Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijay Mehndiratta vs Govt. Of Nctd on 24 July, 2024
1
Item No.35/IV OA No.3708/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.3708/2017
New Delhi, this 24th day of July, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Smt. Vijay Mehndiratta, Aged 53 years
W/o Sh. Kamal Kishore Mehndiratta
Working as Laboratory Technician in
Factory Station, Labour Department,
GNCT of Delhi
R/o Flat No.204, Sarang Residency,
G.H.No.4, Sector 21-C, Part-3,
Faridabad (Haryana). ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Yogesh Sharma with Ms. Vaishali Sulkhlan)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
1. The Chief Secretary,
New Sectt., IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Services),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary-cum-Labour Commissioner,
Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
5, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi - 110 054.
4. Deputy Commissioner (Admn),
Secretary-cum-Labour Commissioner Office,
Labour Department, Govt. of NCT,
5, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi - 110 054.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Awanish Kumar)
2
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
The instant Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following main relief:
"That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 6.10.2017 (Annex.A/1), declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not accepting the request of the applicant for revision of her pay scale at par with the similarly situated persons working in other Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and grant the revised pay scale of 4500-7000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and PB- 1+2800/- w.e.f. to the applicant with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances and revision of financial upgradation at par with similarly situated persons."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant initially joined as Laboratory Technician in the Labour Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 07.01.1983 and since then she is working on the same post. 2.1 The pay scale of Lab Technicians in Health Department of GNCTD came to be revised after 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC) from Rs.330-560 to Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The said pay scale was further revised w.e.f. 06.04.1993 in all the Departments of Govt. of NCT of Delhi from Rs.1200-2040 to Rs.1320-2040 vide orders dated 14.06.1993 and 23.11.1993 (Annexure A-6). 3 2.2 After the recommendation of 5th CPC, the replacement scale of Rs.1200-2040/- and Rs.1320- 2040/- were merged into one sale Rs.4000-6000/- and the applicant was granted the same. However, in other department of GNCT of Delhi, the pay scale of Lab Technician was further revised to Rs.4500-7000/- from Rs.4000-6000/- vide order dated 19.04.2004 with corrigendum dated 11.06.2004 (Annexure A-7 & 8 respectively) w.e.f. 1.1.1996 but the applicant has not been given the said revised pay scale.
2.3 Aggrieved the applicant made a representation to the concerned authority for revision of her pay scale. Thereafter the respondents sought some clarification from the Health Department, which, inter alia, vide their letter dated 010.2002 (Annexure A-9) clarified as under:-
"It is further informed to you that order No.E/20/22/90 Medical and Public Health dated 14.06.1993 issued by Jt. Secy (Medical) is also applicable to the Lab Technicians working in Medical institutions/ Hospitals, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as well as this order is also applicable in the case of Smt. Vinay Mehandiratta as she has been appointed Lab Technician by direct recruitment."
2.4 Consequent upon revision of the py scale in 2004 after 5th CPC recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the applicant made number of representation to respondent nos.1&2 on 13.02.2007 followed by 06.08.2007 etc. and 4 also personally approached to respondent no.2 but she was informed that her pay scale would be revised along with revision 6th CPC scale.
2.5 Meanwhile, the Lab Technicians working in Govt. of NCT of Delhi were given the replacement scale of PB-1+GP Rs.2800/- and the Lab Assistants have been given the revised scale of PB-1+GP Rs.2400/- vide order dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure A-11). The respondents have now granted the pay scale of PB-1+GP Rs.2400/- to the applicant, which is the pay scale of a lower post of Lab Assistant whereas Lab Technician is a promotion post of Lab Assistant where promotional hierarchy is available. Meaning thereby the applicant has been granted the scale of feeder grade.
2.6 It is relevant to mention here that the similarly situated persons like applicant (Lab Technician) working in other departments of GNCT of Delhi have been granted their financial upgradation under ACP/MACP in the GP Rs.4200/-, Rs.4600/- and Rs.4800/- respectively whereas the applicant has been given the grade pay of Rs.2800/-, Rs.4200/- and Rs.4600/-.
2.7 After the recommendations of 6th ACP, the applicant submitted further representation dated 22.11.2016 but 5 when no decision was taken thereon, she filed OA No.2059/2017, which was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.06.2017 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicant by passing a speaking order within a period of 90 days.
