Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr. Uma Kant Roy, Training And Placement ... vs The Government Of Nct Delhi (Through The ... on 14 March, 2007
ORDER V.K. Agnihotri, Member (A)
1. In this OA the applicants have sought direction to the respondents to grant them the pay scales of Rs. 3000-4500 (pre-revised) and Rs. 3700-5700 (pre-revised) along with corresponding revised pay scales of Rs. 10000-15000 and Rs. 12000-18000 as per the recommendations of the Madan Committee and Dogra Committee [All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE, for short) recommendations] w.e.f. respective due dates.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicants are working as Training and Placement Officers (TPO, for short) in various Polytechnics, under the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. Admittedly, the application is not based on any impugned order, since the respondents have not passed any speaking order on the repeated representations of the applicants. This OA has been filed in the context of the aforementioned relief sought.
3. The main argument of the applicants rests on the grant of pay scales sought by them to a similarly situated TPO, namely, Shri K.C. Choudhary [Order dated 05.03.2004, Annexure A-1 (Colly.)], in compliance of the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 2522/2000 decided on 03.09.2002 (Annexure A-2).
4. The applicants have accordingly averred that against an illegal denial of the rightful claim by the respondents, one of the TPOs, viz. Shri K.C. Choudhary, filed OA No. 2522/2000 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of on 03.09.2002 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant afresh and also take into account the letters conveying the sanction of the Lt. Governor of Delhi for the creation of posts. This Tribunal further directed that if the claim of the applicant (Shri Choudhary) as regards fulfillment of educational qualifications was found to be correct then, in that case, he shall be entitled for grant of pay and allowances in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 (pre-revised) and Rs. 3700-5700 (pre-revised) from the due dates in accordance with the recommendations of the Madan Committee and Dogra Committee (AICTE recommendations) and Mohd. Monsoor's case which was cited in the Tribunal's order.
5. The applicants have stated that being similarly placed, they were expecting the benefit of the said judgment to be conferred upon them too, as it flowed from a recommendation which was applicable to the entire class of TPOs under the respondents. They submitted a number of representations to the respondents for the grant of necessary pay scales as per these recommendations and as per the judgment of this Tribunal in K.C. Coudhary's case. After dilly-dallying for a long time, the respondents ultimately issued orders for giving the benefit of the pay scales to the said Shri K.C. Choudhary only by an order dated 08.03.2004 but have illegally denied the said benefit to the applicants, who are similarly placed.
6. The applicants have further averred that they have reliably understood that the Department of Training and Technical Education of the respondents had indeed recommended the grant of the benefit to all the affected TPOs, but the same has been rejected by the respondents with ulterior motives. However, no communication had been issued to the applicants in this regard, thus adding insult to injury.
7. In the context of the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 2522/2000 (supra), the applicants have also invited attention to the letter of Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 25.09.1987 regarding implementation of the recommendations of Madan Committee, letter dated 13.07.1988 of Deputy Secretary (Technical Division), Delhi Administration and letter dated 18.07.1988 of the Department of Training and Technical Education, Government of NCT of Delhi.
8. The respondents have stated that Madan Committee had recommended that the TPOs in Polytechnics should be in the grade of Head of Department (HOD, for short) in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500. However, it also emphasized that in any case no relaxation would be given in the minimum qualification required. Subsequently, AICTE, vide letter dated 20.09.1989, recommended the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 in respect of HOD. On the basis of order of this Tribunal dated 03.09.2002 in OA No. 2522/2002, relaxation in qualification was given to Shri K.C. Choudhary, the applicant therein, and he was placed in the upgraded scale equivalent to HOD. They have further stated that applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4, joined as TPOs w.e.f. 03.10.1994, 10.07.1997, 03.12.1998 and 27.02.2000, respectively. As per the minimum qualification prescribed by ACITE for HOD at the time of appointment of these applicants, they should have 1st class Master's Degree in Engineering/Technology/Technician Education or Ph.D. in Humanities or Science. None of these 4 applicants, mentioned above, possess the qualification as required for the post of HOD at the time of appointment and hence they are not entitled to the grade. It has been further submitted that all the 4 applicants were recruited by the UPSC for the post of TPO in the scale of Rs. 8000-13500 (Rs. 2200-4000 pre-revised) and thus cannot claim entitlement to the pay scale equivalent to that of HOD. Even as on date applicant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 do not possess the requisite qualification, as mentioned in the Recruitment Rules of HOD.
9. The respondents have further stated that 2 posts of TPO, one each in Boys Polytechnic and Women's Polytechnic were created, vide order dated 13.07.1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 with effect form the date these posts were filled up to 28.02.1989. Due to non-filling of these posts, since eligible officials were not available, these posts lapsed after February, 1989. At the time of recruitment of the applicants, the posts available with the respondents were in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 (revised Rs. 8000-13500) and the applicants were appointed accordingly.
10. It has been argued that letter dated 18.07.1988 was issued to consider the eligibility of incumbents working on the post of TPO on the date of issue of the order vis-a-vis the qualifications prescribed for HOD. No orders were issued at that time since none of the incumbents were found eligible.
