Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Fateh Chand S/O Shri Muktiram vs Commissioner on 15 September, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.3632/2009 Wednesday, this the 15th day of September 2010 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) 1. Fateh Chand s/o Shri Muktiram r/o H-361, Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 2. Rajinder Kumar s/o Shri Prithi SIngh r/o H.No.4, 2-B, Nangloi Extn., Delhi 3. Raman Kumar s/o Shri Sadhuram r/o WZ-315, Shakurpur Village, Delhi 4. Satish Kumar s/o Shir Rajpal Singh r/o 416, St. No.9, Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony West Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94 5. Mohan Singh s/o Shri Jaipal r/o 226, Vaishali Ptampura, Delhi-43 6. Sanjay s/o Shri Sube Singh r/o B-44, New Roshan Pura, Najafgarh, Delhi 7. Mahesh Kumar Yadav s/o Shri Hari Kishan r/o Road No.1, House No.15 Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi-26 8. Raghu Raj Kishore s/o late Shri Kaushal Kishore r/o 38/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi 9. Sanjay Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Shankarlal Sharma r/o J 970 Jahangirpuri, New Delhi 10. Suresh Kumar s/o Shri Harsarup Singh r/o Village Singhola PO Tikri, Delhi 11. Vijay yadav s/o late Shri Ved Parkash r/o 16 Extn 2B, Nagnloi, Delhi 12. Ashok Kumar s/o Shri Bhim Singh r/o 99, Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi 13. Sanjeev Kumar s/o Shri Om Parkash Verma r/o 585, Khera Khurd, Delhi-82 14. Rajesh Kumar s/o Shri Kirpa Ram r/o T-J, Village Tukhmeerpur Near Shiv Mandir, Delhi 15. Harish Kumar s/o Shri Ved Parkash r/o B-421, Sundershan Park Near Moti Nagar, New Delhi 16. Narender s/o Shri Khazan Singh r/o 21 Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi 17. Vijay Kumar s/o Shri Kartar Singh r/o Nai Basti, Gali No.2 Bahadurgarh, Haryana 18. Sompal s/o Shri Bharat Singh r/o I/4050, Ram Nagar Extn Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi 19. Ramesh Chand s/o Shri Ram Niwas r/o Vilalge Sardpur Kalan, PO Kheksha Baghpat, UP, Delhi 20. Tarsem s/o Shri Ram Kishan r/o B-629, J J Colony, Inderpuri, New Delhi 21. Satya Pal Singh s/o Shri Rajpal Singh Village Sadhopr, PO Dhoomminakpur District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP 22. Anil Kumar s/o Shri Attar Singh r/o 69-B, Chander Vihar, I P Extension Delhi-92 23. Satyender s/o Shri Chattar Singh r/o C-299, Alpha Ist Greater Noida, UP 24. Mohd. Kutubbudin s/o Shri Mohd. Sameydin r/o village & Post office Chirori Ghaziabad UP 25. Mahesh Chand Meena s/o Shri Nannu Ram Meena r/o HR 214/4, Pul Prahaladpur New Delhi-44 ..Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Shyam Babu) Versus 1. Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi 2. Lt. Governor of Delhi Raj Niwas, Delhi 3. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Finance, North Block New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocates: Ms. Shikha Roy Pabbi and Shri Ajit Kumar) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
Applicants earlier approached this Tribunal in TA-375/2009 seeking grant of pay scale of `5000-8000 relying upon the decision in TA-266/2009. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 14.5.2009 in TA-375/2009, issued directions to the respondents to consider granting pay scale to the applicants in the scale of `5000-8000 by a speaking order. Applicants are those Vaccinators, who had been appointed post-1998 and admittedly at the time of their appointments, their pay scale was `3050-4590, which was revised to `4000-6000 w.e.f. 1.1.1998.
2. Dr. Pattanayak Committee met on restructuring of the cadre and as per their advice, the Vaccinators had been sub-divided into two different categories of Public Health Inspector (PHI) and Assistant Public Health Inspector (APHI), which respondents would contend on the basis of recruitment rules that posts of Vaccinator and Vaccinator Inspector exist earlier. However, on the basis of the report of Dr. Pattanayak Committee, decisions were taken on 7.12.2001 whereby on the basis of pay scales a decision was taken to place the Vaccinators as PHI and APHI whereas those APHI having the pay scale of `3050-4950 were placed in the scale of `4000-6000 and were given the status and re-designation of PHI with pay scale of `5000-8000. The impugned order passed by the respondents categorically described the hierarchical system and consistency of the pay scale, which was different to Vaccinator and Vaccinator Inspector upto 5th Central Pay Commission.
3. Learned counsel for applicants contends that creating a class within the class and sub-categories for those who perform identical duties would be an invidious discrimination and would be antithesis to Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the wake of principle of equal pay for equal work being the fundamental right declared by the Apex Court. In support of this, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in P. Savita & others v. Union of India, Ministry of Defence (Department of Defence Production), New Delhi & others 1985 (Supp) SCC 94.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would vehemently oppose the contentions and states that a well-thought decision has resulted in rejection of the claim of the applicants on the ground that whereas APHI is a feeder category to the post of PHI, which carries the higher pay scale and it is only those Vaccinators, who were existed in 1998 and by virtue of their higher pay structure and the seniority, were re-designated as PHI as per Dr. Pattanayak Committees recommendations, which cannot be countenanced in law.
5. Learned counsel for respondents would further contend that as the smallpox was completely eradicated from India in the year 1977, Vaccinators were re-designated as Immunizer and were required to perform the duties of a smallpox vaccination, etc. As such, they are performing the different duties and functional requirements and cannot be equated with APHI for grant of pay scale at par with PHI.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
7. Once a conscious decision after Dr. Pattanayak Committees report has been taken to segregate and re-designate APHI and PHI on the basis of pay scale in vogue at the time of decision, any additional ground cannot be taken to supplement their decision. We have not found anything on record that Vaccinators, who were existing right from 1998 and were given training for immunization, have been promoted as Vaccinator Inspector and were enjoying the pay scale on the basis of their promotion. Mere re-designation and higher pay scale would not be the criterion, which goes against the statutory rules, which admittedly are yet to be amended.
8. In the above view of the matter, once the pay scale of `4000-6000 is the sole criterion of re-designating PHI, applicants, who were admittedly in the pay scale from 1.1.1998 when the decision was taken to re-designate on 7.12.2001, they cannot be re-designated as APHI and accorded the same pay scale of `4000-6000. The basis of grant of higher pay scale of `5000-8000, being the erstwhile pay scale of `4000-6000, cannot deny the benefits to the applicants.
9. Moreover, though the respondents maintain that PHI and APHI are performing the different duties, yet we find that the qualification for both the posts in the recruitment rules being identical, the additional factor of training for immunization is a device methodology of the respondents to save all Vaccinators earlier with the nomenclature of Inoculators being ousted from the Department. As such, they were given re-designation to the post of Vaccinator otherwise we do not find any real difference in Vaccinators and Inoculators, as both the words by their literal sense refer to as a basic ingredient of Vaccinator. In such view of the matter, being performing the identical duties as per the decision of Apex Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar & others, 2008 (9) SCALE 557 where the principal of equal pay for equal work has partaken the character of fundamental right, the same cannot be followed without any intelligible differentia, which has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. This would be an invidious discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
10. Resultantly, we partly allow this OA by setting aside the impugned orders. Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of higher pay scale, maybe on re-designating them as per respondents order dated 7.12.2001 keeping in light the pay scale held by them when it has been decided to grant higher pay scale on re-designation. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/