Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
C Dhanpal vs M/O Defence on 22 January, 2020
wig
Dp
aed
Hyderabad, this the 22°" day of Isnuary, 2020
HOW'BLE MR. ASHISH KALIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.B.V.SUDRARAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
. C.Ohanpal, Sfo Chinne Swamy,
Age :57 years, Occ : Bootmaker,
1 EME Centre, 3 Training Batalion,
Secunderabad,
2. B.Ganesh, §/o Bundu,
Age . 52 years, Occ: Bootmaker,
4 Training Bataliion, 1 EME Cebtre,
Secunderabad.
3. M.Eyalmalal, S/o Munuswamy,
Age : 54 years, Occ > Bootmaker,
3 Training Batalion, 1 EME Centre,
Secunderabad,
. Takur Das, S/o Munna Lal.
Age 63 years, Oce : Bootmaker,
3 Training Batallion, Secunderabad.
. M.Gopi, 5/9 Munu Swamy,
Age > 53 years, Oce : Bootmaker,
1 Tralign Batallion, Secuiderabad.
. M.Amarnath, S/o M.Dibbanna,
Age : 5? years, Occ : Bootmaker,
Head Quarters, LEME Centre,
2? Training Batallion, Secunderabad.
. Purnachand, $/o Hari Singh,
Age : 65 years, Ore : Bootmaker,
Head Quarters, 1 EME Centre,
1 Training Batallion, Secunderabad.
, §.G.Kamblie, S/o late Guadu Raa,
Age < 69 years, Occ: Retd. Boot Maker,
LEME Centre, Head Quarters, Secunderabad.
OA No .O21/00717/2034
PS
9. M.Yadagiri, $/o Sabbaian,
Age : 60 years, Occ : Boot Maker,
Military College of EME Centre,
* Secunderabad.
10.R Jaihind Rao,
Age : 57 years, Occ : Bootmaker,
McC EME, Secunderabad. .. Applicants
7 (By Advocate : Mr.M.V.Krishna Mahan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary, M/o Defence,
Sena Bhavan, New Delhi.
2, The Commandant,
Head Quarters HO-I,
EME Centre, Secunderabad.
3, The Area Accounts Officer,
{CDA Controller of Defence Accounts},
Secunderabad.
4. The Director General,
Electrical & Mechanical Engineer (EME-Civd),
ARMY Headquarters, New Delhi. .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Mrs. K.Rafitha, Sr.CGSC)
so 3 GA No.021/00717/2014
ORAL ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr Ashish Kalia, judicial Member} The applicants were apopainted as Bootmakers in the respondents jorganization since 1971 anwards ti] 1980 In the pay scale of Rs,210-290, ;
f The non-industrial workers are granted five scaies by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide its order dated 22.08.1983 viz., Unskilled Rs.196-220, Semiskiled Rs.210-290, Skilied Rs.260-366, Highly Shailled-ll Rs.330-480 and Highly Skiled-} Rs.380-560. The grievance of the applicants is that after they have gat promotion of skilled labour they are not cansidered far further past of Highly SkiNed-l ar H. For that they have cited a judgement of Hon'hle Supreme Court of India in W.P.{C) No.492/1991 Sri Prabhulal and another Vs. Union of India and others. The petitioners who are boot makers claim that by virtue of the letter dated 16.10.1984 wherein it has been mentioned that President has accorded sanction to the upgradation of certain fobs which is that of boot makers from Semi Skilled Rs.210-290 to Skilled grade 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1984 and they are too entitled to be placed In the higher grade. Even though there are directions of Hon'ble Supre Court, the ressondents were not acceded to their request and they are stagnated in the level of skilled labourer. Feeling aggrieved by this, they have made detailed representations and filed this application for the following relief :
"To direct the respandents to implement the pay scales fram ume to time and aiso the instructions issued through implementing of the ~ bes, te OA No.O21/00717/2018 AMACP formulated in the 5° CRC to the applicants as the applicants are eligible as per rules and instructions given specifically issued and in ard No. B/ 21892 (84 fEME Chefo-3) dated 17 O22014 by deciaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders as arbitre a:
legal and unconstitutional, violative af Articie 14, 25 and 2] of thos Constitution end consequently direct the respandents to consider the "Se applicants for the upgredation as per their eligibility and entitfement™. 'g 2, Notices were issued. Respondents put appearance, filed their .freply and they have submitted that the agolicants were appointed as Tallors in 1 EME Centre and EME Depot. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in Prabhulal Vs. Unien of India and others (WP No.492 of 1991) Hon'ble High Court of AP & Telangana State, Hyderabad order dated 14.06.2012 (WP No.4065 of 2002), pay scales of the applicants were upgraded w.e.f. 16.10.1981 and arrears were also paid in the pay scale of Rs. ?60-6-290-FB-390-10-400 and subsequently ACP/MACP have aiso been granted.
3. The basic contention raised oy the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of arguments Is that as per the Gazette notification of the recruitment rules issued by the respondents wet.
94.12.2011 the requisite qualifications are (1} matriculation or equivalent SS } = q {2) Should be able to carry out all textile and jeather repair and replacement on the equipment and boots. Which Is relevant in the present context. Learned counsel for the respondents further impressed upon this Tribunal that the persons who have not requisite qualification cannot de considered for further promotion. Be that as jt may. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as per the various Supreme Court judgements one should not be deprived of promational based avenues 5 ANo.O21/00717/2014 we <X :
even MACP Scheme also envisages three prdveotiins, three upgradations in the service career.
4. However, after considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met that this matter may be LASERS EES., S/' relaxation of the apolicant because there is not much difference in the educational qualification of 8°" class or 10" class. This exercise shall be completed within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a capy of this order and the same shall be communicated to the applicant.
Hf itis found favourable that is tse end of the matter.
5. With the above observation, OA is disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to casts.