Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ajit Singh V Rajput And Others vs Home Affairs on 13 December, 2023
4, Anujbhai R. Singh OA Nog, 644 of 2022 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.644 of 2022 oy, ra a3 Sood a ae boos tae se ee) eB 6) % 2. Date of Ste & ex, 2023 2D AIM « MURTY WISTISE Ae CROUT TER AE ORER ED Ee CORAM : SURI JUSTICE MiG. SEW LEE, MEMSER SHRI RATINDER KASHYAP, MEMBER aks Ajitsingh V. Rajput Date of Birth : 07.02.1993 Rat: Room No. 03, Type-li Block-D, Fire Station, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa ~ 3962330. 2. Amikumar D. Patel, Date of Birth : 15.07.1990 Réat: Room No. 5, Type-ill, Block D. Fire Station, Dadra & Nagar Havell, Silvassa ~ 386 230. 3. Manojbhai L. Mahia, Date of Birth : 08.06.1995 Kala Pateloada, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa ~ 396 230. | Réat: Ream No. 2, Type-Hll, Block D. Fire Station, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa -- 396 230. . Paritosh M Patel Date of Birth : 03.07.1987 Rat :Athal Chirafalya Naroli Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa -- 3962306. cre 3g Rajal R. Parhyad, Date of Birth : 26.06.1990 R/at: Dungripada, Khanvel, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa -- 396 230. 10. 11, 12. 13. 14, Chhaganbhal J. Dodiya, Date of Birth : 02.10.1987 Rat : Dapada Manipada, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa ~ 396 230. Vilaybhai 8. Patel, Date of Binh > 20 07 dose Réat : Near Ayappa Temple Road, Kamii Falla, Silvassa ~ 396230. Yogeshkumar 8. Bhurkud Date of Birth : 21.04.1992 R/at: Vaghachouda -- Karchound, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa 396 230, Chandansingh M. Fartyal, Date of Birth : 25.12.7990 Réat: Room No. 4, Type-ll, Block D. Fire Station, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, silvassa -- 396 230. Shivamkumar 8. Pratihast, Date of Birth - 04.10.1905 Riat : B/3S05 Maruti Apartment, B/H Danhatel, Tokarkhada, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa 396 230. Jagdishbhai M. Kharpadiya, Date of Birth ; 30.06.1991 Rat: Dudhani Khoripada, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa -- 396 230, Divyaraj N. Gohil, Date of Birth : 12.09.1992 Riat : Narali Gohil falya Main Road, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa ~ 396 230. Ajayohai R. Patel, Date of Birth : 20.03.1991, Riat: Ulan Fallya, Near Primary School, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, OA No. 644 of 2022 15. VW, 18. 19. i. 22, Silvassa ~ 396 230 Jayesh D. Borsa, Date of Birth - 02.08.1986 R/at: Bonta, Borsa Pada, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Shvassa -- 396 230, Prakash &. Rohit Gate of Birth > 10.09.7994, R/at : Demni Road, Rohit Fallya, Dadra & Nagar Havel, Silvassa -- 396 230, Vijay D. Borsa, _ Date of Birth : 15.08.4986 Réat: Bonta, Borsa Pada, Dadra & Nagar Havell, Silvassa -- 396 2386 Nareshbhai B. Padvi, Date of Birth - 20.06.1989 Rfat: Velvgam Dhodhad Pada, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa ~ 396 230. Ramesh 8, Mahala, Date of Birth : 09.04.1994 Rat: Shelty Goratapada, Dadar & Nagar Havel, Silvassa -- 396 230, Vijay S. Khanjodiya, Date of Birth : 09.03.1992, Réat : Dudhani Boripada, D & N Haveli, Silvassa -- 396 230 Jignesh R. Chaudhari, Date of Birth » 24.07.1990 Réat: Patel Pada, Kivans, OD & N Haveli, Silvassa 396 230 Dipakbhai D. Rathod, Date of Birth : 17.01.1994 Réat: Dudhani Khadipada, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Siivassea -- 396 230, Lye OA No, 644 of 2022 23. Kishan M. Mir Date of Birth : 28.08.1994, Réat : Bavisa Faliya, Umarkol Road, Opp: Hanuman Temple, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa ~ 396 230. Applicants Versus 1. Union of Incia Through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi ~ 416 004. 2. The Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa - 396 220. 3. The Callector and District Magistrate, Silvassa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli ~- 396230. 4. The Deputy Secretary Home, Home Department, Secretariat, Daman ~ 386 220. 5. The DIGP/ Director of Fire and Emergency Services/AA, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa -- 396 210. 8. The Assistant Divisional Fire Officer, 9 ' Fire & Emergency Services, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Fin Code -- 396 230, ?. The Secretary, Department of Expenditure Ministry of Finance, North Block New Delhi 116 007. 8. The Director, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, North Block, New Delhi 110 001 _ \ (By Advocate Dy. V-S-Masuwr kay) DA No. 644 of 2022 ~ Respondents OA Na. 644 of 2022 ORDER
Per : Justice M.G.Sewlikar, Member (J)) The applicants who are 23 in number are seeking the relief of maintaining parity with regard to their pay vis-a-vis Constables working in various departments of Central Government and Union Territories and as to Fireman in Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Islands and for declaration that the applicants are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- with effect from their date of initial appointment as Fireman in the Fire & Emergency Services, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and directions to revise/modify the existing Recruitment Rules of all the posts of the Fire Fighting Staff as recommended by the 7" CPC and re-fix the pay scales of the Fire Fighting stalf.
