Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P P Roy vs M/O Home Affairs on 26 June, 2024
1 OA 310/00222/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00222/2018
Dated Wednesday the 26th day of June Two Thousand Twenty Four
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
&
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
P.P. Roy (861290014)
Sr. Nursing Assistnat
Composit Hospital, CRPF
Avadi - 600 065. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Meenakshi
Vs
1. The Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Police
O/o Directorate General
CRPF, Block No. 1
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110 003.
3. The Director (Medical)
Directorate General
CGHS Dispensary
Sector - 4, Pushvihar,
M.B. Road, New Delhi.
4. The DIGP Medical
Composite Hospital, CRPF
2 OA 310/00222/2018
Avadi, Chennai - 600 065.
5. The Deputy Inspector General Police
Group Centre, CRPF
Avadi, Chennai - 600 065. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran
3 OA 310/00222/2018
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J)) In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"...to set aside the order dated 20.05.2016 in proceedings No. J.II-271/2014-Med-9 and to direct the respondents to enhance the grade pay to the applicant herein at par with the combatised hospital staff and thus render justice."
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal vide order, dated 20.02.2024, in OA 1435/2018. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:
"5. ANALYSIS 5.1 The only question involved in all the aforesaid original applications is whether non-combatised staff, when posted in static area or not, that is to say non-operational area, are entitled to the same benefits of pay scale and allowances as that of the combatised staff, on the principle of "equal pay for equal work"?
5.2 We find that the issues pertaining to grant of Ration allowance/Ration Money/Risk allowance and other allowances, which are admissible to the combatised staff are no longer res integra, in the light of the decision rendered in CA No.148/98, decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Ram Gopal Agarwal & Ors decided on 15 January, 1998, AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 783, 1998 (2) SCC 589, wherein it has been held as under :-
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that there is clear distinction in the terms and conditions of service, the nature of work and even tenure of service inter se between combatised and non- combatised personnels. The combatised personnel 4 OA 310/00222/2018 retire at the age of 53 while the non-combatised personnel retire at the age of 55. The nature of work, so far as combatised personnel are concerned, are arduous in nature in the operational and sensitive areas. In fact even the non-combatised personnel while working in that operational areas and such sensitive, places are granted the ration allowances. It is only when they are working in 'static areas there is no provision for this allowance. Even terms and conditions, service conditions are totally different. The combatised personnels are governed by Central Reserve Police Force Act and Rules which is an army rule more stringent in nature while non-combatised staff is governed by the civilian law, namely, C.C.S. Rules made by the Government of India under Article 309 of the Constitution. The question of discrimination in the matter of allowances has to be listed differently even inter se between those falling under classes of "equal pay for equal work". In cases where some performing overtime duties, night duties, duties in hazardous places viz, mountain, terrain at heights or at sensitive border areas an additional allowance is made applicable for the nature of work they perform. Similarly, when option is given it is with clear intention of there being plus and minus points in the two categories. That by itself differentiates inter se between the two. Once not option to enjoy the benefit as in the present case, to continue in service of one category up to larger length of service (55 years) and not to involve in the hazardous nature of duties with stringent service conditions cannot come forward to claim and benefit of the other category also on the ground of discrimination. In fact, treating unequal to be equal itself would be discriminatory, Thus, we conclude it is neither a case of "equal pay for equal work" nor a case of discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
5.3 Hence, allowances which are given to the combatised staff cannot be granted to the applicants on the principle of "equal pay for equal work".
5.4 Now, the point for determination is whether the applicants can be discriminated qua pay scales which are 5 OA 310/00222/2018 being granted to the combatised staff.
5.5 Interestingly, in the case of W.P.(C) 1358/2014, Sunil Kumar vs. UOI & Ors. and batch matters, decided by the Hon'be High Court, vide decision, dated 21.9.2015, the situation was otherwise reverse, wherein the petitioners (therein) who were combatised Staff Nurses were asking for parity of pay with common category Staff nurses, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under :-
"17. It is astonishing that the CRPF rationalizes the disparity in pay structure within the organization, between nursing staff. The essence of discrimination is where the state of its agency treats two individuals or groups unequally, where there is no justification to do so. To sustain the differentia CRPF highlights certain points, viz that Non-Combatised staff get less leave and are not recipients of certain privileges which Combatised staff secure. However, these differences have no bearing on the salient aspect of identity of work between the two categories. It is obvious that Combatised nursing staff have to be given the same leave allowances and facilities which other Combatised staff are granted: that is the mandate of Article 14, as between those two groups, because both are Combatised and discharge onerous duties, in forward and "non-static" areas. In the same breath, given that Combatised nursing staff discharge onerous duties under difficult circumstances cannot be a valid justification to deny parity in the general pay structure- to wit, grade pay with Non-Combatised nursing staff, because both perform identical duties in hospitals, clinics and dispensaries.
