Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Tejram S/O Sh. Sohanlal vs Union Of India on 3 September, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 1212/2009 New Delhi this the 3rd day of September, 2010 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Tejram S/o Sh. Sohanlal, R/o 703, Adrash Nagar, Ballabgarh (Faridabad) Applicant (By Advocate Ms. Aishwarya Bhati ) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Under Secretary, Mr. K.M. Joseph. Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Expenditure), North Block, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi. 4. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Chief Secretary, State Secretariat, I.P. Estate, Opp. Vikas Minar, ITO, New Delhi. 5. The Principal Secretary, Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Mayamuni Marg, Pitampura, New Delhi. 6. The Principal, Delhi College of Engineering, Bawana Road, Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate Mr. N.K.Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat ) O R D E R Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A):
Shri Tej Ram, Applicant herein, is before us in the third round of litigation challenging the order dated 28.05.2008 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and order dated 02.07.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T) whereby the representation of the Applicant for grant of pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 pursuant to the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission (V CPC) has been rejected.
2. The factual matrix leading to the institution of this OA is as follows.
3. The Applicant was selected in 1996 for the post of Draftsman in Delhi College of Engineering in the scale of Rs.1600-2660/-. The Applicant had applied for the post of Draftsman following an advertisement dated 30.09.1995 published in local newspapers in which the eligibility conditions laid down were as follows:
3 years Diploma from State Board Diploma (or equivalent) in the relevant field or allied subject/field with 3 years experience as Design Draftsman in a firm/organization of repute.
O R Matric with ITI Certificate/Diploma in Draftsmanship ( or equivalent) with 5 years experience as Draftsman in a firm/organization of repute. The Applicant is governed by the Recruitment Rules for the post of Draftsman in Delhi College of Engineering, in which in column 7 the eligibility conditions are prescribed, which are the same as published in the advertisement, quoted above.
4. Pursuant to the recommendations of the V CPC, the pay scale of the Applicant was fixed in revised scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000. The pay of Draftsmen Grade-1 working in Central Electricity Authority, Directorate General of Works, Ministry of Surface Transport and other Organizations was fixed in the revised scale of Rs. 5500-9000. The Applicant had also given his option for the revised scale of pay on 16.10.1997 to be given w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. The meeting of the Principals Council, Delhi College of Engineering had also recommended that the posts of Foreman and Senior Scientific Assistant (SSA) and those in the cadre of Draftsmen should be merged. It is mentioned that the existing pay scale of the Foreman and SSA in the Delhi College of Engineering was Rs.1640-2900 (pre-revised) and Rs.5500-9000 in the revised scale of pay. The minutes of the meeting of the Principals Council have been placed at Annex. A-7. The Applicant gave several representations to the concerned authorities for upgradation of his pay scale in the grade of Rs.5500-9000 instead of Rs. 5000-8000. However, as his applications bore no fruit, the Applicant approached this Tribunal in OA number 418/2005. The Tribunal vide its order dated 23.02.2005 directed the respondents to consider the claim of the Applicant and pass an appropriate speaking order within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pursuant to the order in the aforesaid OA, the Department of Training and Technical Education of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the third Respondent herein rejected the representation of the Applicant on the following grounds:
(1) That the Govt. of India has not accepted the recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission contained in para 104.64 of its Report as per part C para XXXIV of the First Schedule of the Revised Pay Rules, 1997.
(2) The revision of pay scale in the case of employees of Union Territories is decided by the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and Training. The Applicant challenged the aforesaid order in OA No. 172/2006. The OA was decided on 26.09.2006 with the following observations and directions:
12. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that, in the first place, pay sales of employees are a matter to be decided upon by the administrative authorities based on recommendations of expert bodies like the Pay Commission and the Tribunal can interfere only in the case of hostile discrimination. We have further noted that the respondents have taken up the matter pertaining to the revision of pay scale of the applicant with the Government of India and are awaiting there is any hostile discrimination or not in the present case, lest it causes prejudice to either of the parties.
13. In the result, we dispose of this OA with a direction to respondent no. 4 to consider the proposal of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi relating to the case of the applicant and dispose it of with a speaking and reasoned order, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant shall be given a copy each of the said order of DoP&T and the consequential orders of Ministry of Home Affairs and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. There will be no order as to costs. Following the directions in the OA No. 418/2006, the Ministry of Home Affairs passed an order dated 28.05.2008 placed at Annex A-36 rejecting the request of the Applicant for fixation of his pay in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000. The following grounds were given:
(i) In accordance with the recommendations of the 5th CPC contained in para 50.37 of their report, the recruitment qualification laid down for the post of Draftsman in Engineering or equivalent. Against this, the recruitment qualification laid down for the post of Draftsman in Delhi College of Engineering as per recruitment rules dated 13.9.1987 (applicable as on 1.1.1996) is three year Diploma or equivalent in the relevant field/subject with three-year experience as a Design Draftsman. Further, alternative qualification laid down for the post is Matric with ITI Certificate/Diploma in Draftsmanship or equivalent with 5 years experience. Since the prescribed qualifications are lower as compared to those prescribed by the 5th CPC, there is no case for upgradation of the post.
