Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Laxman S/O Budhram Gupta vs Chairman on 23 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.2495 of 2010 Misc. Application Nos.1960/2010, 490/2011 This the 23rd day of May, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) 1. Laxman S/o Budhram Gupta, R/o Quarter No.26/II, Lal Bahadur Sadan, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001. 2. Shyam Bahadur Singh S/o S. N. Singh, R/o Type-II Quarter, Barat Ghar, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi. 3. P. R. Sunil Kumar S/o N. P. Nair, R/o 42, Gandhi Sadan, New Delhi. 4. Sanjiv Ranjan S/o S. C. Ranjan, R/o 9 Gandhi Sadan, Mandir Marg, New Delhi. 5. Mukesh Sharma S/o T. R. Sharma, R/o E-8 Palika Niwas, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 6. S. P. Tiwari S/o Sree Saran Tiwari, R/o G-5, Vinay Marg, New Delhi. 7. Umesh Wadhawan S/o Krishan Kumar Wadhawan, R/o 681, Mohalla Kalan, Sonepat (Haryana). 8. Shri Krishan S/o Hari Chand, R/o 666, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi. 9. Inder Deo S/o Sahlad, R/o 4A, Palika Kutumb, S.P.Marg, New Delhi. 10. Santosh Kumar Chandra S/o B. Lal, R/o 1/15 Lal Bahadur Sadan, Gole Market, New Delhi. 11. Dwarika Prasad S/o Dilmani, R/o 29/II Lal Bahadur Sadan, Gole Market, New Delhi. Applicants (By Shri A. P. Dhamija, Advocate ) Versus Chairman, New Delhi Municipal council, Palima Kendra, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. Respondent ( By Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Laxman and ten others have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a declaration that in terms of the award dated 22.2.1997 and order of the Honble Supreme Court dated 28.4.1997, there is one category of Caretaker and, therefore, resolution number 10 dated 29.5.1990 read with resolution dated 27.11.1997 vide item number 3(iv) keeping different categories of Caretaker in the rules, would be ultra vires and needs to be quashed. In consequence of the first relief as indicated above, the applicants seek a direction to be issued to the respondent Council to make over to them the pay scale of Caretaker Grade-I and other consequential benefits as admissible under the rules retrospectively as are given to the category of Caretaker Grade-I.
2. The facts on which the main and the consequential reliefs referred to above are sought to rest reveal that the applicants are employees of the respondent Council and are working on the post of Caretaker since the dates of their appointment. The Council has under its control various community centres and Barat Ghars which are being maintained and looked after by posting/transferring Caretakers who are appointed by the Council for the said purpose. It is the case of the applicants that the Council vide resolution number 29 dated 27.10.1987 approved the classification of various posts in different departments under the categories (1) Ministerial, (2) Workman), (3) Technical and (4) Non-Technical. It is averred that in the said classification, the post of Caretaker was classified as Ministerial and was treated as one category, and till 1990 Caretakers posted in Barat Ghar and community centre were given the same pay-scale of Rs.950-1500, but after resolution number 10 of 29.5.1990, the respondent Council started discriminating amongst the said category by artificially creating two grades for the said post as Caretaker Grade-I and Caretaker Grade-II. The first applicant was appointed as Caretaker in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1200 on 5.7.1990. Details as regards other applicants have been given in Annexure A-3. It is the case of the applicants that after appointment of the first applicant in 1990, three Caretakers were given the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040, and thus in the matter of pay-scales the respondent Council discriminated giving different grades as Caretaker Grade-I and Caretaker Grade-II. The difference made in the pay-scale was on the basis that Caretakers who are posted in community centres were given higher pay-scale, while Caretakers posted in Barat Ghars are given lower pay-scale. In this manner, it is pleaded, the respondent Council created a cadre within the cadre and made hostile discrimination amongst the same class of employees. It is then pleaded that the guidelines with regard to the duties of Caretakers as issued for the Secretary of the respondent Council are the same for the Caretakers, whether they are posted in community centres of Barat Ghars. The post of caretaker was interchangeable as the Caretakers of community centres were being transferred to Barat Ghars and Caretakers of Barat Ghars were being transferred to community centres. The educational qualification for recruitment to both the posts is the same, i.e., matriculation. The Government of India