Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Inder Jeet vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 12 September, 2023
1
OA. No. 2574/2019
Item No. 36 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2574/2019
M.A. No. 2803/2019,
M.A. No. 114/2022
This the 12th Day of September, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
1. Inder Jeet (OT Assistant) S/o Sh. Rajender Singh Aged-
37 Yrs, R/o RZ-536A, Gali No. 5, Surakh Pur Road Group-
C, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, Delhi Age-36 Yrs
2. Vipin Yadav (CSSD Assistant) Slo Sh. Brham Prakash
Aged-30 Yrs, R/o Kharkhari Jatmal, PO: Khaira, Najafgarh,
New Delhi Group-C
3 Mukesh (CSSD Assistant) S/o Sh. Dayal Singh Aged-35
Yrs, R/o Type-l, Qtr No. 1, ESIC Colony, Sec-9A, Gurgaon.
Group-C
4. Yogesh Kumar (OT Assistant) S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar
Aged-32 Yrs, Vill-Kair, Najafgarh, New Delhi-43. Group-C
5. Rakesh Singh (OT Assistant) S/o Sh. Suresh Singh
Aged-31 Yrs, Vill-Nauranga Bas Rajputan, Dist. Dadri,
Haryana Group-C
6. Brihma Nand (OT Assistant) S/o Sh. Ramphal Aged-35
Yrs, R/o VPO: Bhurthala, Teh-Kosli, Distt. Rewari
(Haryana). Group-C
7. Anil Kumar (CSD Assistant) S/o Sh. Shiv Dutt Sharma
Aged-33 Yrs, R/o H. No. 25, Vill-Ranhoula, PO: Nangloi,
New Delhi Group-C
8. Devender Kumar (OT Assistant) S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh
Aged-35 Yrs, R/o H. No. 238, VPO-Jaffar Pur Kalan, New
Delhi-73 Group-C
2
OA. No. 2574/2019
Item No. 36 (C-3)
9. Dalip Kumar Barach CSD/CSR Assistant Age-37 Yrs.
S/o Sh. Jai Singh Barach, R/o H. No. 321, Group-C
Firoz Gandhi Colony No.2, Gurgaon (Haryana)
10. Sahil (CsSD Assistant) S/o Sh. Dalbir Singh Age- 30
Yrs, R/o A-3/2, Plot No. GH-03, Sagarkunj Society Group-
C, Sector-9A, Gurgaon, Haryana
11. Sita Ram Yadav (0T Assistant) Aged-33 Yrs, S/o Sh.
Jata Shankar Yadav, R/o Dhani-Nalwani Waya Group-C
Etawa Bhopi, Teh-ChomuDistt. Jaipur (Rajasthan)
12. Krishan Kumar (OT Assistant) S/o Late Suraj Bhan
Aged-38 Yrs, R/o H. No. 31, VPO:fazil pur Jharsa, Gurgaon
Group-C
13. Pardeep Kumar (OT Assistant) S/o Late Sh. Narain
Singh, R/o H, No. A-744, VPO-Bankner Narel Delhi Aged-
37 Yrs.
14. Naseeb Singh (0T Assistant) S/o Sh. Baljit Singh, Age-
32 Yrs, R/o VPO: Kanheli, Teh-Rohtak (Haryana). Group-C
15. Mohd. Yameen Khan (CSSD Assistant) Age-29 Yrs.
S/o Akbar Khan, R/o H. No. D274, Street No. 4, Group-C
Noor E Elahi, Ghonda, Delhi.