(ii) The 5th CPC had specifically examined the post of Draftsman in Delhi College of Engineering and observed in para 104.63 of their report that the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660/- (pre-revised) attached to the post of Draftsman in Delhi College of Engineering is appropriate and does not need any upgradation. An order dated 2.07.2008 was also passed by the Delhi College of Engineering rejecting the prayer of the Applicant for fixation of his pay in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 on the same grounds as given in the order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs as adverted to above.
5. The learned counsel for the Applicant has assailed the orders rejecting the Applicants representation for proper fixation of his pay scale on the ground that the contention of the Respondents that the Government of India has not accepted the recommendations of the V CPC cannot be correct because the pay scales of Draftsmen in many other Departments and Ministries of Govt. of India have been fixed in accordance with the recommendation made in paragraph 50.37 of the report of V CPC. It is further contended that the ground given for rejection of the Applicants request that the qualifications prescribed for Draftsmen in Delhi College of Engineering are lower than the qualifications prescribed for Draftsmen in other organizations, where the pay scales have been revised to Rs.5500-9000 is also not correct. The copy of the Recruitment Rules of the Delhi College of Engineering has been placed at Annex. R/3 of the rejoinder affidavit. The prescribed qualifications in the Recruitment Rules have already been quoted above. It is stated that the qualifications prescribed for the Draftsmen of the organizations where the higher scale of Rs. 5500-9000 has been given are, as given in the order dated 2.07.2008 of the Delhi College of Engineering, are Matric or 10+2 with diploma in Engineering or equivalent. It is contended that the qualifications prescribed for the Draftsman in Delhi College of Engineering, i.e., 3 years diploma from State in the relevant field or allied subject with three years experience as design Draftsman is the same as the aforesaid qualification given in the order dated 2.07.2008 of the Delhi College of Engineering. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the relevant field herein means engineering. It is stated that the Applicant has obtained the diploma in Civil Engineering from Govind Ballabh Pant Polytechnic, Okhla, New Delhi and certificate to that effect, dated 22.07.1997, is placed at page 225 of the paper book. It is vehemently contended that the Applicant possesses the same qualifications as prescribed by the V CPC in paragraph 50.37 and, therefore, not considering the Applicant for revised pay scale is discriminatory. The learned counsel for the Applicant drew our attention to paragraph 34 of the OA in this regard, which is extracted below:
xxxiv. That on 28.05.2008, vide letter dated 28.5.2008 issued under the signature of Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, addressed to the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, the claim of the applicant for higher pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 was rejected on two grounds namely (i) non-fulfillment of recruitment qualifications (ii) report of Vth CPC observed that pay scale of Rs.1600-2600 (pre-revised) was appropriate and needed no upgradation. It is pertinent to mention here that a copy of this letter has been given to the petitioner only recently by Delhi College of Engineering (R-3) on 27.1.2009. True copy of the letter dated 28.5.2008 issued under the signature of Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, addressed to the Chief Secretary, GNCTD is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/30. True copy of the letter of Delhi College of Engineering (R3) to the Applicant dated 27.1.2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P/31. It is respectfully submitted that one reason quoted is that upgradation of the post decided on the basis of minimum qualification prescribed for the said post and not on the basis of qualification/experience possessed by the incumbent to the post. It is pertinent to mention here that in accordance with the recommendations of Central Pay Commission contained para 50.37 of their report, states that the recruitment qualification laid down for the post of Draftsman Grade-1/Head Draftsman is Metric or 10+2 with diploma in engineering or equivalent. It is also pertinent to mention that applicant possesses the aforesaid similar qualifications prescribed by the CCP contained in para 50.37 of their report. True photocopy of the marks sheet and diploma certificate are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-32 (colly). As far as the reasoning that 5th Pay Commission considered the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 (pre-revised) attached to the post of Draftsman in Delhi College of Engineering as appropriate and not needing any upgradation is concerned, if that be the case, then why was the pay scale of petitioner revised to Rs.5000-8000 from 1996, contrary to the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission. It is clear that this reasoning is evasive and frivolous and clearly the respondents are not interested in considering the legal and valid claim of the applicant and for that reason, there is complete silence on the issue of hostile discrimination. In any case, since this was not communicated to the applicant, he continued to be in dark. It is further submitted thus in paragraph 5 of the additional affidavit:
It is submitted that the first qualification prescribed for the post held by the application is three years diploma in the relevant fields, which is nothing but diploma in Engineering having matriculation as entry qualification/eligibility. Therefore, it is same as the qualification of metric or 10 +2 with diploma in Engineering or equivalent, prescribed for the post of Head Draftsman/Grade-1 Draftsman. True photocopies of the certificate of matriculation of 1982, Certificate of I.T.I. Diploma of 1984 and certificate of Diploma in Civil Engineering of 1997 of the Applicant are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure AA/1 (Colly).