set up the Third Pay Commission and accepted its recommendations. It is pleaded that in order to satisfy the demands of the employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the New Delhi Municipal Committee, the Government accepted the said report of the Pay Commission and the pay scales as recommended by it were accepted by the respondent Council as well as the general wing of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Since the technical staff of DESU claimed higher pay scales as they were not satisfied with the pay-scales recommended by the Third Pay Commission, the Government constituted a committee known as Shiv Shanker Committee (hereinafter to be referred as the S.S. Committee). There were certain disputes with regard to implementation of the report of the said Committee and the matter went up to the Honble Supreme Court, which in its judgment in the case of R. D. Gupta & others v Lt. Governor, Delhi & others [(1987) 4 SCC 505], held that the ministerial staff were entitled to the benefit of the recommendations of the S.S. Committee. However, the respondent Council still deprived the benefits of the recommendations of the said Committee report to certain categories of employees on the ground that these categories of employees were not covered under the ministerial posts as classified by it, and, therefore, were not entitled to the benefit of the S.S. Committee report. Aggrieved, some of the employees of the respondent Council, including the applicants, filed a writ petition bearing WP (C) No.647 of 1992 before the Honble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 24.4.1995 observing that since the matter involved detailed inquiry, directed the Central Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi to decide the question after hearing the parties. It was also directed that the Tribunal would also permit parties to lead evidence and place additional documents on record. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal being I.D. No.60 of 1995. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed award dated 27.2.1997, and with regard to the category of Caretakers, inter alia held and observed as follows:
18. As the resolution referred to above of 1967 does not qualify the word CARETAKER to exclude Caretakers working in the Labour Welfare Department, the conclusion is inescapable that there is only one category of Caretaker in the NDMC and it has been treated as Ministerial by the then New Delhi Municipal Committee itself. It has, therefore, to be held that the non-grant of the benefits of S.S. Committee to the Caretakers of the Labour Welfare Department was discriminatory and not at all justified. On receipt of the award aforesaid, the Honble Supreme Court vide its order dated 28.4.1997 directed that the award would be published in accordance with law and consequential steps in that direction should be taken. The said order was sent to the respondent Council for taking necessary action in terms of the award dated 27.2.1997. The respondent Council in terms of the directions of the Honble Supreme Court gave the benefit of the report of S.S. Committee, but did not give the benefit of the same scale of pay to the Caretakers, though the Industrial Tribunal had held that there was only one category of Caretaker. The applicants thereafter have been representing the respondent Council time and again in terms of the award dated 27.2.1997 beseeching the Council to give them the same pay scale as is being given to Caretaker Grade-I, but the same has been denied. Their representations have been examined at various levels, and recommendations in terms of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court have been made from time to time. It is the case of the applicants that the recommendations have only yielded in granting benefit of assured career growth to them, but the benefit of same pay scale has not been granted. When despite all the recommendations the applicants were not made admissible the same pay scale as made available to Caretaker Grade-I, they filed a writ petition in the Honble High Court of Delhi bearing WP(C) No.662-74 of 2004, which came to be transferred to this Tribunal because of the primary or original jurisdiction to decide the matter vesting with the Tribunal by virtue of a notification in that behalf. The said writ on transfer was numbered as Transferred Application No.817 of 2009 and disposed of vide order dated 22.5.2009 by recording the following order:
During the course of arguments, Counsel representing the applicants seeks permission to withdraw present Application with liberty to file fresh one even for the same cause of action wherein validity of recruitment rules framed vide Resolution passed by the respondent-Council (Annexure-F) annexed with the counter affidavit, shall also be challenged.
