Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Pawan Kumar Rawal S/O Shri Chhoto Lal vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 24 July, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 850/2012
&
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 851/2012
DATE OF ORDER: 24.07.2013
CORAM
HONBLE MR. ANIL KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
(1) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 850/2012
1. Pawan Kumar Rawal S/o Shri Chhoto Lal, aged around 27 years, R/o 1/32, Ganesh Talab Basan Vihar Kota, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
2. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Chhitar Lal, aged around 31 years, R/o 95, Tilak Nagar, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
3. Jitendra Katariya S/o Shri Suraj Mal Katariya, aged around 27 years, R/o 3-K-13, Dada Bari Extension, Kota (Rajasthan).
4. Shambhu Dayal Suman S/o Shri Chandra Mohan Suman, aged around 27 years, R/o Kankashwar Mahadev Mandir, Kunahadi, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
5. R.L. Nagar S/o Shri Bajran Lal Nagar, aged around 34 years, R/o Near Vivekanand School, Arjun Vihar Colony, Baran, District Baran (Rajasthan).
6. Shri Satish Jhankad S/o Shri Babu Lal Jhankad, aged around 28 years, R/o 1-TA-63, Teachers Colony, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
7. Hament Sain S/o Shri Nand Lal Singh, aged around 30 years, R/o 2-G-6 Mahaveer Nagar, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
8. Sandeep Singor S/o Shri Chand Mal Singor, aged around 29 years, R/o Near Vijayvargiya Ice Factory, Rampura, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
9. Rajkumar S/o Shri Krishan Gopal, aged around 26 years, R/o Railway Colony, Nahar Ki Puliya Ke Pass, Kota Junction, Kota (Rajasthan).
10. Vinit Kumar Kochar S/o Shri Birdhi Lal Kochar, aged around 27 years, R/o Keval Nagar, Ladpura, Behind Bus Stand, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
11. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Balram Singh, aged around 26 years, R/o Hanuman Mandir, Chhavani Area, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
12. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Bihari Lal, aged around 25 years, R/o C/o Income Tax Office, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
13. Mahendra Sharma S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, aged around 28 years, R/o Near Circuit House, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
14. Bhagwan Mali S/o Shri Ramgopal, aged around 27 years, R/o Near Vaterinary Hospital, Satya Narayan Mohallan, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
15. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Badri Lal, R/o Near Prakash Talkiz, Khasa Kothi, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, (Rajasthan).
16. Mukesh Sain S/o Shri Ram Lal Singh, R/o Ghoshi Mohallan, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
17. Banwari S/o Shri S.K. Sharma, aged 29 years, R/o Keshav Kaha, Khirni, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
18. Sushil Sharma S/o Shri Shalendra Sharma, aged 29 years, Sorti Bazar, Sawai Madhopur.
Applicants
Mr. Amit Mathur, counsel for applicants.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
3. Commissioner, Income Tax, Kota Division, Kota (Rajasthan).
Respondents
Mr. R.B. Mathur, counsel for respondents.
(2) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 851/2012
1. Babu Lal Mali S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged around 38 years, R/o Sanjay Basti, Khaithun, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
2. Manoj Kumar Suman S/o Shri Babu Lal, aged around 22 years, R/o Sanjay Basti, Khaithun, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
3. Hament Batham S/o Shri Prathvi Raj Batham, aged around 32 years, R/o 3-L, 33, Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Rajasthan).
4. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Revti Raman, aged around 39 years, R/o Opposite Government Vaternary Hospital, Mokhapada, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
5. Shambhu Lal S/o Shri Rampal, aged around 39 years, R/o 1031/A, R.K. Puram Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
6. Pintu Verma S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, aged around 25 years, R/o 48-B, Srinath Puram, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
7. Brahmanand S/o Shri Lok Nath, aged around 42 years, R/o 342, Sriram Gali, Saraswati Colony, Kherli Phatak, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
8. Surendra S/o Shri Madan Singh, aged around 39 years, R/o Keval Nagar, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
9. Prem Kumar S/o Shri Ramswaroop, aged around 37 years, R/o Gali No. 1, Sanjay Nagar, Kota Junction, Kota (Rajasthan).
10. Seema Suman W/o of Jagdish, aged around 31 years, R/o C/o Revti Raman, opposite Vaternary Hospital, Mokhapada, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
11. Kaushalya Sharma W/o Shri Moti Lal Sharma, aged around 44 years, R/o 6-7, Gulab Bag, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
12. Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Nand Lal, aged around 38 years, R/o Near Teliyon Ka Mandir, Chhawani, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
13. Ramesh Chand Kushwah S/o late Shri Ram Narayan, aged around 32 years, R/o Shahabad Raod, Baran, District Baran (Rajasthan).
