Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Khem Raj vs Union Of India on 4 January, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 3371/2009 New Delhi this the 4th day of January, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) 1. Shri Khem Raj, Working as Driver Grade II Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand 2. Shri Udham Singh, Working as Driver Grade II Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand 3. Shri Subhash Chand, Working as Driver Grade II Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand 4. Shri Skarma Sanstan, Working as Driver Grade II Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand 5. Shri Rameshwar Kumar, Working as Driver Grade I Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand 6. Shri Phurboo Tashi, Working as Driver Grade I Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand 7. Shri Dharam Singh, Working as Driver Grade I Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand 8. Shri Nand Lal, Working as Driver Office of S.S.B. Academy, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand Applicants (By Advocate Shri Pradeep Dahiya) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Director General, Force Headquarters, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066 3. The Director, SSB Academy, Srinagar, Garhwal, Uttarakhand Respondents (By Advocate Shri Subhash Gosain) O R D E R Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) :
The Applicants who are civilian drivers under the Respondent, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) are aggrieved by the fact that they have been placed in lower scales of pay than the scales of pay granted to the combatised drivers of the SSB after the implementation of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (VI CPC) and their representation for parity in the scales of pay with the combatised drivers has been rejected by the order dated 14.09.2009, passed by the second Respondent, Director General of the SSB. They are seeking direction to the Respondents to grant them the revised scales of pay given to the combatised drivers, that is, the replacement scale of Rs.5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs.2000 in lieu of the scale of Rs.3050-4590 and the replacement scale of Rs.5200-20,200 with the grade pay of Rs.2800 in lieu of the scale of Rs.4000-6000.
2. The designation of the Applicants, their scales of pay under the Fifth Central Pay Commission and the Sixth Central Pay Commission have been given in the following table:
Sl.
No. Name Designation Pay Scale under 5th CPC Pay Scale under 6th CPC Grade Pay under 6th CPC
1. Khem Raj Driver Gr. II 4000-6000 5200-20,200 2400
2. Udham Singh -do- -do- -do-
3. Subhash Chand -do- -do- -do-
4. Skarma Sanstan -do- -do- -do-
5. Rameshwar Kr 4500-7000 -do- 2800
6. Phurboo Tashi -do- -do- -do-
7. Dharam Singh -do- -do- -do-
8. Nand Lal Driver 3050-4590 -do- 1900 The second Respondent notified the scales of pay, as granted on the recommendations of the VI CPC, by Memorandum dated 18.09.2008. The scales of pay and the grade pay, inter alia, granted to the Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI), Driver was in the scale of Rs.5200-20,200, with grade pay of Rs.2800 in replacement of the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000 and the Head Constable, Driver was placed in the scale of Rs.5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs.2400 in replacement of the scale of Rs.3200-4900. The Constables were placed in the scale of Rs.5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs.2000 in replacement of the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590. The Applicants are seeking the grade pay of Rs. 2800 for Driver Grade-II and the grade pay of Rs. 2000 for the Driver (ordinary grade).
3. The Applicants made representations against this perceived anomaly on 25.09.2008 and on 16.06.2009, but there was no response from the Respondents. They then approached this Tribunal through OA number 2020/2009, which was decided on 30.07.2009 with directions to the Respondents to decide the representation of the Applicants by a speaking order. Following these directions the Respondents have passed the impugned order dated 14.09.2009, rejecting the demand of the Applicants. The Respondents have denied any parity between the Driver Grade-II and the ASI (Driver) on the ground that the civilian drivers are recruited under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Sashastra Seema Bal, Drivers Group 'C' Post Recruitment Rules, 2005 (hereafter Recruitment Rules of 2005), whereas the combatised drivers are governed by the Combatised Motor Transport and Mechanics Cadre Rules, 1988 (hereafter the Recruitment Rules of 1988). The underlying argument in the speaking order, for rejecting the representation of the Applicants, is that the question of parity in between the civilian drivers and the combatised drivers does not arise because of the different recruitment rules governing their conditions of service.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicants argued that the Respondents failed to appreciate the fact that the nature of duties performed by the civilian drivers was the same, if not more arduous, as performed by the combatised drivers. The learned counsel would emphatically contend that the mode of recruitment of the combatised and civilian drivers was the same and, in view of this, there could not be any discrimination between their grade pay in the scale of Rs.5200-20,200. In his endeavour to show that the mode of recruitment for the drivers of both categories was the same, the learned counsel pointed to the provision in the schedule to the Recruitment Rules of 2005 in which in the relevant entry in column 1 for Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade), the word combatised has also been written. The learned counsel for the Applicant would contend that this demonstrated that both the Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade) and the combatised driver were recruited by the same method under the Recruitment Rules, 2005. It was further argued that as the upgraded scales of pay had been given to all the employees in other organisations under the Ministry of Home Affairs, it would be discriminatory to deny the same to the Applicants. The learned counsel would also contend that the Staff Car Driver Grade-II, who was in the V CPC scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000, could not be compared to Head Constable (Driver), who was in the V CPC scale of pay of Rs.3200-4900. The Staff Car Driver Grade-II could only be compared to the ASI (Driver), who was also in the V CPC scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000. It was contended that in the light of this the Staff Car Driver Grade-II should have been placed in grade pay of Rs.2800 in the scale of Rs.5200-20,200, instead of being given the grade pay of Rs.2400, at par with the Head Constable (Driver). The learned counsel for the Applicant would contend that once there was an established parity in the scales of pay, it could not be varied without good grounds. He would rely on the judgement of the Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA number 514/2002, Balwant Singh and others V. State of Haryana and others. He would further contend that when both categories of drivers were performing the same duties and functions, there could not be any distinction in the scales of pay.