2. With leave and liberty, as asked for, the present Application is dismissed as withdrawn. It is thereafter that the present Original Application has been filed for the reliefs already indicated above.
3. The primary and in fact the only contention raised by the learned counsel representing the applicants in support of the Application is that once, there is an award by the Industrial Tribunal, which, on directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court, has been published, and is thus effective and binding from the date of publication, and when the essential qualification for both the posts, be it of Caretaker Grade-I or Caretaker Grade-II is the same and the work and duties assigned to them are also same, there cannot be any disparity in the matter of pay scale between Caretaker Grade-I and Caretaker Grade-II.
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply contested the cause of the applicants, wherein it has inter alia been pleaded that as per resolution number 10 dated 29.5.1990 the post of Caretaker-cum-Librarian was re-designated as Caretaker Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. Further, to open promotional avenues to other Caretakers, the post of Caretaker Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was made a promotional post for Caretaker Grade-II. The pay scale of the post of Caretaker Grade-I was Rs.1200-2040 (5th CPC) plus usual allowances and the pay scale of Caretaker Grade-II was Rs.950-1500. Representations were being received from Caretakers Grade-II to waive off the condition of essential qualification as graduate. It was pointed out that they enter in the cadre at very young age and become eligible for promotion to the post of Caretaker Grade-I after having put in about 15-20 years of service, by which time the possibility of advancement in the educational qualification become very remote, and hence, their entire career comes to a halt. Therefore, the case was examined and it was felt that in order to open more promotional avenues for the category of Caretaker Grade-II, the existing recruitment rules may be modified reducing the essential qualification of graduation to that of matriculation, other terms and conditions remaining the same. The Chairman of the respondent Council approved the said proposal for revision of the recruitment rules for the post of Caretaker Grade-I. The case was laid before the Council vide resolution number 3(IV) dated 27.11.1997, and it was resolved that for revision of the recruitment rules, the Chairman is authorized and he may decide the case. After the resolution aforesaid, the case was submitted to the Chairman, NDMC to reduce the qualification for the post of Caretaker Grade-I from graduation to matriculation. Accordingly, the Chairman accorded his approval on 13.1.1997. After amendment, the recruitment rules for the post of Caretaker Grade-I and Caretaker Grade-II are as under:
RRs for the post of Caretaker Grade-I
1. Name of Post Caretaker Grade-I 2. No. of posts 04
3. Classification Group C
4. Scale of pay Rs.1200-2040 + usual allowances
5. Whether selection of non selection post Selection
6. Age limit for direct recruitment 18-30 years
7. Educational & other qualification
a) Direct rectt.
b)Departmental rectt. Qualification essential Matriculation (as per approval of Chairman dated 13.10.1997) Desirable
1) 5 years experience of working as Caretaker in an organization of repute.
2) ability to organize sports and games
3) Experience of field work in sphere of social work and community organization Educational qualification as above
b) 3 years experience of working as Incharge Caretaker Grade-II in Barat Ghar, Community Centre in Labour Welfare Deptt. in the scale of Rs.950-1500
8. Whether age prescribed for direct recruitment will apply in the case of promotion No
9. Period of probation, if any One year
10. Method of recruitment whether by direct or by promotion or deputation/transfer. Number of vacancies to be filled by various methods By promotion from Caretaker Grade-II working in Barat Ghar/ Community Centre
11. In case of recruitment by promotion/ deputation/transfer grades from which promotion deputation transfer to be made As col.10
12. If a DPC assists what is its composition DPC as constituted from time to time RRs for the post of Caretaker Grade-II
1. Name of Post Caretaker Grade-II
2. Classification Group C
3. Scale of pay Rs.3050-4590 (Vth CPC) plus usual allowances (as per Central Govt. dt. 27.2.1997 passed by P.O., Industrial Tribunal in case of Rajinder Prasad & others vs. NDMC, ID No.60/95 S.S. pay scale have been granted i.e. Rs.4000-7100.
