Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ashwani Kumar Son Of Shri Baljit Singh vs Chandigarh Administration Through The ... on 30 April, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Order reserved on: 25.04.2014 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1494-CH of 2012 Chandigarh, this the 30th day of April, 2014 CORAM: HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A) HONBLE DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (J) 1. Ashwani Kumar son of Shri Baljit Singh, Workshop Attendant, Industrial Training Institute, Sector 28, Chandigarh. 2. Gurnam Singh son of Shri Prita Ram, Workshop Attendant, Industrial Training Institute, Sector 28, Chandigarh. 3. Neel Kamal son of Shri Mam Raj, Workshop Attendant, Industrial Training Institute, Sector 28, Chandigarh. 4. Husan Lal son of Shri Bishmber Dass, Workshop Attendant, Industrial Training Institute, Sector 28, Chandigarh. APPLICANTS BY ADVOCATE: SHRI PARVESH SAINI VERSUS 1. Chandigarh Administration through the Secretary, Home and Education, Union Territory, Chandigarh. 2. Director, Technical Education, Union Territory, Chandigarh. 3. Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Sector 28, Chandigarh. RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: SHRI ASEEM RAI ORDER
HONBLE DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL, MEMBER(J):-
Equal pay for equal work is the refrain of the four applicants in this O.A. There are six posts of Workshop Attendant in the Industrial Training Institute, Chandigarh (respondent no. 3); five in one pay-scale and one in higher pay-scale. It is not disputed that all the six, responsible for cleanliness of machines in the workshop, discharge same duties and responsibilities during same hours of work, but one Shri Naresh Kumar is in the pay-scale of Rs. 2720-4260 (earlier, Rs. 800-1455), whereas the applicants are in the pay-scale of Rs. 2520-4140 (with initial start of Rs. 2620/-) (earlier, Rs. 750-940).
2. When the representations made by the applicants resulted in a one-line negative response (Annexure A-1), they approached this Tribunal through O.A. No. 772-CH-2009 and the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in the light of various documents on record as well as those to be further supplied by the applicants to support their claim and pass a speaking order in case the claim is rejected, vide the Tribunals Order dated 04.10.2010 (Annexure A-2).
3. Annexure A-3 dated 29.11.2010 is the outcome, which is sought to be quashed in the instant O.A. The applicants also seek declaration that they are entitled to the aforesaid pay-scale which Shri Naresh Kumar is getting.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.
5. It seems that the respondents are unnecessarily diverting from the fundamental principle of equal pay for equal work, as the impugned order (Annexure A-3) shows. There is no convincing reason for differential treatment.
6. In this light of the matter, Annexure A-3 deserves to be and is set aside, and the respondents are directed to duly reconsider the claim of the applicants within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
7. The O.A. is disposed of with the above direction. No order as to costs.
(DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL)
MEMBER(J)
(RAJWANT SANDHU)
MEMBER(A)
Dated: .04.2014
`SK
1
(OA No. 1494-CH-2012)