Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajeev Sharma vs Union Of India on 26 February, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
TA No.201/2009
New Delhi, this the 26th day of February, 2010
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
1. Rajeev Sharma
S/o Sh. V. K. Sharma
476, Pkt. D, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-95.
2. Banshi Ram Sharma
S/o Sh. Jai Kisan,
Pkt.-GG-1/82C,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-18.
3. Pooran Lal,
S/o Shri Harchandi,
H.No. 9/223, Vasundara,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
4. Shri Naresh Kumar Goyal,
S/o Shri Hansraj Gupta,
DG-II, 240C, MIG Flats,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-18.
5. Shri Trilok Chand Sharma,
S/o Shri Bhagwant Singh,
H.No. 52, Tagore Gali,
Babarpur West, Shahadara Delhi-32.
6. Shri Ashish Kumar Saini,
S/o Shri Raj Kumar Saini,
P&T Quarter, D-145,
Moti Bagh, New Delhi.
7. Shri Shatrughna Prasad Sahu,
S/o Laxmi Sahu,
416, PKT-2, Sector-19,
Ph-1, SFS Flat, Dwarka, New Delhi.
8. Shri Subhash Chandra,
S/o Late Shri Hardwari Lal Molri,
411/GH-2/Sector-5,
Patrakar Parisar, Vasundhra,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
9. Shri Satyeshwar Prasad Uniyal,
S/o Shri U.R. Uniyal,
Flat 524, Sector-13,
Pkt. A, Dwarka Ph-II,
New Delhi.
10. Shri Arun Kumar Gupta,
S/o Shri R.B. Gupta,
39, Antriksh Apartment,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-18.
11. Shri Bateswar Rai,
S/o Shri Beni Madhav Rai,
RZ-B1/21A, Raghu Nagar,
New Delhi-45.
12. Shri M.C. Sharma,
S/o Late Shri M.L. Sharma,
232/21, New Kotgaon,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
13. Shri Net Ram Chawhan,
S/o Shri Late Behari Lal,
BJ-75 (East), Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi-88.
14. Shri Virender Singh Tomar,
S/o Shri Tripal Singh,
R/o 1137, Sector -29,
Noida, U.P.
15. Shri Balwant Rai,
S/o Shri Babu Ram,
R/o H-19/72, Sector-7,
Rohini, New Delhi-85.
...Applicants.
(By Advocate: Sh. B.K. Shah)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Telecommunications,
Ministry of Communications and IT,
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi.
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited,
Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
3. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited,
Through its Executive Director,
Khurshid Lal Bhawan, Janpath,
New Delhi.
Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mr. Dinesh Agnani)
: ORDER :
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Shri Rajeev Sharma and 14 others are Applicants in this TA. They approached the Honble High Court of Delhi in the Writ Petition (C) No.3861/2007 and on 21.05.2007, the respondents were issued notice. In the meantime, Govt. of India, pursuant to the notification dated 01.12.2008, entrusted the service disputes/matters relating to MTNL to this Tribunal for adjudication, on 21.01.2009 the Honble High Court transferred the Writ Petition No.3861/207 to this Tribunal which was taken on record as TA No.201/2009. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 and 3 filed their counter affidavit on 08.01.2008.
2. The issues raised by the Applicants and the relief(s) prayed for are as follows :-
(i) issue a writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondents to grant equal pay for equal work to the petitioner qua the MTNL Optee Officers for the period 1.10.2000 to 19.11.2003 during which they had worked for the MTNL and may further be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the petitioners the arrears/difference of wages and allowances paid to the optees of MTNL during those period; and
(ii) may pass such other and further order as may be deemed just and proper in the premises of this case.