4. Whether selection of non selection post Selection
5. Age limit for direct recruitment 18-30 years with usual relaxation in upper age limit for reserved category candidates.
6. Educational & other qualification
a) Direct rectt.
b) Departmental rectt.
Qualification Matriculation or equivalent from a recognized board or University.
Experience Two years of social work in some organization or six months experience as Caretaker in some organization.
As mentioned above.
7. Whether age prescribed for direct recruitment will apply in the case of promotion No
8. Period of probation, if any Two years
9. Method of recruitment whether by direct or by promotion or deputation/transfer. Number of vacancies to be filled by various methods i) 75% by direct recruitment
ii) 15% by appointment from amongst regular Group D post with minimum five years regular service
10. In case of recruitment by promotion/ deputation/transfer grades from which promotion deputation transfer to be made Promotion quota of 25% from amongst Group D employees having minimum five years regular service.
11. If a DPC assists what is its composition DPC as constituted from time to time The plea raised by the applicants that the recruitment rules framed by the respondent Council vide resolution dated 20.5.1990 read with resolution dated 27.11.1997 are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory is being denied. It is stated by clarification that the post of Caretaker Grade-I is the promotional post for Caretaker Grade-II. As per recruitment rules of Caretaker Grade-I vide column number 7 it has been mentioned that three years experience of working as Incharge/Caretaker Barat Ghar/Community Centre in Labour Welfare Department in the scale of Rs.950-1500 is desirable. Further, in column 10, the method of recruitment has been mentioned that by promotion from Caretaker Grade-II working in Barat Ghar/Community Centre. As regards the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and not by the Honble Supreme Court, as stated by the applicants, holding that there is only one category of Caretaker, it is pleaded that there are separate categories of Care Takers, i.e., Caretaker Grade-I and Caretaker Grade-II who are working in the Labour Welfare Department, and that the post of Caretaker Grade-I is the promotional post of Caretaker Grade-II. The plea raised by the applicants that they were working on the post of Caretaker since the date of their appointment is stated to be wrong. It is stated that the applicants are working as Caretaker Grade-II instead of Caretaker Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.4000-7100. As per resolution dated 29.5.1990 the post of Caretaker-cum-Librarian in Labour Welfare Department was designated as Caretaker Grade-I. Further, to open promotional avenues to other caretakers, the post of Caretaker Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was made as promotional post from the cadre of Caretaker in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500, designated as Caretaker Grade-II.
5. The applicants have filed rejoinder, but as nothing based on the contents thereof has been urged during the course of arguments, there would be no need to refer to the pleadings made therein.
6. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. It may be recalled that when TA No.817 of 2009 came up for disposal before this Tribunal, the applicants would withdraw the same with liberty to file a fresh Application for the same cause of action, wherein the recruitment rules would also be challenged. There would have been no question for the applicants to withdraw the TA if they could succeed without challenging the recruitment rules. The rules have now been challenged. Learned counsel representing the applicants could urge nothing to state as to how the recruitment rules are illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory. In fact, we find a complete rationale in the recruitment rules. It may be recalled that earlier, the designation of the post was Caretaker-cum-Librarian. This post was re-designated as Caretaker Grade-I. To open promotional avenues to other Caretakers, the post of Caretaker Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was made as promotional post of Caretaker Grade-II. The essential qualification for the post of Caretaker Grade-I was graduation, but on representations made by those who were holding the post of Caretaker Grade-II, the qualification was relaxed to make it matriculation, which was done to open more promotional avenues to the category of Caretaker Grade-II. The method of recruitment, insofar as Caretaker Grade-I is concerned, is by way of promotion, and surely and admittedly, as and when the turn of Caretakers Grade-II may come, they would be promoted as Caretaker Grade-I. There may be no dispute as regards the nature of work and duties carried out by Caretaker Grade-I and Caretaker Grade-II. The same may be identical. There may not be any difference at all in the nature of work and duties assigned to or carried out by Caretakers Grade-I and II, but when Caretaker Grade-I is the promotional post for Caretaker Grade-II, the two posts cannot be put in the same pay scale. There are instances, or, in other words, there are some jobs which may involve the same duties throughout the service span of an employee. To illustrate, a Class IV employee, like sweeper, may