16. Ravinder Singh (CSSD Assistant) S/o Sh. Dharmpal
Aged-30 Yrs, R/o Qtr no A-2 block ESIC Hospital
Faridabad Group-C, Sec-9A, Gurgaon (Haryana)
17. Chhotu Lal Meena (CSSDICSR Assistant) Group-C
S/o Sh. Ramkesh Meena, R/o Qtr No. 603, Block A-1 Aged-
32 Yr, ESIC Medical College & Hospital, NIT Faridadbad
18. Sunil (0T Assistant) S/o Sh. Bhikhri Lal Aged-33 Yrs.
R/o WZ-160, Madipur, New Delhi. Group-C
3
OA. No. 2574/2019
Item No. 36 (C-3)
19. Md. Ali Asgar (CSR Assistant), S/o Sh. Abul Hasan
Ansari, R/o Darounda, Distt. Siwan (Bihar) Aged-32 Yrs
20. Naveen Kumar (OT Assistant) S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
Aged-29 Yrs, R/o VPO-Gubhana, Distt. Jhajar, Haryana
Group- C
21. Anil Kumar (CSSD Assistant) S/o Sh. Hari Dutt Aged-
37 Yrs, R/o Qtr No. 501, A2 Block, NH-3, ESIC Medial
Group-C, College & Hospital Faridabad (Haryana)
22. Bijendra Singh (CSR Assistant) S/o Sh. Narayan Singh
Aged-36 Yrs, R/o Vill-Sita Ram Ki Madhaiya, P0-Bijhamai,
Distt. Agra (UP)
23. Manish Chugh (CSSD Assistant) S/o Sh. JK Chugh
Aged-33 Yrs, R/o H. No. 415/4, Nai Aabadi, Basai Road,
Gurgaon Group-C
24. Manoj Kumar (CSSD Assistant) S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
Age-34, R/o H. No. 494, V & PO: Bankner, Narela, Delhi
Group-C
25. Jagbir (CSSD Assistant) S/o Late Sh. Ajit Singh Aged-
34 Yrs, R/o H. No. 264, VPO-Kair, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
Group-C
26. Prashant Kumar (0T Assistant) S/o Sh. Mahendra
Singh, R/o Qtr No. 404, Block A-1, ESIC Medical College &
Hospital, NIT Faridadbad Group-C, Aged-27 Yrs
27. Pramod Kumar (CSSD ÁSsİstant) S/o Sh. Bindeshwari
Prasad, R/o Qtr No. 104, Block A-1, ESIC Medical College
& Aged-30 Yrs, Hospital, NIT Faridadbad Group-C
28. Gopal Krishan (CSR Assistant) S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
Age-33 Yrs, R/o WZ-617, Naraina Village, New Delhi
....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. U. Srivastava)
4
OA. No. 2574/2019
Item No. 36 (C-3)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary
M/o Labour & Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Employees State Insurance Corporation
Through its Director General, D(M)D,
ESIC Scheme, Dispensary Complex
Tilak Vihar, New Delhi. Respondents
.... RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate : Mr. Amit Chawla)
5
OA. No. 2574/2019
Item No. 36 (C-3)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) Aggrieved by an order dated 09.07.2019 vide which their claim for pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 in the pre revised pay scale prior in 6th CPC has been rejected, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by virtue of the present OA seeking the following reliefs :
(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.
(b) Quash and setting aside the impugned orders dt.
09.07.19 (Annexure A/1) declining the request of the applicants for extending the benefits of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.3227/11 (Brahm Pal & Others Vs. Union of India) decided on 19.12.13 (Annexure A/3) and O.A. No.2995/14 & 0.A. No.2996/14 decided on 19.04.16 (Annexure A/4) including OA No. 3567/16 decided on 31.05.18 (Annexure A/5) that has been implemented vide its respondents order dt. 23.08.18 (Annexure A/6) further;
(c) Directing the respondents to consider and finalize the case of the applicants for fixation of pay in the pay scale of Rs. 4000- 6000/- as admittedly the issue has already been settled by this Hon'ble Tribunal in 0.A. No.3227/2011 (Brahm Pal & Others Vs. Union of India) decided on 19.12.13 and O.A. No.2995/14 & O.A. No.2996/14 decided on 19.04.16 including the OA No. 3567/16 decided on 31.05.18 for which the applicants are entitled too.
(d) Allowing the O.A. of the applicants with all other consequential benefits and costs.
6OA. No. 2574/2019 Item No. 36 (C-3)
(e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicants.
2. This is the second round of litigation in the matter. The applicants had agitated their claim in an earlier round vide OA No 1372/2019 which was decided on 03.05.2019 without going into merits. The Tribunal in the aforesaid order had directed the respondents to decide the claim of the applicants as preferred in a representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It is the said order dated 09.07.2019 which is impugned in the present OA.
