Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India on 18 October, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
CHANDIGARH
Filed on: 15.09.2015
Reserved on: 14.10.2016
Pronounced on: 18.10.2016
OA No. 060/00830/2015
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal, Member(J).
Honble Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Member(A).
Ramesh Chand Goel son of Late Sh. Saharan Mal, Ex-Statistician, resident of H. No. 3484, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.
..Applicant
By Advocate : Sh. D.R. Bansal
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi through its Secretary.
2. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Sector 12, Chandigarh, through its Director.
..Respondents
By Advocate : Sh. Sanyam Malhotra
O R D E R
By Honble Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Member(A):-
1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking that the order dated 13.01.2015 (Annexure A/A) rejecting the representations of the applicant for removal of anomaly may be set aside and respondents may be directed to remove the anomaly of the pay scale of applicant from the date the same has occurred and pay the consequential financial benefits to the applicant as arrears of pay and revised pensionary benefits and pension with interest @ 12% from the date due till the date of payment and/or any other order or direction which this Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. It is stated in the OA that the applicant joined the respondent PGIMER as Statistician on 25.07.1974 in the pay scale of Rs. 350-25-575. The applicant had been requesting the Institute for conversion of his post to a post having avenue of promotion and also for constitution of common cadre with the various posts in the Department of Bio-Statistics. The post of Tutor in Medical Statistics in the Department of Bio-Statistics of the respondent Institute in the pay scale of Rs. 325-25-475, having lesser pay scale than the post of Statistician (Rs. 350-25-575) was upgraded to that of Research Officer vide Agenda Item No. 19 at Standing Finance Committee meeting held on 19.08.1983 in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1300 and office order was issued on 06.09.1983 (Annexure A-5).
3. It is further stated that the respondent Institute undertook First Cadre Review in 1985 and the Institute revised the pay scale of Statistician to Rs. 650-1040 under Cadre Review/Backlog Promotion. The applicant represented that he had been given lower pay scale arbitrarily and he has to be given pay scale of Rs. 700-1300 as that of Lecturer/Research Officer. A second Cadre Review was undertaken in the Institute w.e.f. 01.03.1992. The respondent Institute considered all other single cadre Group B posts and upgraded/redesignated those posts and the posts having promotional avenues i.e. the posts of Estate Manager and Welfare Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 were re-designated/upgraded as Assistant Administrative Officer; Occupation Therapist to that of Senior Occupation Therapist with pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 w.e.f. 01.03.1992.
4. Due to anomaly in the pay scale of the applicant, he made a representation in this regard in April, 1996. Ultimately, the matter was placed before the Pay Anomaly Committee of the PGIMER on 06.05.2002. The Committee recommended the grant of pay scale of Rs. 400-950 to the applicant at par with that of Educationist (Annexure A-6). However, the Standing Finance Committee (SFC) did not agree to the proposal and observed that the case of the applicant should be taken up under the ACP Scheme (Annexure A-7).
5. The applicant made a representation to the President of the PGIMER stating that the pay anomaly and the ACP Scheme were separate issues and requested for the reconsideration of the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Committee of the Institute dated 06.05.2002 regarding his case. Copies of representations dated 03.12.2002, 10.08.2013 and 09.05.2005 are attached (Annexure A-8 colly). The applicant had claimed in his representation that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Statistician were higher than that of the Educationist, the duties of his post were more onerous than that of Educationist, responsibilities were higher than that of the Educationist. The post of Statistician created on the lines of AIIMS was upgraded to that of Research Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 400-950 while the post of Educationist was again upgraded on 24.12.1996 w.e.f. 1983, retrospectively, to that of Assistant Professor and became two steps higher in terms of the pay scale of the Statistician. The applicant then filed CWP No. 10042/2006 in the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for seeking redressal of his grievances. Vide order dated 10.07.2006 (Annexure A-9), the Honble High Court directed the respondents to decide the representations of the applicant in view of the recommendations made by the Pay Anomaly Committee of the Institute by passing a speaking order within a period of two months and in the event the request of the petitioner is accepted, necessary relief be granted within a period of one month thereafter. The respondent Institute placed the matter before the Standing Finance Committee vide Agenda Item No. 12 in its meeting held on 14.10.2006 and the Committee recommended that the post of Statistician may be redesignated as Research Officer (now Scientist Grade I) in the Central Pay Scale of Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 (Revised to Rs. 8000-13500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996) notionally and actually with immediate effect (Annexure A-10). The recommendations of the SFC were placed before the Governing Body in its meeting held on 09.05.2007, but it was decided to refer the matter to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for detailed examination and decision (Annexure A-11). The case of the applicant shuttled between the PGIMER and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, but no decision was taken and meanwhile, the applicant retired on superannuation on 31.03.2009.
6. The respondent Institute again placed the matter before the SFC on 18.11.2010 proposing to re-designate the post of Statistician as Research Officer (Scientist Grade I) in the Central pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 and the applicant be granted the Central pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and revised to Rs. 8000-13500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and further revised to 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 notionally in view of the decision of SFC dated 14.10.2006 and the subsequent communication from the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 13.03.2009. The SFC, however, directed the PGIMER to send the matter back to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for further consideration (Annexure A-13). The applicant was later supplied a copy of the letter dated 30.10.2013 from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare addressed to the PGIMER stating that it is not possible to consider the revision of pay scale with such long retrospective effect coupled with the fact that the post of Statistician of PGIMER was not comparable with Scientist Grade I in AIIMS in terms of revised pay scale (Annexure A-16). The applicant again represented in the matter on 07.01.2014 followed by reminder dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure A-20) and on 13.01.2015, the applicant received an order rejecting his representations (Annexure A/A). Hence this OA.
