Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Aditi Vinod Bandre vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 3 April, 2019
1 O4 No. P3279, P3243, $3313, 73413 & 735/13 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAL ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.731/2013 with MA No.961/2013 OA No.732/2013 with MA 9623/2013 OA No.733/2013 with MA 963/2013 OA No.734/2013 with MA 964/2013 & OA No.735/2013 with MA 9685/2013 Date of Decision: 03.04.2019. CORAM: DR. BHAGWAN SAHAI, MEMBER (A) RN, SINGH, MEMBER (J) Smt. Aditi Vined Bandre, Age 34 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 008.
RYat 4/2 Tata Colony, Khadegolawali (Gaon) Vithalwadi, Kalyan (E). .. Applicant in OA No.731/13 Shri Vadukot Jose Justin Age 38 years, working as Rimior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 008. R/at Riddhi Siddhi Apartment 'A' Wing, 5" Floor, R.No.502, Buisewadi, Thane (W). . Applicant in OA No.732/13 Shri Santosh Dattatray Yadav, Age 38 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai. R/at Aai Niwas, Jimi Bang, Near Old imi Baug, Old Swami Samarth Mandir, Kalyan (East)... Applicant in 0.4 No. 733/13 Smt. Anindita Samir Nandi Age 34 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 608. R/at C3/40, Hyde Park, Residencey, Near Tulsidham, Thane (W). . Applicant in OA No. 73443 Shri Amardeep Maruti Ningappago! Age 42 years, R'at RSIS Hospital, 16/9 Road No.33, Wagle Estate, Thane a (W), Pin ~ 400 604.
2 G4 No F313, P3293, FIRMIS, P3471 & FISTS Applicant in OA No. 73513 (By Advocate Shri Vicky Nagrani) (By ddvecate Shri NB. Rajpurohkit} VERSUS Secretary Govt. of India, ' Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Moulana Agaz Road, At Post New Delhi 110 O11, Drugs Controller General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan Moulana Agaz Road, At Post New Delhi 110 611, Union of India, through Director Incharge, Central Drugs Testing Laboratory-Mumbai, Ministry of Health and Pamily Welfare, Govt. Medical Store, Department Compound, «_ Opp. Sahil Hotel, Belasis Road, Mumbai Central, At post Mumbai 400 008.
Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, At Post New Delhi 110 001... Respondents in all the OAs.
3 ORDER (Oral} Per > RN. Singh, Member (2 Heard Shri VA. Nagrani, learned counsel for the Applicants and Shri N.K. Radpuranit, learned counsel for the Respondents, gnaw
2. In alii the aforesaid five OAs filed urider Sectcion L2 of the Administrative Tribunais Act, LORS. The applicants are CW > 3 OA No. P3113, 732/13, P4913, P3813 & P351F they have bsesn working as Junior Lak Assistant {JLA}) a Group 'D' post under the respondents and all of - them have been aggrieved of the same/similar orders dated:
ia) on hO O12, 22.02.2012, SO0.12.2011 and 12.07.2012 (Annex. A-l1{a},A-l{b}, A-lic} & A-~ Lid) and the aforesaid applicants have prayed for the following reliefs in the respective OAgs:-
"S.a} This Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously i 3 ? . : : a pleased ta call for the records of the case regarding iyplementation of recommendation of Vir Pa Commission above Lab Asstt, Ministry of Health and FW and pass orders upholding that applicants are entitled to similar benefits.
SD) Quash and set aside letter & decisions proposal dated 18.05.2012, 22.2.2012, 30.11.2011, 13.7.2012 and Alfa), Alfh), Alfe} & Alta respectively, Se) Hold and declare that withholding of benefits to applicants although same granted to Lab Assistant in CIPL NICD NMEP is discriminatory, 8} Be further graciously pleased to allow the OA and direet respondents to extend all benefitx granted by Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench order in OA No. i933/2008 te CIPL Lab Assistant (WP challenging it dismissed by Hon'ble High Court, Delhi) within 3 months with all consequential benefits such as arrears, affixation of pay, rectification of pay conferential in further grades.
&.e} Hold and declare that non extending of sinnlar benefits to similarly placed person is' disor iminarary.
&f) Direct respondents io consider representations sent by applicants on 17.12.2008 Rs sy 4 OA Na. P3EeES, P3213, PISS, FSET T & PINTS (£xh. AiO) within 2 months by issuing speaking and reasoned order.
8g} Any other and such further relief{s) as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal. §.42} Cost of an be saddled on respondents and paid to applicant."