2. The applicants case im brief is that all of them were appointed on Varlous dates "in May, 2015. as Pikeman: th the pay scale of PB-I [Rs.S200-20200] + Grade Pay. Rs.1900/- (Level-2), Applicants are seeking to be placed in Level-3 after implementation of 6" Pay Commission. Jt is their contention that the 6" Pay Commission has recommended to maintain pay parity between the posts of Fire-Fighting Stal¥ and the posts of Constable and Head Constable in the CPMFs, Delhi Pelice, Intelligence Bureau and CBI, and the Police Departments of OA No. 644 of 2022 Union Territories. The Constables and Head Constables are paid Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- whereas the Fire-Fighting staff (applicants) are getting Rs.1900/- Grade Pay. The applicants should also be paid Grade pay of
3. The 7" Pay Commission recommended drafting of Model Recruitment Rules for the Fire-Fighting Staff of all Central Government Departments and UTs with similar designation and pay structure. [ft is further recommended that replacement pay levels are recommended till such time the Model Recruitment Rules are drafted and finalized. Since these recommendations were not implemented, the applicants made representations on 14th September, 2020. Since the representations were not decided, the applicants filed OA No.324/2021 in which the Respondents were directed to decide the representations, Pursuant thereto, Respondents decided their representations. The Respondents refused to grant the relief claimed by the applicants as the Model Recruitment Rules are yet not finalized by the Union of India.
4. Respondents filed their reply in which they contended that the issue of parity of pay scales of constables involved in this application has been referred to competent authority ie Respondent No.1. They further OA No, 644 of 2022 contend that the applicants have preferred this OA after almost seven years. Therefore the application is barred by limitation. They further contend that the pay scales / Grade Pay for the post of Fireman of ail Union Territories of Lakshadweep, Puducherry and Chandigarh including Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu and neighboring states of Gujarat and Mumbai (Maharashtra are equal ie PB ~ 1 [5200-20200] + Grade Pay Rs.1900 except Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar and Dethi is the higher pay scale. Al the applicants ate setting risk and :
hardship allowance since July, 2017 vide Resolution dated 06" July, 2017 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. Subsequently, Fire Department has also forwarded the required clarification/information in connection with the letter dated 01° November, 2021 vide letters dated 28" February, 2022, as sought by Government of india, Ministry of Home Affairs. In short, their contention is that till drafi Model Recruitment Rules are finalized, the authority carmot take any decision with regard to parity of Grade Pay.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants Ms.Annie Nadar and Mr Masurkar, learned counsel for the Respondents. Ms.Nadar submits that the applicants have been appointed in the pay scale of PB-1 [Rs.5200-20200] + Grade Pay Rs.1900/-. She invited our attention to the OA No. 644 of 2022 fitment table para 3.8.12 in which the 6% Pay Commission had recommended to maintain parity in respect of Fire-Fighting Staff and the Constables, Head Constables in CPMF s, Delhi Police, 18, CBI. However, in the Fument Table, the Grade Pay recommended was Rs.1900/-. She submits that when this anomaly was brought to the notice of the Respondents, they did not accede to the request of the applicants on the ground that Recruitment Rules have not been finalized as recommended by 7° Pay Commission. She submits that similar issue had fallen for consideration before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sharad Tewatia & Others Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Others in which initially the matter was referred to Anomaly Committee. However, Government of India replied that Anomaly Committee ceased to exist and therefore Principal Bench in OA No.2380 of 2610, decided on 26° October, 2016 granted Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- to F ireman of Delhi Fire Services. She submits that the matter was taken up to High Court of Delhi by filing WP (C) No.3373/2019, decided on 30" April, 2019 in which Delhi High Court also affirmed the decision of the Principal Bench, She submits that the petitioners are entitled to Grade of Rs.2000/-.