5. The Respondents, on the other hand, have denied that the Staff Car Drivers and the Combatised Drivers are governed by the same set of recruitment rules. The respective recruitment rules have been annexed with the additional affidavit filed by the Respondents following the directions of this Tribunal. The Recruitment Rules, 1988 have been placed at Annex R/C and the Recruitment Rules, 2005 had been placed at Annex R/D. The posts prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, 1988 are Constable (Driver) (Rs. 950-1400), Lance Naik (Driver) (Rs.950-1400), Naik (Driver) (Rs.950-1400), Head Constable (Driver) (Rs.975-1660) and Sub Inspector (Driver) (Rs.1640-2600-2900). The scales of pay are pre-V CPC. The posts prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, 2005 are Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade) (Rs.3050-4590), Staff Car Driver Grade-II (Rs.4000-6000), Staff Car Driver Grade-I (Rs.4500-7000) and Driver (Special Grade) (Rs.5000-8000). After the implementation of the recommendations of the VI CPC, the posts of Constables, Naik and Lance Naik, all in the scales of pay of Rs.3050-4590, were merged and upgraded to Rs.3200-4900 and then placed in the scale of Rs.5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs.2000. The Head Constable, who was in the scale of pay of Rs.3200-4900 was upgraded to the scale of Rs.4000-6000 and then placed in the scale of Rs.5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs.2400. The SI, who was in the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 was not upgraded and placed in the scale of Rs.9300-34,800 with grade pay of Rs. 4600. The grade of ASI, which was not in the Recruitment Rules, 1988, in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000 was upgraded to Rs.4500-7000 and then placed in the scale of Rs. 5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs.2800. Learned counsel for the Respondents would contend that the upgraded scales of pay have been granted by the VI CPC only for the combatised posts. Since there was no recommendation for the Staff Car Drivers about upgrading of their scales of pay, they have been given the grade pay corresponding to their previous V CPC scales of pay. He would further contend that the Staff Car Driver Grade-II is equivalent to Head Constable and the Driver (Special Grade) is equivalent to Sub Inspector (MT).
6. We have considered the rival contentions with great care and have also gone through the records minutely.
7. What transpires eventually from the perusal of the respective recruitment rules is that there are four categories of non-combatised drivers, namely, Driver (Ordinary Grade), Driver Grade-II, Driver Grade-I and Driver (Special Grade). Among the combatised drivers also there are four categories, namely, Constable, Head Constable, ASI and SI. It should, therefore, be possible to establish one-to-one relation between the posts of drivers in the combatised and the non-combatised categories. The difference in the scales of pay merely on the ground that both the categories of drivers have their own respective recruitment rules cannot be justified. The Respondents have only harped on this aspect. However, the important points to consider for differentiating in the scales of pay are the qualifications prescribed for the posts and the duties and functions performed by the incumbents of various posts. The Respondents have not denied that drivers of both categories perform the same functions and duties, whereas the Applicants have repeatedly stressed this point. The requisite qualifications for the posts also do not show such variation as to justify different scales of pay for the drivers of the two categories. For example the educational and other qualifications prescribed for Constable are as follows:
"1.VIII standard pass.
2. Must have passed DSM course or must possess heavy vehicle driving license.
Must pass hill driving test before enrolment.
3. Should be physically fit as prescribed in Central Reserves Police Force Rules, 1955.
4. Should be Sarhan/halflong trained. This condition may be relaxed by Director, SSB in deserving cases."
The educational and other qualifications for the Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade) are:
"1. 10th standard pass from a recognised school/board.
2. Must possess heavy vehicle driving license."
Thereafter, some physical and medical standards have been prescribed. The qualifications regarding passing of hill driving test before enrolment is a condition for combatised drivers, but has not been mentioned as a qualification for non-combatised drivers. However, the non-combatised drivers are stationed in the hill station of Srinagar and it can be presumed that they would be well qualified for driving in the hills. The qualifications at serial numbers 3 and 4 for the combatised driver have also not been prescribed for the non-combatised drivers. It has to be given serious thought whether these conditions alone would justify differentiation in the scales of pay between the non-combatised and the combatised drivers. As we have already observed, the Respondents have not denied that the drivers of both the categories are performing the same duties and functions.
8. In view of the above discussion the OA succeeds partly. We direct the Respondents to reconsider the issue in the light of our observations, especially keeping in mind the fact that the essential difference to justify differentiation in the scales of pay would be the educational and other qualifications and the nature and duties of functions performed by both categories of drivers. The Respondents would consider these aspects and decide the representations of the Applicants after considering these factors. Should the Respondents not be inclined to accept the representations of the Applicants, we expect that a detailed and speaking order giving cogent reasons for not agreeing to the representations of the Applicants would be passed. We direct that the above consideration should be completed as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
( L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K.Bali ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /dkm/