6. The Respondents have contested the cause of the Applicant. It is contended that the V CPC also considered the case of Draftsmen of Delhi College of Engineering and in that regard recommendations were given in paragraph 104.63 of the report. Paragraph 104.63 of the report reads thus:
104.63-The Institute also has some posts of Draftsmen in the pay scale of 1600-2660 their present pay scale is appropriate and does not need any upgradation.
7. It is also contended by the Respondents that the qualifications prescribed for Draftsmen in Delhi College of Engineering are definitely lower than the qualifications prescribed for the Draftsmen in other Departments and Ministries of Government of India to whom the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 has been given.
8. We have given our utmost consideration to the rival contentions and have minutely gone through the records placed before us.
9. The recommendations of the V CPC in paragraph 50.37 pertain to Ministries and Departments of the Government of India. The recommendations are as follows:
50.37. We constituted and convened and inter-departmental group to consider the problems and issues raised by the Associations of Drawing office Staff. Representatives of 20 Ministries/departments participated in the deliberations of the group. Based on the discussions in the inter-departmental group and general principles of pay determination enunciated by us, we make the following recommendations for Draftsmen:
Our recommendation-
i) There should be identical pay scales for posts with identical recruitment qualifications. Specific requirements of individual departments may be taken care of by the respective administrative ministries, which may, if justified, prescribe pay scales different from the general pay scales recommended by us below:
ii) Introduction of an additional pay scale of Rs.2375-3500 should be decided by the concerned departments themselves on the basis of functional justification for posts in this scale and keeping in view the existing horizontal relativities of Draftsman with other categories of employees.
iii) Graduate engineers recruited against posts of drawing/ design office should be placed in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 in present terms.
iv) There should be uniform eligibility criteria for promotions in the cadre of Draftsmen. The first promotion after recruitment may preferably be considered after 3 years of service as already existing in a number of departments.
v) There should be uniformity in designations and pay scales. We recommend the following.
Existing Designations Existing Pay scale Revised Designation Revised pay scale (in present terms) (Rs.) Direct Recruitment qualification Draftsman Grade III 1200-2040 Draftsman Grade III 1320-2040 Metric + 2 years Diploma in Draftsmanship or equivalent.
Draftsman Grade II/Senior Draftsman 1400-2300 Draftsman Grade II 1600-2660 Metric or 10+2 + diploma in engineering or equivalent.
Draftsman Grade I/ Head Draftsman Chief Draftsman 1600-2660 Draftsman Grade 1 1640
-do-
Chief Estimator 2000-3200 Chief Draftsman 2000-3500 Degree in Engineering or equivalent The qualification prescribed for Draftsman Grade-II and Draftsman Grade-I are matric or 10 +2 + diploma in engineering or equivalent. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the qualification prescribed for the Draftsman in Delhi College of Engineering, i.e., diploma in the relevant field is the same as diploma in engineering. Strictly speaking it should be diploma in Draftsmanship because that is the relevant filed for Draftsman. It is another matter that the Applicant possesses diploma in Engineering. However, the pay scales are not fixed on the basis of qualifications possessed by an individual. The pay scale would be fixed on the basis of qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. Although the Applicant possesses the qualification of diploma in Civil Engineering, yet the qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment Rules is diploma in the relevant field, which would only mean in the context of Draftsman to be Diploma in Draftsmanship and not diploma in Civil Engineering. Moreover, the V CPC has also not accepted the demand for upgrading the pay scales of Draftsmen in Delhi College of Engineering from Rs. 1600-2660. The contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is not asking for up-gradation of pay scale but only asking for fixation of pay scale in Rs. 5500-9000 is not correct. The procedure is that the pay scale is first upgraded and then re-fixed if higher pay scale than the replacement pay scale has to be given. For example, in the instant case the recommendations of the Pay Commission would have been to upgrade the pay scales of Draftsmen from Rs.1600-2660 to Rs.1640-2900 and then the Draftsmen of Delhi College of Engineering, should such recommendations have been made, been fixed in pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. Since the categorical recommendation of the Pay Commission is that the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660 was appropriate for the Draftsmen of Delhi College of Engineering, there would be no case for fixing the Draftsmen of Delhi College of Engineering in any other scale but the replacement scale, which is Rs. 5000-8000.
10. On the basis of the above consideration, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the OA, which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
( L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K. Bali ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman sk