have to carry out the same duties assigned to him throughout the currency of his career, but when considering the fact that such employees may not have any promotional avenues, the rules are framed to provide promotional avenues for them after they may have put in certain years of service as may be specified, they shall have to be given higher pay scale, irrespective of the fact that even on the promotional post, they would be carrying out the same work and be assigned the same duties. In our considered view, there has to be higher pay scale for higher post on which a person may be promoted than what may be admissible to the feeder post from where one has to be promoted, irrespective of the fact that the work and duties assigned to both the posts may be the same. The difference in pay is for the reason that the concerned employee has worked for some years as may be required under rules and has become senior enough to be promoted. If the feeder and promotional posts are to draw the same pay scale, the same may be unreasonable and harsh, frowned upon by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. Insofar as, the Award dated 27.2.1997 (Annexure A-6) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi is concerned, its perusal would show that the employees of New Delhi Municipal Committee (re-named as New Delhi Municipal Council), filed a writ petition in the year 1992 before the Honble Supreme Court of India. They prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) issue writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling upon the respondents:
i) to give to the petitioners ex-gratia payment in terms of the decision of this Honble Court dt. 7th August, 1987 in Civil Appeal No.2969, 2970, 2971 & 9074 of 1983 with S.L.P. No.11270 of 1982 and with W.P. No.9266 of 1983; R.D. Gupta & ors. etc. etc. V/s Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration & ors. etc.
ii) To release payment due to the petitioners within such reasonable time as this Honble Court may deem fit;
b) issue suitable writ, directions or order to fully give effect to the decision of this Honble Court in R. D. Guptas case;
c) allow costs of this petition in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents; and also grant such other and further relief to the petitioners as they may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition was remitted to the Industrial Tribunal on 24.2.1995 with the following directions:
We direct that the Central Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi shall decide the question after hearing the parties. The tribunal shall also permit the parties to lead evidence and place additional documents on the record. The Tribunal shall decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within six months of the receipt of the paper book. The writ paper-book be sent to the Tribunal which shall be treated as a reference before the Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. The case of the workmen was that they belonged to the ministerial staff and had been consistently treated as such by the Council for over two decades. As many as 63 employees had filed the writ petition in the Supreme Court and they were occupying different posts. The applicants, as mentioned above, were wanting themselves to be treated as ministerial staff working in NDMC entitled to get the pay scales as per S.S. Committee report, for which they had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in R. D. Gupta & others v Lt. Governor, Delhi & others [(1987) 4 SCC 505]. NDMC denied that the workmen belonged to ministerial staff, and, therefore, they were not entitled to benefits of the S.S. Committee recommendations. It was urged that the workmen would constitute separate cadre under the Labour Welfare Department and were not transferable and/or interchangeable with other categories of staff, such as peons, clerks, head clerks etc. The Tribunal in para 10 identified the dispute as relating to the claims of the workmen to be belonging to the category of ministerial staff, which was contested and denied by the management, and referred to the dictionary meaning of the term ministerial. In the background as mentioned above, the Tribunal examined the case of the workmen with reference to different categories involved in the industrial dispute. While dealing with the case of Caretakers, it was observed as follows:
18. As regards the Caretakers, the workmen have relied on annexure D to their Writ Petition which is a resolution No.29 dated 27.10.67 of the then New Delhi Municipal committee. The Statement annexed with the annexed resolution clearly shows that Caretakers at Sl. No.23 of the Statement have been classified as Ministerial. No subsequent resolution showing that the above resolution was amended was filed before me. However, in the affidavit of Shri B. P. Joshi and the affidavit of Shri Rawat, it was alleged that the Caretakers referred to in the above resolution are not the ones working in the Labour Welfare Department. It was suggested that there is a separate category of Caretakers, i.e., Caretaker G. I & II who are working in the Labour Welfare Department and that the said Caretakers Gr. I & II belong to a different category and are not inter-transferable with Caretakers mentioned in the aforesaid resolution. As stated above, a resolution of the Council once adopted can only