retention in service/promotion, whereas no such in service training courses are mandatory for non-combatised drivers.
iii) The combatised drivers are required to undergo Annual Medical Shape Test every year, as also before every promotion. The standard of medical fitness for combatised drivers is SHAPE-I. However, no such condition is prescribed for non-combatised drivers. Thus there is word of difference in the fitness level of drivers of two categories.
iv) The retirement age in r/o combatised drivers is 57 years and in the case of non-combatised drivers, it is 60 years.
7. Nature of Duties: SSB is a Border Guarding Force. The combatised drivers in SSB are called upon to perform diverse nature of duties, such as internal security duty, election duty and Counter Insurgency operations. Civilian drivers are required to perform duty for a period of 8 hours and for duty beyond 8 hours, they become entitled for compensatory leave. On the other hand, the combatised drivers may be called upon to perform duty round the clock, should the situation so warrant, that too without any compensatory benefit. Merely the ability of a civilian driver to drive in hilly areas doesnt place him on the same footing. The combatised drivers are also trained in the use of fire arms so that they can fight like a combatant during an emergency, but the civilian drivers have their limitation on this count.
8. Disciplinary Matters: Civilian drivers are governed under CCS (CCA) Rules, wherein the maximum punishment is dismissal. However, combatised drivers fall under the purview of SSB Act and Rules and are triable by the Security Force Court and can be sentenced to even death. Thus the combatised drivers are subjected to stricter disciplinary norms.
9. Strict Compartmentalisation: SSB is following Staff Car Driver scheme for civilian drivers, under which all the Staff Car drivers working in Government of India, are having uniform pay scale. As such, the comparison of the SSB Staff Car Drivers, who are civilians, can be made only with civilian drivers, working with other Departments in Government of India and not with the combatised drivers, who are governed by different set of rules.
10. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that there is no similarity between non-combatised and combatised drivers in SSB. Therefore, the request of Shri Khem Raj, Driver (Grade-II) & 7 others to grant them pay parity with their combatised counter parts is not maintainable. However, if the petitioners submit their willingness for combatisation then they will be allowed the same pay scale as has been granted to combatised ASI drivers, subject to their medical fitness.
4. The difference in duties of the applicants and those who have been appointed as combatised drivers would clearly reflect that combatised drivers have to perform far more arduous duties. Whereas the qualification for both civilian drivers, as the applicants are, and combatised drivers, are said to be the same, combatised drivers are put to strict medical fitness test. On the other hand, for non-combatised drivers, like the applicants, the only requirement is that the prospective candidates should be medically fit. After appointment, whereas combatised drivers are put through rigorous training, like BRTC, auto fitter course and other mandatory courses for retention in service/promotion, whereas no such in-service training courses are mandatory for non-combatised drivers. Combatised drivers are required to undergo annual medical shape test every year and the standard of medical fitness for them is Shape-I, whereas it is not so for drivers of the kind the applicants are. The retirement age for combatised drivers is 57 years, whereas the same for non-combatised drivers is 60 years. Combatised drivers are called upon to perform diverse nature of duties, such as internal security duty, election duty and counter-insurgency operations. Civilian drivers are required to perform duty for eight hours a day and for duty beyond eight hours they become entitled to compensatory leave, whereas the combatised drivers may be called upon to perform duty round-the-clock should the situation so warrant, and that too without any compensatory benefit. There is difference as regards disciplinary matters also as has been mentioned in the order dated 15.4.2011, and there is also strict compartmentalization, as also mentioned in the order.
5. The nature of duties of combatised drivers, in our view, is far more arduous and they have to keep their physical fitness in shape-I all through, and they even retire for that reason before the civilian drivers. No case for comparison with the nature of duties is made out. What, however, clinches the issue beyond any pale of controversy is that the applicants have been advised to submit their willingness for combatisation, and if they are found fit medically, they will be allowed the same pay scale as has been granted to combatised ASI drivers. We are of the firm view that instead of filing this Original Application, which is suggestive of the fact that the applicants do not want to do more arduous duties and still want to have better pay scales, they should have made applications in terms of order dated 15.4.2011 to shift to the cadre of combatised drivers. When confronted with the position as mentioned above, Shri Pradeep Dahiya, learned counsel representing the applicants, would state that the respondents should have invited the applicants to join as combatised drivers, but they have not done so. We do not find any merit in the plea raised by the counsel as noted above. It has been clearly mentioned in the order that the applicants may submit their willingness (emphasis supplied) for combatisation, and then they will be allowed the same pay scale as has been allowed to combatised drivers, subject to their medical fitness. The respondents are not expected to go to the applicants requesting them to shift from civilian to combatised drivers.
6. Finding no merit in this Original Application, we dismiss the same in limine.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/