6. Learned counsel Shri Masurkar for the Respondents invited our attention to the prayer clause to contend that the applicants are seeking QANo. 644 of 2022 parity with the Constables in CPMFs, Delhi Police, IB & CBI He contends that parity can be granted only by Pay Commission or the Government. The Tribunals or the Courts cannot in judicial review grant parity. He further submits that, if the request of the applicants is acceded to, it will have huge financial ramifications. The Union Territories have referred the representations of the applicants to the Union of India, Respondent No.1. The request of the applicants cannot be accepted for the reason "that t the 'Recruitment Rules as as recommended by the a Pay Commission have not been finalized. Tul such time they are not finalized, Respondents cannot grant benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- as recommended by 6" Pay Commission. He placed reliance on the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Charanjit Singh & Others [2006 {9} SCC 321]. He submits that the Supreme Court has enumerated various conditions for the 'Proposition that the Courts will not generally involve in the task of job evaluation unless. great ; injustice has oceasioned se further submits that the claim of the applicants is barred by limitation. They were appointed in the year 2015. For the first time they raised the claim in the year 2020. In the appointment order the pay scale mentioned is of Grade Pay Rs.1900/- which they have accepted. Now they ca turn around and after a lapse of five years, claim the benefit of, Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-.
6.4 OANo. 644 of 2022 by the learned counsels for the respective parties.
7, Vox 4h th Ts ane ROE oe in the 6" Pay Commission are the recommendations.
"Fire Fightine staff 3.8.12 Fire fighting staff exists in various Union 'Territories as well as different Government organizations, Their job requirements and duties necessitate that the various posts of fire fightine staff should be alforded pay scales on par with those being recommended for the posts of Constable and Head Constable in CPMFs, Delhi Police, [B and CBI Accordingly, the pay scales of the fire fighting personnel in various U.Ts and depariments/ministries of Central Government shall be revised as under :-
oy Slerant inhkie : wa 4 in fitment table in para 3.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made Officer Designation (Present pay Recommended Corresponding Pay Band & scale pay stale (Grade Pay -- .
Pay Band « (Grade Pay 'Firemen 2610-3540 3050-4590 PB-I 1900 Leading 3050-4590 3200-4900 PB-1I 2000 Fireman | | Station Officer /4000-6000 4500-7000 PB-] 2800 Asst.Divisional 3000-8006 -- 6500-10500 PB-2 4200 Fire Officer Deputy 6300-10500 7450-11500 PB-2 4200 Divisional Fire Officer Divisional Fire: 8000-13500 8000-13500 PB-3 5400 iG OA No, 644 of 2022 A bare reading of these recommendations makes it explicitly clear that the Pay Commission recommended parity between various posts of Fire Fighting Staff and the post of Constables, Head Constables in CPMFs, Delhi Police, 13 & CBI {tis needless to say that Fire Fighting Staff duty is more onerous than the duties of Constables and Head Constables in CPMFs, Delhi Police, IB & CBI. The Firemen in Fire-F ighting staff literaily play with the fire. From these recommendations one can easily conclude that the 6" Pay Commission "made . recommendations 'for maintaining parity between these posts, We do not find any substance in the argument of the Respondents that the applicants through this application are seeking parity. Sixth Pay Commission has already recommended parity. Applicants wants these recommendations to be enforced. In the case of Sharad Tewatia & Ors Vs. Govt of NCT af Delhi & Ors, Delhi High Court in para-13 made following observations :-
"13. The undisputed position which emerzes from the record is that the Tribunal had. vide its order dated 25.10.2016, allowed the petitioners' OA and accepted their plea that they were entitled to parity of pay with the staff of Delhi Police/CPMF under the recommendations ofthe 6" CPC. This decision of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the respondents and has, therefore, attained finality. In the light of this admitted position, it is now not open for the respondents to contend that the petitioners, despite having been placed in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 i OANe, 644 of 2032 prior to the recommendations of the 6" CPC itself, should be granted a grade pay lower than what is payable to those who were holding the pay scale of Rs.3200-
4900/-. The respondents also do not deny that the holders of the post of Head Constable in Delhi Police as also others in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/- have after the 6" CPC, been placed fn PB-1 with grade nay of Rs.2400/- Therefore, we sce no reason as to why the petitioners should be deprived of the said grade pay of Rs.2400/-, which is being paid to all persons in the erstwhile pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/-."
