Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
T G Irudhayaraj vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 11 July, 2022
1of16 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA No.310/00347/2015 Mondhos Dated t! ,the day of July, 2022 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI T. JACOB, MEMBER(A) HON'BLE SHRI LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER(J) T.G. Irudhayaraj, Supervisor, (Maintenance), The Pasture Institute of India, Coonoor, The Nilgiris. .. Applicant (By Advocate: M/s. R. Ananda Babu) Vs Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 011; The Pasture Institute of India, Coonoor, The Nilgiris, Dr. B. Sekar, The Director, Pasture Institute of India, Coonoor, The Nilgiris. . Respondents (By Advocate: M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates) 2of 16 ORDER
( Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.T.Jacob, Member(A)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the is respondent in Lr. No. V. 11011/22/2009-VI dated 25.02.2014 and quash the same and direct the is respondent -
to implement the recommendation of the Director Pasture Institute, Coonoor the WNilgiris in his letter No. P1i/Admn/2011 6297 dated 10.02.2011 and Letter No. P1i/Admn/2/202 dated 21.04.2002."
2. The brief facts of the case submitted by the applicant are as follows:-
This applicant is presently working as Supervisor in the Maintenance Section in the Pasture Institute of India, Coonoor, the Nilgiris. He has been working there for the past 34 years. Earlier, he was appointed on 6.4.1981 in the post of fitter in the scale of pay of Rs. 260-430/- and promoted as senior fitter on 30.11.1991 in the scale of pay of Rs. 1320- 2040/- and re-designated as Maintenance Technician and during 18.05.2001 he was promoted as Supervisor in the scale of pay of Rs.
4500-7000 during 5" pay commission and during VI pay commission the applicant was fixed with Rs. 2800 grade pay as MACP (Modified Assured Carrier Progression). He has been submitting various representations during V pay commission and VI pay commission for revision of scale of pay of the post of supervisor (Maintenance) as like that of the said post in other institutions or C.R.I. Kasauli and BC.G. Lab, Chennai but the scale of pay has not been revised till date by the first respondent. Based on the representations of the Supervisors in the PIIC Coonoor, the Director of PIIC has made recommendations to the first respondent to revise the i 3 of 16 scale of pay of the post of Supervisor from Rs. 5200/- to Rs. 9300/- with effect from 1.1.2006 (during VI Pay Commission) since the scale of pay of the Supervisor in CRE Kasauli is also Rs. 9300/- based on the recommendations of the VI Pay commission (Even during 5" pay commission also there was disparity in the scale of pay of the post of Supervisor i.e. Rs. 4500/- to Supervisor PIIC Coonoor, whereas it was Rs. 9000/- in CRI Kasauli). But, without considering the recommendation of Director PIIC Coonoor, the Union Government of India in the impugned order dated 25.2.2014 rejected his request. In view of the above, the applicant is constrained to file this application.
3. The applicant has sought the aforesaid relief, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
1) The revision of scale of pay of the post of Supervisor PIIC Coonoor, is justified one considering the earlier parity and pre revised scale of pay was Rs. 1400/- during the 4" Pay Commission in all the similarly placed institutions at PIC Coonoor, CRE Kasauli and BCG Chennai etc., and hence the rejection of the representation dated 22.1.2013 of the applicant by the first respondent in letter dated 25.2.2014 is against the principles of natural justice and equity.
ii) There must be equal pay for equal work. Considering the duties and responsibilities, there cannot be any disparity in the scale of pay of the post of Supervisor in Coonoor and Kasauli in the eyes of law in as much as in during IV Pay Commission the scale of pay of the post of Supervisor in all similarly placed institutions at CRI Kasauli and BCG Chennai was Rs. 1400 on the same parity.
