Karnataka High Court
Central Power Research Institute (R) vs R Shankar on 5 April, 2022
Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
W.A No.1992/2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
WRIT APPEAL No.1992 OF 2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN :
CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE (R)
MINISTRY OF ENERGY
DEPARTMENT OF POWER
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
PROF.SIR. C.V. RAMAN ROAD
SADASHIVA NAGAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR GENERAL NOW
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
MR. N.R. PADMANABHA ... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. M.R.C. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
AND :
1. R. SHANKAR
S/O LATE RAGAVELU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
W.A No.1992/2013
2
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
2. S. THYAGARAJ
S/O A.B. SUNDARAM
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
3. T. NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O LATE THIRUMALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
4. K.N. JAGANNATHA URS
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
4(A). SMT. LAKSHMI
W/O LATE JAGANNATHA URS
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
4(B). MISS. CHAITRA J
D/O LATE JAGANNATHA URS
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
4(C). MISS. MANASA J
D/O LATE JAGANNATHA URS
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
4(D). SMT. VENKATLAKSHMAMMA
M/O LATE JAGANNATHA URS
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
ALL RESIDING AT LKR APARTMENTS
LKR NAGAR, LATTEGALLAHALLI
W.A No.1992/2013
3
RMV EXTENSION II STAGE
BANGALORE-97
[AMENDED AS PER COURT VIDE ORDER
DTD.21.01.2014]
5. P. SRIDHARAN
S/O P. PERUMAL
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
6. SIDDARAMAPPA
S/O YANKANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
7. R. RAVI
S/O M. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
8. R. DHANARAJ
S/O RAGHAVAN P
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
W.A No.1992/2013
4
9. R. TAMILVANNAN
S/O LATE C. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
10. T.P. RAMESH
S/O PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
11. M. GANESH
S/O C. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
12. V. MUNISWAMY
S/O VENKATACHALAM
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
13. IMTIAZ PASHA
S/O T.N. ABDUL AZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
W.A No.1992/2013
5
14. S. JAGADISH PRASAD
S/O A.M. SRINIVAS MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080
15 . RAMAKRISHNA C
S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TECHNICIAN GRADE III
HIGH POWER LAB, CENTRAL POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SADASHIVANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 080 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.L. SUVARNA FOR
SHRI. K. PUTTE GOWDA, ADVOCATES
FOR R1 TO R3, R5, R6, R9 TO R11, R13 TO R15;
SHRI. K.S. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R8 & R12;
VIDER ORDER DTD.15.06.2021 APPEARANCE IN
RESPECT OF R4(A) TO R4(D) IS IGNORED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.19528/2005
DATED 23/01/2013.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.03.2022 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH
KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.A No.1992/2013
6
JUDGMENT
Central Power Research Institute1 has presented this appeal challenging the order dated January 23, 2013, in W.P.No.19528/2005.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status in the Writ Petition.
3. Heard Shri M R C Ravi, learned Senior Advocate for appellant, Smt.M.L.Suvarna, learned advocate for respondents No.3, 5, 6, 9 to 11, 13 to 15 and Shri K.S.Lokesh, learned advocate for respondents No.7, 8 & 12.
4. Brief facts of the case are, writ petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions No.35338-352/2002 for a direction against CPRI to revise the pay scale of Technicians 1 'CPRI' for short W.A No.1992/2013 7 Grade-II. This Court, vide order dated January 27, 2005, directed the CPRI to consider petitioners' representations. After considering the representations, CPRI rejected their request vide order dated July 12, 2005. Petitioners challenged the said order in the instant writ petition. The Hon'ble Single Judge has directed the CPRI to revise the pay scale of Technicians Grade II from Rs.3200-85-4900 to Rs.4000-100-6000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and to extend all consequential benefits. Feeling aggrieved, CPRI has presented this appeal.
5. Shri M.R.C. Ravi, learned Senior Advocate for the CPRI submitted • that CPRI is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act,1960 and an independent entity;
• that the terms of service of CPRI's employees are governed by the Central Power Research W.A No.1992/2013 8 Institute (Pay, Recruitment and Promotions) Rules, 19892;
• that the services rendered by the technicians in CPRI are not similar to those working in Institutions like ISRO, DRDO, etc. ; • that it is always for expert body to decide the similarity between the jobs in different organizations and to make appropriate recommendations;
• that the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge is not sustainable in law in view of the authorities in State of Punjab and Another Vs. Surjit Singh and others3 and Delhi Transport Corporation Security Staff Union (Regd.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another4 and prayed for allowing this writ appeal. 2 1989 Rules 3 (2009) 9 SCC 514 paras 19 to 24 4 (2018)16 SCC 619 paras 7 and 9;
W.A No.1992/20139
6. Learned Advocates for the writ petitioners argued opposing the writ appeal.
7. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
8. Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioners are working in CPRI as Grade-II Technicians. Their case is, they are discharging similar functions as Grade-II Technicians working in other Central Government Organizations such as ISRO, Doordarshan, DRDO and C-DOT. Therefore, they are entitled for the pay scale attached to Grade-II Technicians in the said organizations.
9. Admittedly, CPRI is a society registered under the Societies Act. The employees of CPRI are governed by the 1989 Rules.
10. In Surjit Singh, it is held that the benefit of 'equal pay for equal work' depends upon large W.A No.1992/2013 10 number of factors including equal work, equal value, source & manner of appointment and equal identity of group.
11. In D.T.C. Security Staff Union, it is held that grant of pay scale is a highly technical and complex matter, which requires consideration of a host of factors such as the qualification, the method of recruitment, nature of duties etc. A reference has been made in the said case to Union of India Vs. P.V.Hariharan5 and the following passage has been extracted:
"5. ... We have noticed that quite often the Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on 5 (1997)3 SCC 568 W.A No.1992/2013 11 the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realise that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work"
is also being misunderstood and misapplied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunals will exercise due restraint in the matter. ..."
(Emphasis Supplied) [ [
12. In D.T.C. Security Staff Union, it is also held on the facts of that case that the Staff Union had not filed any objection or raised issues for grant of appropriate pay scale either before the 4th Pay Commission or the successive Commissions. It was argued by Shri M.R.C. Ravi that even in this case, employees have not filed any objections nor raised any issue before the Pay Commissions. W.A No.1992/2013 12
13. Admittedly, CPRI has framed 1989 Rules which govern the employees. In State Bank of India and others Vs. K.P.Subbaiah and others6, the Apex Court has held that the fixation of pay is essentially a function of the Executive. They are closely interlinked with the evaluation of duty and responsibility attached posts and pay scales are normally linked with conclusions arrived at by the expert bodies like Pay Commissions. It is further held that a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors such as method of recruitment etc, including employer's capacity to pay.
14. Thus, the law on the point is clear to the effect that fixation of pay is essentially the function of Executive based on the recommendations of expert bodies like Pay Commissions. On facts, it is not in dispute that the employees have not approached the Pay Commission by filing objections 6 (2003) 11 SCC 646 W.A No.1992/2013 13 or seeking equal pay. The writ petition has been allowed by recording thus:
"23. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that they are equal so far as Technician, Grade-II is concerned. The petitioners are in pari materia, with the Technicians of the other organisations as they too are to are governed by the Central Government. Under these circumstances, I' am of the considered view that the same grade of pay-scale would be applicable."
15. In our considered view, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court recorded hereinabove, the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge is not sustainable in law.
16. Resultantly, this appeal merits consideration and hence, the following: W.A No.1992/2013 14
ORDER
i) Writ appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated January 23, 2013 in W.P.No.19528/2005 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.