3. Briefly tracing the history and background of the issue under consideration, learned counsel has argued that the same has been conclusively decided by this very Tribunal in OA No 2995/2014 along with a bunch of other OAs titled Dharambir Singh Ranga vs. Director General, ESIC. The order passed in the said OA has also been the basis of a decision dated 04.08.2022 by a co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in OA No 4644/2015. He submits that the facts and circumstances being identical as also the relief, the present OA also deserves to be disposed of identically.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand vehemently opposed the OA drawing attention to the 7 OA. No. 2574/2019 Item No. 36 (C-3) averments made in the counter reply. He submits that the matters of pay and allowances are specific to individuals and if a particular scale of pay has been extended to one set of employees, it could not be automatically extended to others unless their own individual claim is established.
5. He further submits that the order impugned is a very detailed and reasoned order which highlights the fact that reliance upon Dharambir Singh Ranga (supra) judgment would be misleading as crucial and important facts were not placed before the Tribunal in the said judgment. He further clarifies that the pay scales etc. of ESIC are governed by the provisions of ESIC Act and Regulations.
6. Elaborating, learned counsel submits that Dharambir Singh Ranga (supra) judgment has already been put to challenge by way of WP (C) No. 8264/2016 which is coming up for hearing probably on 01.11.2023. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to adjourn the matter and list it for hearing after the date on which the Hon'ble High Court would take up the issue for adjudication.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings on record.
8OA. No. 2574/2019 Item No. 36 (C-3)
8. We find that Dharmabir Singh Ranga (judgement) matter upon which reliance has been placed by the applicants, has been extensively discussed while deciding OA No 4644/2015.
9. We have gone through the order passed in the said OA and have no doubt that the said order bears close similarity with the issue at stake in the present OA. For the sake of clarity, the order dated 04.08.2022 in the said OA is reproduced below :
The applicants are aggrieved that they have not been awarded the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 pursuant to the recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) in the year 1996, whereas this pay scale has been awarded to several other similarly placed categories.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are variously employed/appointed as OT Assistant/Technicians and CSSD Assistants/CSSD Technicians in the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). Subsequent to the recommendations of 5th CPC in the year 1996, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules got introduced in the year 1997 and vide the Notification dated 30.09.1997 of the Ministry of Finance, several categories were awarded the pay scale of Rs.4000- 100-6000/-. The applicants are aggrieved that all of these categories, which were awarded higher pay scale, were enjoying the same pay scale as the applicants prior to the recommendations of the 5th CPC.
Aggrieved by this alleged discriminatory treatment, they have filed the present OA seeking the following relief(s):- 9 OA. No. 2574/2019
Item No. 36 (C-3) "i) To quash & set aside the order dated 19.02.2015 & 20.02.2015.
ii) To extend the benefits of the 5th Pay Commissions revised report of 30.09.1997 to the applicants & grant the pay scale of Rupees 4000-100-6000 w.e.f 01.01. 1996 along with all consequential benefits. Same pay scale has been replaced in Rs.5200- 20200/-Grade pay Rs.2400/- as per 6th C.P.C and directs the respondent to pay interest on the arrears of pay till the date of payment.
iii) Award the cost of the O.A.
iv) To pass any other orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Arguing the case, learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to the judgment rendered by this Tribunal on 19.04.2016 in OA No.2995/2014 with other connected matter titled Dharambir Singh Ranga Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors. Learned counsel draws parallel of the facts and circumstances of the present case with the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid OA, wherein too, all the applicants were variously posted as OT Assistant/Technicians and CSSD Assistants/CSSD Technicians and this Tribunal while deciding their claim had held as under :-
"8. Since the applicants who are working as O.T.Assistants/CSSD/CSR Assistants are identically placed like the Plaster Assistants and Laboratory Assistants of the respondent-ESIC, and for parity of reasons, we reject the contentions of the respondents and accordingly, allow the OA. The respondents are directed to implement the scale notified vide Resolution dated 30.09.1997, i.e., by granting the pay scale of Rs.4000- 6000 to the applicants. However, they are entitled for arrears with effect from the date of filing of the OA, without any interest thereon. This exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order is subject to the result of the Writ Petition filed by the order respondents against the orders of this Tribunal dated 13.01.2004 in OA No.1464/2003-Ashok Kumar & Others v. Union of India and also the Writ Petition No.18/2015, filed against the orders dated the orders dated 19.12.2013 in OA 10 OA. No. 2574/2019 Item No. 36 (C-3) No.3227/2011 (Brham Pal & Others v. Union of India). No costs."