4o0fi6
iii) The reasons set out in the impugned order dated 25.2.2014 is against the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the instructions of Government of India letter No. V. 19012/8/99 PH, Dated 8.2.2001 stating that Parc B Recommendation can be considered for extent to autonomous body:
iv) The non revision of scale of pay of the post of Supervisor at PIIC, Coonoor on par with CRI Kasauli, will create discontentment among the supervisors of the PIIC institution at Coonoor and their efficiency will be badly affected since earlier in IV pay commission they were all on same footing.
v) The reasons stated in the impugned order dated 25.2.2014 that the institute viz. CRI Kasauli is a Ministerial office and whereas the PIC Coonoor is autonomous one Is not sound one since PIC Cooncor in also working for the National Welfare on behalf of the Government of India and due recognition ought to be given in grating the pay scales.
vi) Having not considered any representations of the applicant or the recommendations of the direction PIC Coonoor, right from the V pay commission and VI Pay commission and also having procrastinated the matter, the 1* respondent cannot come to say that in view of the announcement of the VII pay commission there is no feasibility of considering the earller representation.
4, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter and vs. Union of India & Anr. Dated 15.03.1989 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1215
5. Respondents have filed a detailed reply statement contesting the OA. The respondent submits that 'Pasteur Institute of India' Coonoor, 5 of 16 the second respondent herein, is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. This institute has its own bye-laws applicable to its various day-to-day administrative affairs. It an autonomous institute and though wholly controlled and governed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, the rules and orders of Government of India, is not made applicable in toto. The management of this institute adopts the rules and orders of the Central Government after obtaining specific approval from the Governing Body from time to time.
6. The respondent submits that the Governing Body of the Institute is chaired by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi. The other members of the Governing Body are the Director Generai of Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi, the Director General, India Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, the Drugs Controller of India, New Delhi and members from Central and State Government Departments. Apart from the above, two members each are nominated by the Government of India and government of Tamil Nadu as eminent Scientists. The Director of the institute is the Member Secretary of the Governing Body.
7. It is submitted that the applicant had joined the Respondent Institute as Fitter in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 260-8-300-EB-8- 340-10-380-EB-10-430 w.e.f. 6-4-1981 (Revised VI CPC -Rs.5200-20200 with GP Rs. 2000). At the time of joining this institute as Fitter, his educational qualification was SSLC (X Standard). ITI Fitter Trade & National Apprenticeship Training Certificate (2 years course). He had been promoted to the post of Senior Fitter in the scale of pay of Rs. 1320- 30-1560-EB-40-2040. The said post had been r--designated as 60f16 Maintenance Technician in the year 1996. Further, he had been promoted as Supervisor in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-125-7000 w.e.f. 18.5.20i1 (Revised VI CPC- Rs. 5200-20200 with GP Rs. 2800). He had been awarded MACP in the year 2011 in the scale of pay of Rs. 9300-34800 with GP of Rs. 4200/-. Further, he had been promoted as Foreman in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800 with GP of Rs. 4200/- w.e.f. 1.5.2015.
8. The applicant herein has submitted a representation dated 22.10.2013 for implementing the V & VI CPC recommendations on par with other Central Govt. Departments to the i* respondent. - The representation has been duly considered by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and communicated the decision vide letter No. V- 11011/22/2009-VI dated 25.02.2014 that "as per CCS rules (Revised Pay Rules) 2008, the post of Supervisor in an organization outside the secretariat which were in pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 4500-125-7000 have been placed in the revised pay structure of Rs. 5200-20200 with GP of Rs. 2800 in PB-1. Further, the posts which are in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000, 5500-9000 as on 01.01.2006, were granted the replacement pay structure of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200/-. It is evident that Supervisor in PII, Coonoor was in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, pre-revised scale and accordingly granted corresponding pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 2800. This Is in accordance with the recommendation of the 6» CPC. The justification for granting pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200 on the ground that Technical Supervisor in CRI, Kasauli has been granted identical pay scale does not seem logical. PII, Coonoor is an autonomous body and CRI, Kasauli is a sub-ordinate office of this 7 of 16 Ministry. At this juncture, when seventh CPC has already been announced by the Govt. it will be difficult to accede to the request for grant of higher pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200 to Supervisor in PII, Coonoor on the analogy of CRI, Kasauli."