14. Ramswaroop Bairwa S/o Shri Kailash Bairwa, aged around 24 years, R/o Borajadi, Post Jaynagar, Tehsil and District Baran (Rajasthan).
15. Badal Kumar S/o Shri Radha Kishan, aged around 29 years, R/o Rangwari Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
16. Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Radha Kishan, aged around 27 years, R/o Rangwari Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
17. S. Punam S/o Shri S.S. Punam, aged around 36 years, R/o 899-A, Purani Railway Colony, Kota, District Kota (Rajasthan).
Applicants
Mr. Amit Mathur, counsel for applicants.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
3. Commissioner, Income Tax, Kota Division, Kota (Rajasthan).
Respondents
Mr. R.B. Mathur, counsel for respondents.
ORDER (ORAL)
The Original Application No. 850/2012 & Original Application No. 851/2012 have similar facts and involve the same point of law, therefore, both the Original Applications are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Original Application No. 850/2012 are being taken.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the learned counsel for the applicants, are that the applicants are working from last many years, continuously, in the office of the respondents. However, the respondents, by one order, have reduced the pay of all the applicants from Rs. 292/- per day to Rs. 164/- per day.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on 12.11.2008, an order has been passed by the respondents in the subject matter of fixation / review of daily rates of wages for casual daily rated workers. In this order, after taking into consideration the instructions issued by the DoPT dated 12.11.2008 and Ministry of Finance instructions dated 26.09.2008, it was decided that as per 06th Central Pay Commission, the Central Government Employees, daily rate wages of the casual / contingent period staff will be fixed at Rs. 222/- with effect from 01.07.2008.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that further, the respondents vide their order dated 18.10.2010, revised the pay of the casual daily rated workers to Rs. 292/-. Vide this order, the applicants were also allowed the wages of Rs. 292/- per day.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the respondents thereafter issued an order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure A/1) and decided to lower down the wages of the applicants from Rs. 292/- per day to Rs. 164/- per day. The reasoning given in the order dated 31.05.2011 is that the earlier orders were issued without considering the aspect that the employees are not working with the temporary status.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that similar controversy has been settled by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench vide its order dated 14.08.2012 in OA No. 531/2011 and other connected matters - Abdul Kadar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. - and also by this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 17.10.2012 in OA No. 547/2011 and other connected matters - Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Therefore, he argued that in view of the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench and also in view of the orders of this Bench of the Tribunal, the present Original Applications be allowed and the respondents be directed to pay Rs. 292/- per day as daily wages to the applicants instead of Rs. 164/- per day along with the arrears of lesser payment paid by the respondents.
7. On the other hand, the respondents in their written reply have stated that the applicants have not disclosed the correct date of their appointment or have not submitted any proof of their continuous working in the office of the respondents. Their representation(s) have already been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure R/1). It is a self-speaking order and it does not call for any interference by this Tribunal.
8. The respondents have further stated that the applicants are being paid wages as per the Minimum Wages Act and the Labour Law as applicable to the unskilled and semiskilled daily wagers. The rate of Rs. 292/- per day was applicable to those daily wagers, who were enjoying the temporary status. The applicants have not been given the temporary status and therefore, they are not entitled to the wages of Rs. 292/- per day.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and the case law referred to by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. It was admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the controversy involved in the present Original Applications is similar to the controversy, which was before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench and also before this Bench of the Tribunal.
11. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench vide order dated 14.08.2012 has quashed the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 (Annex. A/1). Similarly, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 17.10.2012 in OA No. 547/2011 and other connected matters - Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.(supra), after considering the order of C.A.T., Jodhpur Bench dated 14.08.2012, has also quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 and directed to continue making payment to the applicants @ 292/- per day instead of Rs. 164/- per day from the date when lesser payment of Rs. 164/- per day is paid to the applicants. It was also observed that the applicants are also entitled to arrears of lesser payment paid by the respondents.
12. Since it is not disputed between the parties that in both the present Original Application Nos. 850/2012 & 851/2012 similar controversy is involved, and the applicants have prayed that the order dated 31.05.2011 (Annex. A/1) be quashed and set aside and they may be allowed the payment of Rs. 292/- per day, therefore, in view of the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench and also in view of the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 547/2011 and other connected matters - Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 (Annexure A/1) passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to continue making payment to the applicants @ Rs. 292/- per day instead of Rs. 164/- per day from the date when lesser payment of Rs. 164/- per day is paid to the applicants. The applicants are also entitled to arrears of lesser payment paid by the respondents.
13. Consequently, both the Original Applications are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
14. Certified copy of this order be kept with the paper book of Original Application No. 851/2012.
(ANIL KUMAR) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER kumawat