3. With the consent of the parties, all:
MH the aforesaid OAs are being disposed of by a common order. However, OA No.731/2013 has been taken as a lead case by the learned counsels for the parties and accordingly the acts are being taken from the pleadings in 4, The orecise facts of the case{s} are noted as under;
Posts i.e. the post of Tunior Lab Assistant in the Central Drug Testing Laboratory, Mumbai under the Ministry of Health. This as in the first round of litigation, the Filing respective OAS i.e. OA Nos. 3320/2009, 3311/2008, S32 /20908, 3323/2003 & 334 /2009 under Section is of the Acministrative Tribunals Aer, ises ang the Same wee 4 = } > ~ me nye ed m se oe note ta} of by a common order/judgment dated her WP BAL applicants have approached this Tribunal by 14.07.2010 {Annex.RI 10). The relevant portion Of the order /judgment dated 14.07.2010 reads as under:
"3. dt is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel for applicants that the respondents - have constituted Anomalies Covunitiee to resolve the whole issue and submits that a suitable direction be given to the respondents to treat the present OAs as representations within the meaning of Section 20 of the ddministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and place the same before the Anomalies Committee for proper appreciation of the grievances af the applicants. .
4, _ The learned counsel for applicants has also brought te aur notice order dated 11.07.2006. passed by Division Bench of this Tribunal, sitting at the Principal Bench, New Delhi, in GA No. 1933/05 -- (Sanjay Kumar & 8 others Vs. Union of India & Ors.) wherein similar issue had been raised by Laboratary Assistants working at CIPL, Ghaziabad and they have been granted similar benefit of pay -- revision based on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The applicants are alsa similarly situated and, therefore. cannot be diseriminated agaist.
3 After hearing the learned counsel of parties and perusing the pleadings, we are of the considered opinion that ends af justice would be- met if direction is given fo the respondents to place the case of the applicant before the Anomalies Conunittee and to expeditiously take final decision in respect of their grievance fapplicants) taktag into consideration the present OAs by treating the samie as a representation, within the meaning of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Final decision to be taken within a period af four months from the date of receipt of a eapy of this order.
5d Needless to say, while considering the above said representations and the GAs of the applicants, the Anomalies Committee will aiso taken inta consideration the judgment of the Principal Bench in OA 1933/05 fsupra} and alse the fact that 8 O4 No PohE3, (32013, F3IRIS, PRAT & F3STI the said judgement has been implemented by the respondents in respect of Laboratory Assistants working at CIPL, Ghaziabad In case the . applicants are still aggrieved, in any manner, by the decision taken by the respondents in their respective eases, they will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forunt in accordance with law.
b. With the above said directions and observations, all the five OAs stand dispased of leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
5. From the aforesaid, it is.evident that the Tribunal had relied upon | "the oxrder/judgment dated 11.07.2006 of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1935/2005, titled Sanjay Kumar & 8 Ors. Vs. Union of © India & Ors. The relevant portion of the order/judgment dated 11.07.2006 in Sanjay Kumar {supra} reads as under:
Sad df ts trite law that equals cannot be treated unegually, This will violate the principle af equality . enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of india, Merely because there had been delay in approaching the respondents would not render the continuous cause of action of grant of pay and allowances as redundant, We find that there is no reasonable justification to deny the pay scale fram L196 when it has been extended to all those whe are similarly cireumstanced. We also note that recommendation of the 5° CPC are accepted by all the Ministries and Departments vet the department situated it the same Minisiry is denying the benefits to the applicants and ultimately they have to"
approach for extension of benefit, which is unfortunate. .
3. in the result, we find that extending the benefit fram 194.2008 and withholding from 1.1.96 cannot be cowrenanced in law. Accordingly, QA is 7 O4 No. Pa iF 3. PRBS, PRIS, P3413 & FISTF party allowed, Impugned order is set aside to the extent that the benefit of pay of Rs. 4000-6000 from 19.4.2005 has been extended Respondents are directed ta accord to the applicants the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 wef 1.1.96 with arrears within a period of three months from the date af receipt af a copy of this order. No costs.'