***** **** **** ****
24. The Central Government - and the CRPF as well as ITBP do not dispute that in regard to the replacement scales and increments, allowances recommended, etc by the Sixth PC, there is unreserved acceptance. However in regard to Grade Pay (and fixation in scale) there is resistance. This Court has already expressed why the CRPF's justification for denial of parity to Combatised nursing staff with its Non-Combatised nursing staff is discriminatory. The same logic prevails in respect of the claim of ITBP
6 OA 310/00222/2018 personnel. They may not be Combatised; yet, they do perform "arduous" duties. The pay scales recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission have been given them. The rationale for specifically denying grade pay (as claimed by them) is that they receive `3200/- per month as nursing allowance. However, that logic is a self defeating one; the allowance was recommended for all- evident from the above extract of the Sixth CPC. Like in the CRPF, that the nursing staff secure some allowance cannot be a counter to denial of what was recommended as their grade pay.
25. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions have to succeed. In W.P.(C) 1358/2014 the respondents are directed to accord parity to Combatised Sub-Inspector Nurses with Non-Combatised Staff Nurses (holding the rank of Sub-Inspector [SI]) and fix their grade pay at `4600/- per month, as claimed by them. Similarly, in W.P. (C) 3829/2014, the petitioners shall be granted parity with Nursing Sister, in the grade pay of `4600/- (PB-2) in the pay scale of '9300/-34800/- of the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) in the case of all petitioners, except Petitioner Nos. 10,12,18,19 and 20- in the case of the latter, the grade pay shall be 4800/-. In both these petitions, the grade pay shall be in Category S-10 under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, (2008 Rules). The fixation shall be effective from the date the said rules came into force; consequential orders releasing differential amounts shall be issued within 12 weeks from today. W.P. (C) 1358/2014 and W.P.(C) 3829/2014 are allowed in the above terms; there shall be no order as to costs.
5.6 Needless to say, facts narrated in the present OA(s), as set out in detail herein-above, are the same. The applicants are also from same organization. Without dwelling any further on the basis of the analogy in W.P. (C) 1358/2014 SUNIL KUMAR versus UOI AND ORS, we cannot deviate from the same.
6. CONCLUSION:-
We partly allow the OA (s), thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 11/07/2018, of the second
7 OA 310/00222/2018 respondent, in so far as fixation of pay scale is concerned.
6.2 We direct the respondents to accord parity to the Non- Combatised Staff with the Combatised cadre of Pharmacist and fix their grade pay, accordingly, as claimed by them. We refrain from granting any arrears of pay till the date of filing of the present OA(s), i.e., OA No.1435/2018. However, the respondents shall re-fix the pay, as per the Rule position, of each individual Pharmacist notionally and grant arrears from date of filing of the OA No.1435/2018. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6.3 All the three OA (s) are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications are also disposed of. No Costs."
3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents sticks to the contentions in the reply statement while opposing the submissions.
4. Having gone through the records of the case and the order passed by this Tribunal in OA 1435/2018, we find that there are striking similarities between the facts of the present case and those in OA 1435/2018 and batch.
5. We cannot take a different view from that of a Bench of this Tribunal, to which one of us was a party (Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi), as highlighted above.
In view of the above, we deem it fit and proper to dispose of the present OA as under:-
The OA is partly allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order, 8 OA 310/00222/2018 dated 20.05.2016, in so far as fixation of pay scale is concerned. We direct the respondents to accord parity to the Non-Combatised Staff with the Combatised cadre of Pharmacist and fix the grade pay, accordingly, as claimed by the applicant. We refrain from granting any arrears of pay till the date of filing of the present OA, i.e., 222/2018. However, the respondents shall re-fix the pay, as per the Rule position, of the Sr. Nursing Assistant, notionally, and grant arrears from date of filing of this OA. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No costs.
(M. Swaminathan) (Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)
Member (J) Member(A)
26.06.2024
AS