7. In the OA, the applicant has indicated that the qualifications for the post of Educationist and Statistician are as follows:-
Educationist:-
(i) MA in English from a recognized University
(ii) Three years experience in University/Teaching Institution in Administration/Teaching Capacity.
Statistician:-
Masters Degree in Statistics or Mathematics with Statistics as an Additional Subject or Allied Subject. Five years experience of data processing and Statistical work in any Institution/University preferably in a medical college/ institution.
(However, as per Annexure A-3, the prescribed qualification for Educationist is M.A. (English) with 1st Division or good 2nd Division) The applicant stated that he had been deprived of his rightful claim of arrears of pay and pensionary benefits at a proper scale and is also suffering financial loss on account of lesser pension every month. When he retired, he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 25150 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 and was granted basic pension @ Rs. 15425 per month. Had his anomaly been removed, he would have drawn the basic pay of Rs. 31930 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 6500 and would have been granted basic pension of Rs. 19215 per month. Thus, it is clear that the applicant is suffering financial loss not only due to arrears of salary and pensionary benefits but also in his pension every month, which is a recurring cause of action.
8. In the grounds for relief, it has, interiala, been stated as follows:-
(i) The applicant joined as Statistician and retired as Statistician without any promotion during his life time.
(ii) The post of applicant was having higher qualification with more onerous duties and higher responsibilities to that of the post of Educationist. The posts were created in the same pay scale and the applicant deserved at least to be given the same status and promotion as that of Educationist. But the respondents arbitrarily discriminated the applicant by not removing the anomaly of the applicant. The incumbent of the post of Educationist was given two upgradations whereas the applicant was discriminated by denying the same benefit.
(iii) The posts of Tutor in the Department of Bio-Statistics in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 325-25-475, lower than the pay scale of the applicant, was upgraded to the pay scale of Rs. 700-1300 in 1983 and the post was further converted to that of Lecturer in Medical Statistics. Hence, the applicant was discriminated against.
9. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the facts of the matter have not been disputed. It has further been stated that after conversion of the post of Statistician to Research Officer (Statistical) in the AIIMS, the said post was abolished in the AIIMS. This was communicated to respondent No. 2 vide the letter dated 19.03.1974 (Annexure R-1), whereas the applicant joined the Institute as Statistician much later on 25.07.1974. The applicant worked on an isolated post and not in any hierarchy, thus having no promotional avenues. As such, he was covered under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, which is applicable to Group B, C and D posts, as well as to holders of isolated Group A posts.
10. It is further stated that the pay of the applicant was revised to Rs. 2000-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as per 4th Pay Commission and he was also granted a stagnation increment after reaching the maximum stage of Rs. 3200. The pay of the applicant was further revised to Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as per 5th Pay Commission and he was allowed two stagnation increments thereafter on reaching the maximum stage of Rs. 10500. The applicant was granted 2nd financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500 w.e.f 09.08.1999 being the date of introduction of this scheme, vide office order dated 04.04.2003 (Annexure R-5). The applicant after reaching the maximum stage of Rs. 11,500 in the pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500 was granted two stagnation increments raising his pay initially from Rs. 11,500 to Rs. 11725 w.e.f. 01.08.2004 vide office order dated 31.08.2005 and then from Rs. 11725 to Rs. 11950 w.e.f. 01.08.2006 vide office order dated 04.09.2006 (Annexure R-6 colly). The applicant was granted 3rd Financial Upgradation under the Modified ACP (MACP) Scheme in the next higher Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 in the Central pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.2008 vide the office order dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure R-7).
11. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the applicant narrated the background of the matter and pressed that since the scale of the Educationist had been upgraded from time to time while the post of Educationist and Statistician were at par when they were created, the applicant had been treated in a discriminatory manner. The pay anomaly that had arisen on account of revisions allowed in favour of the Educationist, had not been corrected in favour of the applicant. The duties of the applicant were similar. Moreover, the respondents had upgraded the scales of many other posts that were initially created in the same grade as that of Statistician. The representations of the applicant in this regard had been rejected. Learned counsel pressed that recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Committee which were in favour of the applicant, should have been implemented, but the respondents, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare did not accord fair treatment to the applicant.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that no effective comparison could be made by the applicant between the posts of Statistician and Educationist. The duties of the two posts were totally dissimilar. Even the post of a Research Officer in AIIMS to which reference has been made in the OA had been abolished in the AIIMS even prior to joining of the applicant in the PGIMER. The qualifications for the post of Scientist Grade I in AIIMS was also far higher to that possessed by the applicant. Since the applicant was on an isolated post, he had got the benefit of financial upgradations under ACP/MACPS and no further relief was admissible to the applicant.
13. We have given our careful consideration to the matter. The claim of the applicant made in the OA comparing his post of Statistician to that of Educationist/Tutor in the Department of Bio-Statistics/Security Staff of the PGIMER etc. amounts to comparing apples and oranges. There is no parity in these posts and from the record, it is clear that the applicant was holding an isolated post. He has been allowed the stagnation increments from time to time as well as financial upgradation under the ACP and MACPS. Moreover, it is not the role of the Tribunal to prescribe pay scales for posts. This role is best performed by expert bodies and the Tribunal cannot assume the same. Hence, we conclude that there is no merit in this OA and the same is rejected. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER(A) (JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL) MEMBER(J) Dated:
ND* 1 OA No. 060/00830/2015