be amended, varied or superseded by another resolution. No such subsequent resolution having been produced before me, I find it hard and difficult to believe the version of the Management/Council. It may be mentioned that in the written arguments filed on behalf of the Council, it was averred that the said resolution of 1967 was subsequently amended in 1972. This was contested by the workmen who produced for my perusal a copy of the resolution No.20 of 4.1.91. It was seen therefrom that the said resolution does not even mention the word CARETAKER anywhere. It was shown to the Ld. Counsel of the NDMC also but he could not give any satisfactory explanation. As the resolution referred to above of 1967 does not qualify the word CARETAKER to exclude Caretakers working in the Labour Welfare department, the conclusion is inescapable that there is only one category of Caretaker in the NDMC and it has been treated as Ministerial by the then New Delhi Municipal Committee itself. It has, therefore, to be held that the non-grant of the benefits of S.S. Committee to the Caretakers of the Labour Welfare Department was discriminatory and not at all justified. The observations/findings as reproduced above came based upon the resolution number 29 dated 27.10.1967. The plea raised by NDMC that there is separate category of Caretakers, i.e., Caretakers Grade-I and Grade-II who were working in the Labour Welfare Department and that the said Caretakers belonged to a different category and were not inter-transferable with the Caretakers mentioned in the resolution aforesaid, was taken note of, but repelled on the ground that the resolution of the Council once adopted can only be amended, varied or superseded by another resolution, and that no such subsequent resolution had been produced before the Tribunal. In ultimate analysis, however, the finding recorded is that as the resolution of 1967 would not qualify the word Caretaker to exclude Caretakers working in the Labour Welfare Department, the only conclusion could be that there is only one category of Caretakers working in NDMC and it had been treated as ministerial by the then New Delhi Municipal Committee itself. It is pertinent to mention here that the issue was only as regards Caretakers, be it ministerial staff or any other staff. The order of the Tribunal, in our view, cannot go beyond the finding recorded by it that the Caretakers would be ministerial staff. That indeed was also the reference on which the Tribunal was to adjudicate. The award cannot be taken as if the same pay is to be given to Caretakers Grade-I and Caretakers Grade-II.
8. The award of the Industrial Tribunal is claimed to be a magna carta of the case of the applicants for the desired relief. We, however, find that this award would, at the most, be relevant to determine that the Caretakers are the ministerial staff. Further, the matter was decided on the basis of resolution dated 27.10.1967 passed by then New Delhi Municipal Committee, with the finding that the same was not amended at any time. In the present proceedings, it has been proved to the hilt, and that too by documentary evidence, that the post of Caretaker-cum-Librarian was re-designated as Caretaker Grade-I. It would be seen from the Annexure A-1, stated by the applicants themselves to be a resolution dated 29.5.1990, that qualification for the post aforesaid was graduate from a recognized university in Arts, Commerce or Social Science. In addition to the essential qualification as mentioned above, it was desirable for a candidate seeking the post of Caretaker-cum-Librarian to have experience of working as Caretaker in an organisation of repute, diploma in library science, ability to organize sports and games, and experience of field work in sphere of social work/community organisation. There were only four sanctioned posts of Caretaker-cum-Librarian. There were eleven posts of Caretakers/Incharge Barat Ghars and Community Centres. The pay scale of Caretaker-cum-Librarian was Rs.1200-2040, whereas that of Caretaker/Incharge Barat Ghars and Community Centres was Rs.950-1500. In the resolution aforesaid, it has been mentioned that since the library work was being looked after by P.R. Department and the Caretaker-cum-Librarians in Labour Welfare Department were doing the work of Caretaker alone, it was proposed to designate these posts as Caretaker Grade-I. Further, to open promotional avenues to other Caretakers, the post of Caretaker Grade-I was proposed to be made a promotional post from the cadre of Caretakers in the scale of Rs.950-1500 (proposed to be designated as Caretaker Grade-II). The Administrator approved the proposal to re-designate the post of Caretaker-cum-Librarian in the scale of Rs.1200-2040 as Caretaker Grade-I, and Incharge/Caretaker of Barat Ghars and Community Centres in the scale of Rs.950-1500 as Caretaker Grade-II, on the pattern of Government of India and also the revised recruitment rules for the post of Caretaker Grade-I. The resolution dated 27.11.1997 as regards recruitment rules, both for Caretaker Grade-I and Caretaker Grade-II, has already been reproduced hereinabove. It would thus be absolutely clear that far before the award of the Industrial Tribunal came into being in 1997, two separate posts of Caretaker Grade-I and Caretaker Grade-II came into being by virtue of resolutions dated 29.5.1990 and 27.11.1997.