6. Tt is admitted fact that | the erder/judgment dated 11.07.2006 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Sanjay "Kumar (supra) attained finality inasmuch as the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High fd Court of Delhi by dismissing the WE{C) No.L873/2007 vide - order/ judgr ent dated
12. 03. 2007 in the case of Secretary, Government ef India & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. (annex .RI-9) and the same has Further been implemented by the respondents as could be evident from the office order dated
7. The grievances of the applicants in the present aforesaid OAs are that though in compliance ot the directions of the 4 Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Sanjey Kumar (supra), the respondents have granted = hh the benefit of Pay Scale of Ra. 4000-6000 to the applicants Sanjay Kumar (supra) from different dates aS appil icable in the case of 8 OF No Poh 9S, 732/13, 233/13, 73413 & P3573 the respective app olicants, however, keeping in view the fact that the Pay Scale of .4000-100-6000 has been made applicable w.e.f. O1.01.1996. However, in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal in common G oe if order/judgment dated 14.07.2010 in the Cants, th 23 as fet.
filed by the resent appl respondents have granted the Pay Scale of Rs.4900-100~-5000 to the present applicants only w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide order dated 30.11.2011 and therefore they have. been discriminated inasmuch they are similarly placed as the applicants in Sanjay Kumar fsupra) and in spite of directions of this Pripunal in the common order/judument dated a ia.
;
© O7,2010, the applicants in the present OAs have mot been placed in the correct Pay al te. ae ty A yy ie od Y-- 4 . > Scale w.e.f. the correct date i.e. w.e.f. OL. 01.1996, ct bs be 54] ed by fH i on wa Oy fa ot pe $5) rt @ oO r oO ca ra Qs 3] i ct Ch i 3 «a rth e f = @ .
G NK. Ratpurohit, learned counsel for th * i . de es a Ym 5 respondents submits that the impugned order i © 9 OANo. 731/13, 733/13, 733/1 3, 734/13 & P3B13 are apt in Law. | He further submits that the present applicants have not been granted the benefit of Pay Scale of Rs. &O00-1L00- 60 100 .€.f. 61.01.1996 and have been granted. w.e,f. 01.01.2006 for the reason that the applicants had neither raised the issue of anomaly before the Department nor they made any representation before the 5 Cpe, He further submits that the applicants who have been working as dunior Lak Assistant in Central Drug Testing Laboratory, Mumbai are holding technical posit and were performing the same nature oF duties and hold i a w spon sibility - and they are similarly situated employees as the applicants in Sanjay Kumar (supra).
a. We have gone through the relevant @adings and have considered the rival contentions. We have again gone through the order/judgment dated L.07.2006 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Sanjay Kumar {supra} as well. as the COMmon order/judament dated 14.07.2010 of this Bench ana we find that the responder have mot taken the defence that the benefits 19 OA No. P3473, 73243, 7339 3, P3H13 & 7353 nannot be granted to the applicants therein for the reason that they have not raised the
-20106, a clear direction was given to the respondents to place the matter befere the Anomalies Committee and therefore it was not incumbent upon the present applicants to raise the matter before the Anomalies Committee, Moreover, once it is admitted case that the present applicants are fully identical and Similar oo Sanjay Kumar (supra) . such ised by the o pee echnical objections YE respondents are mot Sustainable in the eyes of Law.
io. The Appl icants have also filed application seeking condonation of del lay and the applicants submit that the aforesaid OAs have been filed a few days heyond the period. of Limitation i.e. ons year from the date of impugned orders. However, by the wvresent OA, the applicants have sought for extension OG © A200 OA No.7 3273, P3277 3, F33/ £3, P3493 & 7313 applicants further argues that the extension of benefit of dYudgment should have been given to the applicants by che respondents at their own without compelling the applicants to approach this Tribunal again by the present OAS more particularly in view af the law laid dewn by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India, IS98(l) ATSLI 54. Learned counsel for the applicants further argues that the issue in the present OA is about fixation of pay in le and from the date from ty the right pay sc which the same has been granted to simiiariy Pay from the wrong date, the applica nts are suffering recurring loss 'and therefore heir OAS are within Limitation, however, the respective applications have been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of delay as a matter of abundant precaution. The Of * delay is admittediy of around two month However, it is also found that no reply is filed to such MAs by the respondents and hence im the facts and circumstances, the oresaid MAs are allowed and the delay in necessary order(s) to grant the Pay Scale of. '| LZ OA No. 732/43, 732613, 333013, 724/99 & PISA3 x Yo :
ae as - , . - ial Filing of the respective OAs Bye condoned.
ii. in view of the aforesaid, the OAs are partiy allowed with the following directions;
(i). The Respondents are .directd to pass Re.4000-100-6000 to the applicants from OL.0L.1996 in place of w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as granted to the similarly placed persons in the case of Sanjay Kumar {supra} with all B consequential benefits L.&. ayment of ot a v fi) The Respondents are directed La complete the aforesaid exercise within twelve weeks of receipt of a certified capy of this order.
iz. in the facts and cilroumstances, no 9 z (RN. Singh) (Dr. Bhagwan Sahai) Member (J) Member (A) abn, ve i el