Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
N.D.M.C. Auto Workshop Employees ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council Through Its ... on 12 July, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench TA No.280/2009 With TA No.943/2009 New Delhi this the 12th day of July, 2010. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Chhotray, Member (A) TA-280/2009 N.D.M.C. Auto Workshop Employees Association, having its office at Laxmi Bai Marg, New Delhi. -Applicants (By Advocate Ms. Rashmi Chopra) -Versus- 1. New Delhi Municipal Council through its Chairman, Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. Secretary, New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 3. Finance Adviser, New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 4. The Director (Pers.), New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Ms. Shikha Tandon for Ms. Kanika Agnihotri) TA No.943/2009 1. Nishi Kumar Girdhar, S/o Shri Ramji Dass, R/o 419, Rampura, Delhi-35. 2. Mahender Singh Saini, S/o Shri S.C. Saini, R/o 5, Lampur Village, Narela, Delhi-40. 3. Mukesh Chand Saxena, S/o Shri O.P. Sexena, R/o 28-A, Gali No.6, Ganesh Nagar-II, Delhi-92. 4. Shri Mahavir Prashad Attari, S/o Shri Shanti Swaroop Attari, R/o RZ B/14, Adarsh Nagar, P.O. Uttam Nagar, Delhi. 5. Shri Roshan Lal Gumber, S/o Shri Dil Sukh Rai, 24-G, Pocket-A, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-53. -Applicants (By Advocate Ms. Rashmi Chopra) -Versus- 1. The Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration, Delhi. 2. New Delhi Municipal Council, through its Chairperson, Palika Kendra, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Engineer (Electrical), Electricity Department, Palika Kendra, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Ms. Shikha Tandon for Ms. Kanika Agnihotri) O R D E R Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
These TAs pertain to different categories of staff. However, the backdrop of common facts involves an identical question of law, to avoid multiplicity, TAs are being disposed of by this common order.
2. N.D.M.C. Auto Workshop employees association basically working as Mechanics (Auto) by virtue of TA-280/2009 in a Writ Petition filed in 2001 have sought revised pay scales as per the recommendations of the Shiv Shanker Committee with arrears.
3. In TA-943/2009 in a Writ Petition filed in 2002 Assistant A.C. Operators-cum-A.C. Mechanics have challenged respondents order dated 23.10.2000 and have sought implementation of recommendations of Shiv Shanker Committee at par with their counterparts in Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU w.e.f. 1.4.1971 with arrears.
4. In TA-943/2009 (Writ Petition Civil No.3716/1998) before the High Court of Delhi directions were issued to redress the grievance of applicants. When the representation was not disposed of, led to Contempt Petition (Civil) No.223/2000 pursuant to which representation was turned down. Another Writ Petition (Civil) No.3643/2001 was preferred and despite directions when nothing has been done, led to the present TA.
5. In NDMC Shiv Shanker Committee submitted a report regarding parity of pay scales of A.C. Operators and Assistant A.C. Operators at par with their counterparts in Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU and vide Resolution No.154 benefit of pay and allowances was accorded to the employees of the Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU. A Resolution passed on 7.1.1974 extended the benefit to Electric Workers from 1.4.1972. However, in 1986 from 1978 the pay scales of the applicants were revised but not as revised in the case of their counterparts in Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU. Accordingly, vide Resolution No.37 the respondents accorded revised pay scales to the Driver of Electricity Department on the pattern of DESU employees. However, vide Resolution No.24 dated 17.9.1982 the respondents adopted the report of the S.S. Committee in respect of the workers of Electricity and C&TO departments, including the ministerial staff. On 17.1.1989 respondent No.2 passed resolution No.15 and revised the pay scale of Shift Incharge on the lines of DESU pursuant to the S.S. Committees report. Thereafter the posts of Assistant A.C. Operators and Air Conditioning Mechanics were merged into Assistant A.C. Operator-cum-Mechanic (Air Conditioning) for which Resolutions were issued on 11.5.1994. As the revised pay scales have not been given with arrears, it led to the present TA.
6. In N.D.M.C. Auto Workshop Employees Association, i.e., TA No.280/2009 S.S. Committees report was adopted on extension of benefit of pay and allowances vide Resolution dated 7.1.1974. The respondents pursuant upon the decision of the Apex Court in Narender Kumar and another v. Dharam Dutt and another, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 205 in the light of the fact that S.S. pay scales were adopted for ministerial staff in R.D. Gupta and Ors. v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. And Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2086 the same were extended in Narender Kumars case (supra) to the Auto Workshop employees, which was found to be part and parcel of electricity wing. Thereupon vide resolution No.15 dated 17.1.1989 when decided to adopt the S.S. pay scale have decided to adopt this scale w.e.f. 1.1.1978 at par with DESU employees. However, as the decision Narender Kumar (supra) was not applied by grant of revised pay scales of Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU to the NDMC employees, one of the officers Mr. Anwar Beg filed Contempt Petition before the Apex Court, which was filed on compliance by the respondents on 1.5.1995. In the affidavit filed for compliance it has been specifically recorded that fixation of pay of the petitioners has been erroneously done and the revised pay scales have been adopted at par with Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU employees.
7. Learned counsel of the applicants states that once the applicants have been directed to be accorded the pay scales as recommended by the S.S. Committee at par with their counterparts in Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU the respondents on RTI disclosed vide their communication dated 18.6.2007 that the pay scale of category of Auto Staff etc. was revised without considering the recruitment rules and duties. As such, having treated at par by the Apex Court decision, employees of the Auto Workshop in NDMC cannot be treated differently from their counterparts in Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU. As we find on record on the arguments of the learned counsel of respondents that what had been in vogue, has been applied to the petitioners at par with their counterparts in Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU, yet as there has been disparity in functional requirements the revised pay scale has not been paid, as such it is stated that the applicants, who have been rightly given the pay scale in pursuance of the direction of the Apex Court, are not entitled to it, being differently situated with their counterparts.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. In our considered view when the Apex Court in Narender Kumar (supra) has clearly ruled parity between the Auto Workshop staff of NDMC with their counterparts in Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU, it does not lie within the jurisdiction of the administrative authority to come to a conclusion different from it, by stating that they are pitted differently in functional requirements. It amounts to infiltrating into an area occupied by judicial dicta, which cannot be countenanced in law.
9. As we find that in an identical situation when in the case of Mr. Beg the respondents have admitted to have erroneously fixed his pay scale under the S.S. Committee at par with counterparts in DVB/DESU and what has been allowed is the revised pay scale, it holds good for all the categories, which were subject matter of the decision of the Apex Court and rather as a model employer the revised pay scales should have been suo motu granted by the respondents to the applicants. However, the same has been withheld leading to unnecessary litigation. In such view of the matter, this erroneous grant of pay scale holds good for the set of employees, i.e., applicants in the TAs and we have no hesitation to hold that the respondents have deprived applicants S.S. Committees pay scales, as revised in case of their counterparts in DVB/DESU. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Satyabarth Choudhry, (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 475 held that the differential treatment in the matter of pay scale amounts to an illegality.
10. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the applicants are entitled in both the TAs to the revised pay scales, as recommended by the S.S. Committee, and revised in the case of their counterparts in DVB/DESU, with arrears from the date the scales have been allowed to the applicants in the form of only pay scale in pursuance of the decision of the Apex Court in Narender Kumars case (supra). The same shall be disbursed, on implementation, to the applicants, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be also kept in TA No.943/2009.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.