11. It has been further argued that the applicants are required to submit the proof of making representation to the respondents. It has been reiterated that on the direction of this Tribunal, the case of Shri K.C. Choudhary was considered and he was granted the scale of HOD by relaxing the condition of Educational Qualification for incumbents working on the said post. In the present case, all of the applicants were recruited after 1994. Since they did not fulfill the eligibility conditions for the post of HOD at the time of recruitment, they cannot be considered for upgradation to the grade equivalent to HOD. Placing these incumbents in the enhanced pay scale of HOD would amount to double promotion and would disturb pay parity in the department. The conditions prevailing at the time of granting relaxation of educational qualification to Shri K.C. Choudhary no longer obtain in view of the upgradation of the pay scale of HOD. Hence, there is no equivalence/similarly between the case of Shri K.C. Choudhary and that of the present applicants. Though the Madan Committee's recommendation was to place TPOs in the erstwhile pay scale of HOD, TPOs in the Technical Education Department of Delhi Government have been recruited in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. It is inconceivable that this position should be altered and these posts should be placed in the pay scale of HOD. Hardly any position in the Delhi Government, that carries the qualifications of the applicants, has been given the pay scale of HOD at the stage of initial recruitment. Madan Committee's recommendations are of a general nature and cannot be uniformly applied everywhere. In some of the States, the post of TPO could be filled up by promotion from experienced officials and in such cases placement of TPOs in the pay scale of HOD maybe appropriate. In the case of the Technical Education Department of Government of NCT of Delhi, the post of TPO is directly recruited and hence placement of this post in the pay scale of HOD would not be appropriate. Madan Committee's recommendations have, therefore, got to be applied appropriately taking into consideration variation in local administrative conditions.
12. The respondents have also averred that the applicants are not similarly placed vis-a-vis Shri K.C. Choudhary inasmuch as all of them were appointed subsequent to 20.09.1989 whereas Shri K.C. Choudhary was serving on the post on the date of issue of Madan Committee's recommendation. As submitted hereinabove, the applicants are not eligible at the time of recruitment, as per the qualifications required for the post of HOD, and hence they cannot be granted the scale of HOD.
13. In the course of oral arguments, Shri V.S.R. Krishna, learned Counsel for the applicants, invoked the principles of `equal pay for equal work' and `similar situated persons being treated similarly' in the context of the pay fixation of Shri K.C. Choudhary in OA No. 2522/2000 (supra). He further stated that the posts of TPOs are inter-changeable and, therefore, for all practical purposes, the applicants are in the same category as Shri K.C. Choudhary and hence not giving the same pay and allowances to the applicants is a case of hostile discrimination. He further argued that Shri K.C. Choudhary was given the benefit after relaxation of the requirement of Post Graduate qualification. As far as the applicants are concerned, applicant No. 1 possesses Post Graduate qualification and others are possessing Graduate qualification on par with Shri K.C. Choudhary. Therefore, giving relaxation to a single person is nothing short of arbitrariness. Hence, the said relaxation should be given to the applicants as well.
14. Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned Counsel for the respondents, stated that after 1994, the terms and conditions of appointment of TPOs were changed and the job was made contractual. Moreover, higher pay scale for HOD along with higher qualification was prescribed on the basis of the recommendations of the Madan Committee. Shri K.C. Choudhary was appointed in 1979, i.e. prior to 1994, whereas all the applicants were appointed between 1994-2000.
15. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
16. In compliance of the direction of this Tribunal given on the last date of hearing, i.e. 08.03.2007, the learned Counsel for the respondents has filed copies of Notification dated 07.04.2003 of the Directorate of Training and Technical Education. He has also filed a copy of the AICTE Notification relating to Diploma Level Technical Institutions, containing letter dated 30.12.1999, through which recommendations of AICTE regarding revision of pay scales etc. were communicated. He has also filed a copy of the letter dated 21.10.1978 of Government of India (Ministry of Education and Social Welfare) relating to the action taken on the recommendations of Madan Committee.
17. The case of the applicants primarily rests on the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 2522/2000 (supra). However, as pointed out by the respondents, the applicant therein, namely, Shri K.C. Choudhary, belongs to a different period and was appointed as TPO in 1979, whereas the applicants admittedly joined as TPO between 1994-2000. The applicants have filed copies of Norms and Standards of Polytechnics (Diploma Programmes), which pertain to the year 1990, i.e. prior to their appointment. They have not filed a copy of the relevant Recruitment Rules, by which they are governed. On the other hand, the Notification dated 07.04.2003 (supra) supplied by the learned Counsel for the respondents, which states that the posts of HOD are available in the disciplines of Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electronics Engineering, Computer Engineering and Plastic Technology, is dated after the dates of appointment of the applicants. The essential qualifications, prescribed for the post of the above mentioned HOD, are no doubt Master's Degree in Engineering/Technology, in the respective disciplines. The AICTE's letter dated 30.12.1999 (supra), confirms that for the post of HOD, Master's Degree in appropriate branches of Engineering/Technology, with first class at Master's or Bachelor's level is the qualification required, in addition to 5 years' experience in teaching/industry/research.
18. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we find that even though the applicants have failed to provide conclusive evidence in support of their claim to be given the pay scale of HOD in terms of the recommendations of Madan Committee and AICTE, the respondents too have not provided relevant information in respect of the Recruitment Rules, which were in force when the applicants were appointed. On the other hand, only argument, vociferously presented by the applicants, relates to the benefit provided to Shri K.C. Choudhary, which, in our opinion, is not adequate to grant the desired relief to the applicants straightaway. From the data provided by the respondents, it is also clear that except for applicant No. 1 (provided he has a 1st Class at Master's or Bachelor's level), the other applicants are not qualified for the post of HOD. Finally, making of recommendations by a Committee does not necessarily mean that all the recommendations of the Committee would be automatically implemented.
19. In the result, given the lack of provisioning of adequate data by both the sides, we dispose of this application with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order in respect of the representation of the applicants dated 07.07.2004 (Annexure A-4), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.