9. The above decision of the 1* respondent was communicated to the applicant by the 2 respondent institute vide fetter No. PIT/ADMN/6CPC/2013-14/6012 dated 20.03.2014, Again the applicant made a representation vide letter dated 23.7.2014 requesting to upgrade his pay on par with Head Clerk/Research Assistant since both the posts carry similar pay scale in the V and VI CPC. The applicant's request for the upgradation of the pay scales of Supervisors, PI, Coonoor has again been examined by the Ministry and the following reply was given vide letter No. V, 11011/22/2009-VI dated 3.3.2015 that "it is regretted that the higher pay scale to Supervisors, PII; Coonoor on par with Research Assistants of PII, Coonoor has not been acceded to as the case Is devoid of any merit. Hence, the case may be treated as closed." This has also been communicated to the applicant vide the 2 respondent Institute's letter No.PII/Admin/Supervisor/5143/2015 dated 17.03.2015. Further it is submitted that the pay scale of Supervisors at the Respondent Institute had already been replaced as per the recommendations of the IV, V and VI Pay Commissions ie Rs. 1400-40-1800-50-2300, Rs. 4500-125-7000 and Rs, 5200-20200 w''th GP of Rs. 2800 respectively,
10. Respondents have relfed on the following decisions in support of their case.
8 of 16
i) State of Haryana & Anr, Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association reported in (2002) 6 SCC 72 in Civil Appeal No. 3518 of 1997 dated 10+ July 2002.
ii) | Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K. Reported in (2008) i SCC 586 in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2008 decided on 04.01.2008.
11. The applicant has filed rejoinder.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
13. The issue for consideration in this O.A is whether the demand of technical supervisor for granting pay scale of Rs. 9,300/- Rs.34,800 with grade pay of Rs. 4,200 on the ground that Technical Supervisor (E) in CRI, Kasauli has been granted identical pay scale is justifiable or not.
14, Facts are not in dispute, The comparative statement regarding the educational qualifications, pay scales of the Respondent Institute (PII Coonoor), Central Research Institute (CRI) Kasauli and Indian Council of Medical Research (IMR) in respect of the Supervisors are given below:-
Particulars |Pasteur Institute offCentral ResearchiiCMR, NEW India, Coonoor Institute, Kasauli DELHI Diploma onl. At leastiThree years Licentiate inmatriculation ° orDiploma in Mechanical/Electrica jequivalent. Engineering in | Engineering or alQualifications. the relevant Certificate from ajl2, Diplomaltrade with two recognized technicaiCertificate in Airyears experience institution/or Govt.jconditioning in the recognized Educational [Dept and with atlengineering and|Institute/organiz qualificationslleast 2 years|Mechanica! ation after practical experience. |Engineering/Electrica iobtaining [| Engineering diploma from a Matriculate or recognized board equivalent with at\Note:1 Qualificationslof institute. least 5 yearsjare relaxable at the experienced indiscretion of the Mechanical/Electrica |competent authority ~ 9 of 16 | Engineering workin the case of (or) i) SSLC_ oncandidates otherwise Equivalent. it)|jweil qualified.
Possessing Class II Certificate in BoilerNote: 2 The maintenance. qualifications Experience injregarding experience handling Wansonlis relaxable at the 300 S Boilers ordiscretion off higher capacityicompetent authority boilers for at leastin the case of 10 years. candidates belonging to the SC/ST if, any, at the stage off selection the competent authority is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from these communities possessing the requisite experience are not likely to be available to fill up the vacancies reserved for them 4500-125-7000 5000-150-8000 2000-150-8000 Pay Scale V CPC 5200-20200-2800 9300-34800-4200 (9300-34800- Pay Scale VI 4200 CPC Thus the comparison of education qualification for the post of Supervisor In the Respondent Institute with that of Central Research Institute (CRI) and other Institutes revealed that the minimal qualification required for Supervisor at the Respondent Institute is only Matriculation with 5 years experlence in Mechanical/Electrical whereas in CRI, Kasauli and ICMR the qualification required is in Diploma.