3. It would be appropriate for us to give brief background of the issue raised in this TA. The Department of Telecommunications (DOT) vide its order dated 01.04.1986 transferred the telecom functions of Delhi and Mumbai to the newly incorporated Govt. of India Public Sector Undertaking, namely, Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Limited (MTNL), and even prior to transferring the telecom function to MTNL, the Union Government vide its letter dated 18.03.1986 put the staff of the DOT working in those areas of Mumbai and Delhi on deemed deputation to MTNL without changing their terms and conditions of Government service. The Applicants were in the service of DOT and were working in MTNL on deemed deputation basis from their parent department and were granted a special payment of Rs.3000/- per month vide the office order dated 25.05.2000 (Annexure-P1) to the officers of DOT working in the MTNL w.e.f. 01.11.1998 and the said special payment was subject to the undertaking in favour of MTNL to be given by those Group A and B officers that if they do not opt for absorption in MTNL or resign on their own volition before the date of absorption, they would be required to refund the amount of special payment to be made to them. In supercession of the orders dated 25.05.2000 and 26.05.2000 and after the approval of the Board of Directors of MTNL vide its Office Order dated 05.06.2000 (Annexure-P2) extended the compensation of Rs.3000/- per month to all Group A and B officers working in MTNL with effect from 01.04.1999 or from the date of joining MTNL, whichever is later, till the IDA payscales became available to Group A and B officers. Pursuant to the DOT Office Memorandum dated 08.05.2000, options were called from all Grade A and B officers and certain other Grade C officials. Thereafter vide their letter dated 28.12.2001 and 14.01.2002 certain clarifications on the options were issued and the options for absorption was finalized w.e.f. 20.10.2003 on the basis of certain terms and conditions of absorption. Consequently, the Board of Directors of MTNL decided to revoke the payment of compensation to the Group B employees and stopped payment of Rs.3000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2004 who did not exercise option for absorption in MTNL and the said decision was communicated vide Office Order dated 15/18.12.2004 (Annexure-P5), recovering the payment of Rs.3000/- w.e.f. 01.10.2000 from such employees who have not exercised option in favour of absorption in MTNL. However, due to the Writ Petition filed before the Honble High Court, order of recovery of such compensation paid to the Applicants was stayed till the outcome of the Writ. The Applicants who did not opt to be absorbed in MTNL were relieved from MTNL in April, 2004 to their parent department, (DoT) and presently they have been posted and working with the DoT. It is the Applicants case that the MTNL vide its letter dated 22.03.2004 and 02.04.2004 has given the arrears of the difference of IDA pay and the pay already paid to the MTNL employees w.e.f. 01.10.2000 excluding the petitioners whereas such facility and benefit was extended to those employees who even did not work in MTNL during that period. It is also averred that the Productivity Linked Incentive (PLI) for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 was paid to MTNL employees but not to the Applicants. Being aggrieved, the Applicants after the repatriation to the DoT submitted various representations to the Respondents and sought the differential IDA pay scale arrears for the period from 01.10.2000 till 20.10.2003. This in short is the brief background of the case in which the Applicants have approached the Honble High Court and on transfer we have finally heard the case on 24.02.2010.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicants Shri B.K. Shah anchored his arguments on the principle of equal pay for equal work and submitted that the Applicants though non-optees are entitled to get the same financial benefits including pay and allowances as the optees working on the same and similar functions in MTNL. His contention was that the Applicants should be granted IDA pay scale as the optees have been granted only for the period when they worked in MTNL on deputation from 01.10.2000 to 19.10.2003.
5. The counsel for the Respondents Shri Dinesh Agnani alongwith Shri Sanjay Kumar very strongly opposed the contentions of the counsel for Applicant and submitted that Applicants are non-optees and had not been absorbed in MTNL. The IDA pay scales are admissible to the employees working in the Public Sector Corporations including MTNL. CDA pay scales are admissible to Government employees. Therefore, he submitted that though Government employees who were working in MTNL on deputation basis were granted special pay of Rs.3000/- per month and the same has not been recovered from them, as the stay was in operation. He also hastened to add that those optees who have been absorbed in MTNL were paid the difference of IDA pay scale after deducting Rs.3000/- paid to them as a special pay, therefore, the balance recovered had been paid to them w.e.f. the date on which they have been granted IDA pay scales. Shri Agnani s submission is that the Applicants did not have a locus standi to claim for such IDA pay scale since they have not been absorbed in the MTNL. MTNL is not legally duty bound to pay them such IDA pay scale.
6. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the Applicants are non-optees. It is not in dispute that they were Government Servants when they worked in MTNL on deemed deputation basis and on repatriation they continue to be Government Servants as on date. They were on deemed deputation with MTNL from 01.10.2000 to 19.10.2003 during which period, the Respondents, MTNL, admittedly has paid special payment of Rs.3000/- alongwith their normal pay and allowances admissible to the Govt. employees. We also note that the pay structure of the Applicants is governed by the Govt. of India pay scales which is based on the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. The Dearness Allowance admissible to them is CDA. On the other hand, the Public Sector Corporations like the MTNL, the Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) and the associated pay structure is applicable. Each pay scale is exclusive of the other. The Government employees are entitled to the Central Government pay scale. The IDA pay scales and CDA pay scales are different from each other. The facilities under two pay scales are also different. The DA admissible to the Government pay scales is also different from that admissible for Central Public Sector Enterprises. Government employees on deputation are governed by the terms and conditions on deputation. They may do same type of jobs/works/functions as the employees including absorbed optees, but the doctrine of equality would not be applicable. Non optees cannot obviously enjoy best of both the Government on the one side and the MTNL on the other.
7. We find non-optee Applicants are entitled to CDA pay scales which they have received from MTNL. On the other hand, optees were absorbed in MTNL and lost the status of Government employee and as such the IDA pay scales would be applicable for them.
8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the considered conclusion that the Applicants could not establish a case in their favour in this TA. In the result, we do not find any reason to intervene in the matter. Hence, the TA is dismissed being devoid of merits. No costs.
( Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma ) (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda )
Member (J) Member (A)
/rk/