8. From the facts as stated above, it is absolutely clear that insofar as the respondent Council is concerned, two separate posts one of Caretaker Grade-I and the other of Caretaker Grade-II, came into being way back in 1990. The post of Caretaker Grade-I is the promotional post for Caretaker Grade-II. As mentioned above, the work that may be carried out by incumbents of both the posts may be the same, but, in our view, the applicants who are Caretakers Grade-II cannot be made available the pay scale admissible to the promotional post of Caretaker Grade-I. The applicants who are Caretakers Grade-II have to wait in wings to take their turn on the promotional post of Caretaker Grade-I, and it is then only that they can get the higher pay scale. They are working on a feeder post, which cannot be equated in the matter of pay scale with the promotional post.
9. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that on 11.1.2011, the Bench then seized of the matter, while noting that the applicants are claiming equal pay for equal work at par with Caretaker Grade-I even though, they were appointed as Caretaker Grade-II, on the ground that they are performing the same duties as of Caretaker Grade-I, whereas the respondents have explained that higher pay scale for Caretaker Grade-I was introduced to provide promotional avenues to the Caretakers, and as such Caretaker Grade-I has been introduced as promotional post to be filled from amongst Caretaker Grade-II, required the respondents to give an additional affidavit to show as to whether they are maintaining any seniority list of Caretakers Grade-II, and if so, what is the criteria of promoting them to Caretaker Grade-I and whether the three persons who have been placed in Caretaker Grade-I were promoted on the basis of seniority or some other criteria. The respondents have filed the affidavit as required, wherein it has been mentioned that the post of Caretaker Grade-I [re-designated as Manager (CS)] is a promotional post and is filled from the feeder cadre of Caretaker Grade-II, and that Caretaker Grade-I, re-designated as mentioned above, is further promoted to the post of Labour Welfare Supervisor. It is also mentioned that the respondent Council is maintaining the seniority list of Caretakers Grade-II on the basis of criteria of promotion to Caretaker Grade-I. Copy of the seniority list of Caretakers Grade-II has been annexed with the affidavit as Annexure R-II. It is further mentioned that Shri Om Vir Singh has been promoted to the post of Manager, i.e., caretaker Grade-I, vide order dated 11.6.2008, and Shri Santosh Kumar Chandra and Shri Krishna, Deputy Managers, have been promoted to the post of Manager (Caretaker Grade-I), vide order dated 29.12.2010. It is thus apparent that the respondents are maintaining seniority list of Caretakers Grade-II and promotions are being made as per the recruitment rules. We may also mention that the applicants came to be appointed on different dates between 12.9.1989 and 27.2.1996 on the post of Caretaker Grade-II, almost on the heels of resolution dated 2.5.1990 came into being.
10. In view of the discussion made above, finding no merit in this Original Application, we dismiss the same. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/