10 of 16
15. The other institutions referred to by the applicant are Govt./Autonomous bodies with separate rules and procedures, the educational qualifications prescribed for the post which cannot be compared as such similar to the 2~ respondent institute. The concept of equal pay to equal work, if made applicable is only a misnomer. Govt./Autonomous body is a_ distinctly different entity and the discriminative treatment would arise only if it-is between the same classes of persons and therefore any benefit given to the employees of other Govt./autonomous bodies cannot be a ground to hold that the revision should have been given on par with other institutions.
16. Further, the 6= CPC, the specialized body constituted by Government of India to recommend scale of pay for its officials had taken various factors into consiceration such as minimum qualifications and experience in field, the mode of recruitment, the feeder grade for promotion to the grade, hierarchical structure of the organization, scope of career progression and nature of duties/responsibilities attached to the post while recommending a particular pay scale. Therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in granting the replacement scale of pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with CP Rs. 2800 in PB-1 which is the corresponding to the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 as per 6" CPC recommendations.
17. Another aspect which, the Tribunal has always to keep in view while considering revision of pay scale is the judgment of in Union of India and another v. P.V. Hariharan and another (1997) 3 SCC 568, wherein it was held as under:-
"S 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 11 of 16 effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on 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. Uniess a clear case of hostile discrimination is made cut, there would be no justification for interfering with the fixation of pay scales. We have come across orders passed by Single Members and that too quite often Administrative Members, allowing such claims. These orders have a serious impact on the public exchequer too. It would be in the fitness of things if al! matters relating to pay scales, I.e., matters asking for a higher pay scale or an enhanced pay scale, as the case may be, on one or the other ground, are heard by a Bench comprising at least one Judicia! Member. ...."
18. In Harbans Lal v. State of H.P., (1989) 4 SCC 459: the Apex Court has held inter alfa as under:.....
"The two jobs by the mere nomenclature or by the volume of work performed cannot be rated as equal. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. It requires the consideration of various dimensions of the job. The accuracy required by the job and the dexterity it entails may differ from job to job. It cannot be evaluated by the mere averments in the self-serving affidavits or counter-affidavits of the parties. If must be left to be evaluated and determined by expert body. The principal claim of the petitioners therefore fails and is rejected,"
19 The above dictum of the Apex Court held three decades ago has been reinforced in a number of subsequent decisions as could be itemized as under:-
1. (1996) 11 SCC 77
2. (2003) 6 SCC 123
3. {20061 9 SCC 324
4. (20081 1 SCC 586 5, (2009) 7 SCC 734 12 of 16 (2010) 7 SCC 739 (2011) 2 SCC 452 (2012)12 SCC 666 (2017) 1 SCC 148
10. (2019) 11 SCC 301 Pon
20. In Secretary, Government (NCT of Delhi) and others v. Grade-1 Officers Association and others (2014) 13 SCC 296, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the ACP Scheme as it would violate government policy and since exercise of judicial review would not be proper, upheld the ACP Scheme and the conditions therein.
21. In State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Arumugham (1998) 2 SCC 198, the Supreme Court has observed that the government has the right to frame a policy to ensure efficiency and proper administration and to provide to suitable avenues for promotion to officers working in different department. The Supreme Court has further observed that the Tribunal cannot substitute its own views for the views of the government or direct new policy based on the views of Tribunal.
22, Observing that fixation of pay and determination of responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to take a decision, the courts should approach such matters with restraint, in State of Haryana and Another v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"10. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it Is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter, several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial 13 of 16 position and capacity of the State Government to bear and_ interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government Is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed by the Government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be qiven to the State Government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter _and pass a proper order. The court should avoid giving _a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compeliing the Government to implement the same......". [Undertining added]
23. In similar cases in W.P. No. 12336 of 2007 filed in the High Court of Madras by Thiru K. Siddarthan & 4 Others for revision of pay scales, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its order dated 05.06.2012 has dismissed the similar plea by referring the judgement of Supreme Court of India filed by (Union of India vs. Arun Jyothi Kundu (2007), 7 SCC 472) and held that:
"It is open to the State or the Central Government to accept the Commission's recommendation or reject the Same and the court cannot give any direction to implement a particular report. In the present case, even assuming there was a One Man Commission recommendations, in the absence of State accepting the same, no mandamus will lie."