(underlining is ours) Fram these observations of the Delhi High Court, it is more than clear that the parity is recommended by the 6" Pay Commission and the applicants want enforcement of it. The buttress contention that the applicants are not seeking parity but enforcement of parity, rellance is placed on the Recruitment Rules for 'Firemen' published in the Andaman and Nicobar Gazette Notification dated 13" July, 2010, in which, in Schedule XVI, Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- has been accepted. Thus there is no force in the contention that the applicants are seeking parity through this application. The Principal Bench in OA No.2380/2010 decided on 26" October,2016 has upheld the contentions of the applicants in Sharad Tewatia's case. Principal Bench of this Tribunal held thus :
"11, We have heard both sides and have perused the material placed on record. We have also seen the recommendations of VI CPC regarding the pay scales of Fire Services in various Union Territories, which have been extracted in earlier part of the judgement. From the chart, H is obvious that the recommendations of the Pay 12 he OA No. 644 of 2022 Commission are with regard to staff of Fire Services of all Union Territories as well as different Government organizations. They have not taken inte account the fact that DPS Fireman as well as Leading Fireman were getting pay scale higher than their counterparts in other Union Territories as well as Government organizations. Uhus, in the same chart, it can b seen that the existing pay scale of Fireman has been taken by the Vio Pay Commission to be Rs.2610-3540 whereas DFS Fireman were getting higher pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 whereas they were actually getting Rs.4000-6000. Had the correct pay seales already enjoyed by DFS been taken into account the replacement pay scales would also have been higher. From the same chart,. it is evident that the replacement pay scale for Rs.3200-4900, which was the pay scale granted to Fireman n DFS was PB-I with grade pay oF Rs.2000/- whereas replacement pay scale for Rs.4000-6000 already enjoyed by Leading Fireman of DFS was PB-I with grade pay of Rs.2800/-, Thus, in our opinion, the error has occurred on account of wrong input being provided to the Pay Commission in asmuch as the Pay Commission was not informed that DFS staff was enjoying pay scale higher than other fire service of other Union Territories and States".
os it has further been held in para 14 thus --
"Ed. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this OLA and. direct that Fireman of DFS will be placed in PB-I with grade pay of Rs.2000/- .....", From these observations, it is axiomatic that the Fireman in the Delhi Fire Services are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.2,000. The applicants case is fully covered by the judgment of the Principal Bench. In WP (Cj No,3373/2019, decided on 30° April, 2019, the Delhi High Court also upheld the decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal by making the OA No. 644 af 2022 following observations in para-14, which reads as under :-
14. We have also considered the submissions of Ms.Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent, but in view of the finding already arrived at by the Tribunal in its order dated 26.16.2016 allowing the OA, we are unable fo accept her plea that the petitioners are entitied to be granted the pay scales as recommended by the 6" CPC for the fire-fighting staff in general. A perusal of the chart as contained in Para 3.8.12 of the recommendations of the 6" CPC shows that the same could be applied only to firemen who had been placed in the pay scale of Rs.2610-3540, whereas the petitioners. were, admittedly, in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/- even prior to the 6" CPC. Thus, as held by the Tribunal, the petitioners could not be governed by the 6" CPC. Thus, as held by the Tribunal, the petitioners could not be governed by the general pay scale of Rs.2610-3540/-, but had to be granted the grade pay commensurate with their pay scale, which under the 6" CPC was Rs.2400/- as was being paid to the Head Constables in Delhi Police.
The applicants are therefore entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/-,
8. So far as the plea regarding limitation is concerned, we do not feel that there is any delay in preferring this O.A. The 7" Pay Commission had directed the Respondent Union of India to draft Model Reeruitment Rules for awarding Grade Pay as recommended by 6° Pay Commission, The Rules are not yet finalized. The applicants waited for a reasonable period for getting the rules finalized. Thereafter they made representations in the year 2020. The Representations were decided and i4 OA No. 644 af 2022 therefore they had to file OA. in the OA the Respondents were given directions to decide the representations. Thereafter representations were decided. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that the application is barred by limitation. The Respondents therefore cannot take the abjection of delay. The Rules are yet not finalized.
9. Even otherwise it is settled law that fixation of pay is a continuous cause of action. To buttress this contention, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of MLR Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors [1995 Scale (5) 29], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"The 'Tribunal has upheld the respondents' objection based on the ground of limitation. It has been held that. the appellant had been expressly told by the order dated 12.83.1983 and by another letter dated 7.3.1987 that his"
pay had been correctly fixed so that he should have assailed the order at that time "which was one time action". The Tribunal held that the raising of this matter alter lapse of 11 years since the initial pay fixation in 1978 was hopelessly barred by time. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as time barred without going into the merits of the appellant's claim for proper pay fixation.
4x, faving heard both sides, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has missed the real point and overlooked the crux of the matter. The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the is o 18 DOA No, 644 of 2022 assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid 4 salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly ary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary
10. In view of the above, since it is recurring cause of action, the applicants are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
li. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow the application.
Application is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
12. The Respondents are directed to finalize rules as recommended by 7° Pay Commission and to pay Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- to the applicants - and fix the pay accordingly and pay the arrears from the date of their appointment and as per Rules, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice MLG Sewlikar) Member (A} Member (J) yi