2.8 It is further pointed out that the respondent o.4, who has no authority and power to consider the claim of the applicant, even without placing her file before the competent authority, rejected her claim vide impugned order dated 06.10.2017 only on the ground that she was appointed after granting relaxation of provisions of recruitment rules regarding qualification and experience and hence she is not entitled to granting revised pay scale at par with her counter-parts in other departments of GNCT of Delhi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that such an action of the respondent-authority is totally illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The whole action of the respondent in not accepting the request of the applicant for revision of her pay scale at par with other Lab Technicians working in other departments of GNCT of Delhi is not tenable in view of the clarification contained 6 in order dated 04.10.2002 (Annexure A-9) issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt of NCT of Delhi wherein it has clearly been admitted that this order is also applicable in the case of Smt. Vinay Mehandiratta as she has been appointed Lab Technician by direct recruitment." To buttress his claim, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon Full Bench decision of this Tribunal in Raja Ram vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. [OA No.1167/2006 decided on 07.01.2009] where the similar claim of OT Technician was allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant has, therefore, submitted that in view of the clear finding of the Full Bench on the similar issue, the claim of the applicant deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply thereby vehemently opposing the claim of the applicant. It is submitted that since the applicant was not possessing requisite qualification at the time of her initially appointment, as she was appointed by relaxing the provisions of the recruitment rules, her claim was rightly rejected. Moreover, it is not the function of the Tribunal in the matter of pay scale and it is best left to be decided by expert body like Pay Commissions. In support 7 his claim, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors. [1993 (Supp) (1) SCC 153] and Govt. of W.B. vs. Tarun K. Roy & Ors. [2004 (1) SCC 347]. He relied upon the para 24 of the decisions rendered in Tarun K.Roy (Supra), which reads as under:-
"24. In Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and Anr. v. Manoj K. Mohanty, JT (2003) 4 SC 104 this Court noticed:
"It is clear from the averments made in the writ petition extracted above, nothing is stated as regards the nature of work, responsibilities attached to the respondent without comparing to the regularly recruited Junior Assistants. It cannot be disputed that there was neither necessary averments in the writ petition nor any material was placed before the High Court so as to consider the application of principle of 'equal pay for equal work'."
This Court further noticed:
"......In the absence of material relating to other comparable employees as to the qualifications, method of recruitment, degree of skill, experience involved in performance of job, training required, responsibilities undertaken and other facilities in addition to pay scales, the learned Single Judge was right when he stated in the order that in the absence of such material it was not possible to grant relief to the respondent.
12. Before giving such direction, the High Court also did not keep in mind as to what would be its implications and impact on the other employees working in the appellant-University. From the averments made in the writ petition extracted above, it is clear that no details were given and no material was placed before the High Court for comparison in order to apply the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors., [1996] 11 SCC 77 observed that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties 8 in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organizations or even in the same the organization.
13. Yet, in mother decision in State Bank of India and Anr. v. M.R. Ganesh Babu and Ors., [2002] 4 SCC 556, a Bench of three learned Judges of this court, while dealing with the same principle, in para 16 has expressed that:-
"...It is well settled that equal . must depend upon the nature of work done It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference..."
4.1 In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is submitted that the OA is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record including the citations relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties.
6. We find that the applicant was initially appointed as Lab Technician in accordance with the provisions of the recruitment rules though by relaxed standard. But when some doubt arose in the mind of the arose authority as to whether she is entitled to the revised pay scale, they sought clarification from the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Delhi which, vide its letter dated 04.10.2002, have in unequivocal term clarified that qua the applicant that "...this order is also applicable in the case 9 of Smt. Vinay Mehandiratta as she has been appointed Lab Technician by direct recruitment."
6.1 We also find that Govt. of NCT of Delhi, vide communication dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure A-11) on the subject of removal of pay anomaly in various Hospitals/Medical Institutions under Health & Family Welfare Departments of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, have further directed all HoDs to carry out fixation of pay as detailed in the said letter and further directed to report compliance. It is very strange to note that despite the aforesaid clear cut instructions, the respondents still chose to reject the claim of the applicant without any basis and deprived her of her valuable and legitimate right of receiving the revised pay at par with her counterparts in other departments. Moreover, similarly situated persons have already been granted the revised pay but the applicant has been singled out only on the ground that she was appointed on relaxed standard of the provisions of recruitment rules but the said ground, in our opinion, has no legs to stand as such an action of the respondents is against all canons of justice. Further, it is well settled proposition of law that similarly situated persons cannot be discriminated in the matter of pay and allowances so as to avoid frustration amongst the fellow 10 employees. Hence, the applicant is also entitled to get the same revised pay scale as had been granted to similarly situated persons/counterparts. We are fortified in this view of ours by the decision of Full Bench in Raja Ram (supra).
7. In view of the above discussion, we allow the instant OA by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2017 and direct the respondents to consider and grant the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and PB-1+Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to the applicant on notional basis and actual benefits of arrears of difference of pay and allowance and revision of financial upgradations at par with other similarly situated persons without any interest thereon shall accrue to her for the past three years.
8. The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
9. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /sm/