"It fs well settled principle of law that recommendations of Pay Commission are subject to the acceptance/rejection with modification of the appropriate Government."
Tt was also held that the recommendation of pay scales are not open to judicial review. The Pay Commission are constituted for evaluating duties and functions of the employee and the nature thereof vis-vis the 14 of 16 educational qualification therefor. Although the Pay Commission is an expert body, the State in its wisdom and in furtherance of its valid policy may or may not accept its recommendations, 24, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7232 of 2003 held that :-
"5. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the auditors and assistants have been_ historically treated at par in the matter of pay scales. Although this fact has been denied by the appellant, we are of the opinion that even if it is correct that will not be of any help to the respondents. To give an illustration, if posts A and B have been carrying the same pay scales, merely because the pay scales of post A has been increased that by itself cannot result In increase in the pay scale of post B to the same level. It is entirely on the Government and the authorities to fix the pay scales and to decide whether the pay scale of post B should be increased or not. The judiciary must exercise self restraint and not encroach into the executive or legislation domain "(2007(12) SCALE
170)"
25. Observing that the decision of expert bodies like the Pay Commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review, in State of U.P. and Others v. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade If Association (2003) 6 SCC 250, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"11. There can be no denial of the legal position that decision of expert bodies like the Pay Commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review obviously because pay fixation is an exercise requiring going into various aspects of the posts held in various services and nature of the duties of the employees... ".
26. In the case of T.M. Sampath and Ors. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 333. the employees of National Water Development Agency (NWDA), an autonomous body under the aegis and control of Ministry of Water Resources claimed the pensionary benefits on par with the Central Government employees.
15 of 16 Refusing to aflow such pensionary benefits to the employees of NWDA on par with the Central Government employees, in paragraphs 16 and 17, it was observed and held as under:-
"16. On the issue of parity between the employees of NWDA and Central Government employees, even if it is assumed that the 1982 Rules did not exist or were not applicable on the date of the OM i.e, 1-5-1987, the relevant date of parity, the principle of parity cannot be applicable to the employees of NWDA. NWDA cannot be treated as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution merely on the basis that its funds are granted by the Central Government. In Zee Telefilms Lid. v. Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649], it was held by this Court that the autonomous bodies having some nexus with the Government by itself would not bring them within the sweep of the expression "State" and each case must be determined on its own merits. Thus, the plea of the employees of NWDA to be treated on a par with their counterparts in the Central Government under sub-rule (6)(/v) of Rule 209 of the General Financia! Rules, merely on the basis of funding is not applicable.
17, Even if it is presumed that NWDA is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, the appellants have failed to prove that they are on a par with their counterparts, with whom they claim parity. As held by this Court in UT, Chandigarh v. Krishan Bhandari [(1996) 11 SCC 348], the claim to equality can be | claimed when there is discrimination by the State between two persons who are similarly situated. The said discrimination cannot be invoked in cases where discrimination sought to be shown is between acts of two different authorities functioning as State under Article 12. Thus, the employees of NWDA cannot be said to be "Central Government employees" as stated in the OM for its applicability."
27. The directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed above make NL it clear that Tribunals should not interfere with the scales for particular posts recommended by Pay Commissions and/or other expert bodies unless it is shown that hostile discrimination is apparent on the face of the records. Further as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court j
--_e
i) 16 of 16 in a catena of decisions, the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly, when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par Prescription of pay scales for individual posts is in the domain of the Government and as per Supreme Court directions discussed above, It is not for the Tribunals to interfere with them, especially when the existing pay scales are as per recommendations of Pay Commission or other expert committee.
28, In the conspectus of discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we do not find any merit in this O.A. It is accordingly dismissed, No costs. ° com oo