4. Learned counsel points out that this judgment of the Tribunal, though under challenge in Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has since been implemented by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents confirms that the judgment has been implemented, subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition which they have filed. It is also not in dispute that the present applicants are holding identical positions as the applicants in the aforesaid OA, in which the Tribunal has specifically directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.4000-100- 6000 to the applicants and since then that pay scale has been awarded to them with effect from the date of filing of the OA, without the benefits of any other arrears or interest thereon. Learned counsel confines his argument to this limited issue that since vide the said judgment the benefit of an enhanced pay scale has already been awarded to several other similarly situated persons, denial of the same to the present applicants amounts to a discriminatory treatment.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argues that the Notification dated 30.09.1997, vide which, the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 was awarded to various categories, cannot be made applicable to the present applicants. To substantiate her claim, she draws attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 20.01.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.152/2022 titled Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Union of India and Ors. She claims that vide the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that ESIC being an Autonomous Organisation is governed by its own set of regulations. In view of this, the present applicants cannot claim benefit of pay scales, in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th CPC
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also gone through the documents on record.
11OA. No. 2574/2019 Item No. 36 (C-3)
7. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the present applicants are holding identical positions as had been held by the applicants in the OA No.2995/2014 i.e. Dharambir Singh Ranga Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors. Since the matter has been adjudicated upon by this Tribunal in identical facts and circumstances, there is absolutely no cause even for us to deviate from the same. Moreover, the respondents have implemented the judgement in the aforesaid OA allowing the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000, in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th CPC of 1996. There is no cause why the same benefit should not be extended to the present applicants, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in that order. We have also very meticulously gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. We find that the facts of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court related to the Dynamic Assured Progression Scheme and the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether promotion of employees of ESIC shall be governed by the ESIC's own Regulations or Govt. of India Guidelines. We do not find any parallel or similarity between the two. In our view, the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents does not have any bearing in the instant matter.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the present OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.4000- 100-6000 to the present applicants, in accordance with the order/judgment dated19.04.2016 of this Tribunal in OA No.2995/2014 with connected OA titled Dharambir Singh Ranga Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors. However, as directed in the judgment in OA No.2996/2014, the applicants shall be entitled to arrears only with effect from the date of filing of this OA, without any interest thereon. It is clarified that, as recorded, this OA was filed on 17.12.2016. They shall also not be entitled to payment of any interest upon the arrears so calculated. The respondents are directed to comply with the 12 OA. No. 2574/2019 Item No. 36 (C-3) directions within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We add that this order shall be subject to the outcome of Writ Petition filed by the respondents challenging the earlier orders of this Tribunal on this issue.
9. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Since both the OAs bear very close similarity, judicial propriety requires that we take an identical view. We are conscious of the fact, as also highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the subject of this OA is pending adjudication in a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court. However, we notice that the fact of the pendency of Writ Petition has been mentioned both in the impugned order as also in the order of this Tribunal extensively quoted above.
11. In the light of what has been detailed and discussed, the present OA is also disposed of in terms of the directions contained in para 8 of the order dated 04.08.2022 in OA No. 4644/2015 which has been quoted verbatim above.
12. The respondents shall ensure that the directions contained therein are complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We reiterate that this order shall be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition filed by the respondents on the 13 OA. No. 2574/2019 Item No. 36 (C-3) subject. In case, the Writ Petition meets with success, the applicants shall be obliged to refund the financial benefits they may have obtained in pursuance of the directions given by us in the present OA.
13. The OA stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Pending MA(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
14. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/NISHA/