Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
A S Suresha vs M/O Textiles on 19 December, 2023
1 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00326/2022
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri A.S.Suresha,
S/o late Shivamurthy K.,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as Skilled Worker,
Handicrafts Service Centre,
(RDTDC) Office/at No.7,
SFHS, Area, Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru -560096.
R/a No.20, 2nd Main,
13th Cross, Hoysalanagar,
Sunkada Katte, Bengaluru-560091. ...Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri M.Rajakumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Development
Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles,
O/o DC (Handicrafts),
West Block No.7, R.K,Puram,
New Delhi - 110066.
2 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. The Regional Director (SR),
Ministry of Textiles,
O/o the Development Commissioner,
(Handicrafts) Shastri Bhavan,
II Floor, Chennai -600006.
3. The Assistant Director (H),
Ministry of Textiles (Handicrafts),
Regional & Technical Development Centre,
(Technical Wing),
At No.7, SFHS Area,
Nandhini Layout,
Bengaluru - 560096. ...Respondents
(By Advocates, Shri S.Sugumaran for Respondent)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) To issue Writ or any appropriate order or writ to declare and hold that the applicant is eligible of upgradation pay scale with grade of Rs.2000/- from date 1st ACP as extended to similarly situated employees who got the benefits after filing the OA before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
3 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(b) To set-aside the impugned order vide No.HSC(BLR)/Estt/PF-ASS/2022-23/274 at Annexure A6 dated 26.07.2022 as nonest, incompetent, illegal and also discriminatory.
(c) To issue any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The applicant contends that he was initially appointed as Jobber with effect from 28.03.1990 in the office of the 3rd Respondent with pay scale of Rs.775-12-871-12-1025 (2610-60-3150-65-3540) Grade Pay of Rs.1800. After completion of 12 years of continuous service, the applicant was granted 1st ACP on 28.03.2002 with pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590 with Grade Pay of Rs.1900. After completion of 20 years of regular service, the applicant was granted with 2nd MACP vide order dated 21.11.2011 with Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- with effect from 01.07.2010. It is the grievance of the applicant that the 1st ACP granted to one Shri L.Raghukumar, the applicant in OA No.585/2021 with Grade Pay of Rs.2000 has not been extended to the applicant despite the pay scale of the applicant was Rs.775 as Jobber and that of Shri L.Raghukumar, Helper was in the pay 4 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH scale of Rs.750. The request/representation made by the applicant for grant of MACP benefits on par with Shri L.Raghukumar has been rejected. Hence this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri M.Rajakumar representing the applicant argued in vehemence that the applicant was initially appointed as Jobber with pay scale of Rs.775 and whereas Shri L.Raghukumar, the applicant in OA No.585/2021 was appointed as Helper with pay scale of Rs.750. The 3rd Respondent in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal granted first ACP to Shri L.Raghukumar with Grade Pay of Rs.2000, 2nd and 3rd MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.2400 and Rs.2800 respectively. But the representation submitted by the applicant to grant similar benefits to the applicant protecting his Grade Pay to that of Shri Raghukumar, has been rejected arbitrarily. The discrimination being manifest amongst the similarly situated employees, the same warrants interference of this Tribunal.
4. Detailed reply statement and additional reply statement have been filed by the respondents. Learned Counsel Shri S.Sugumaran representing the respondents argued that the applicant was initially 5 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH appointed as Jobber with effect from 28.03.1990 in the pay scale of Rs.775-12-871-12-1025 and further revised as Rs.2610-60-2910-65- 3300-70-4000 as per 5th CPC with Grade Pay of Rs.1800. On introduction of ACP scheme, he was granted ACP on completion of 12 years of regular service with effect from 28.03.2002 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590, as the post of Jobber was in the promotional hierarchy to the post of Skilled Worker. Further the applicant was promoted to the post of Skilled Worker with effect from 27.02.2009. On introduction of MACP Scheme, the applicant was granted 2nd MACP on completion of 20 years of regular service with effect from 28.03.2010 with Grade Pay of Rs.2000 and as per option exercised by the applicant, his pay was fixed with effect from 01.07.2010. Learned Counsel further submitted that the post of Helper held by Shri L.Raghukumar was in Textile Weaving and Printing Scheme of Regional Design and Technical Development Centre (RDTDC), Bangalore. The said post was an isolated post which had no promotional avenue, whereas the post of Jobber is in the non-plan scheme of RDTDC and has promotional avenue to the post of Skilled Worker, which had already been granted to the applicant with effect from 27.02.2009. Placing reliance on the Recruitment Rules, learned 6 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Counsel submitted that the post of Laboratory Attendant is feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant. The pay scale of Laboratory Attendant is Rs.750-940 (2550-3200) whereas for Laboratory Assistant is Rs.975-1540 (3200-85-4900). In OA No.320/2014 (DD: 22.10.2016) C.A.T., Madras Bench considering the controversy inasmuch as the Helper post held by the applicants therein with no promotional avenue available to an isolated post, held that the applicants therein are squarely covered under the Clarification No.10 of the DOPT OM dated 10.02.2000 and accordingly directed the respondents to grant ACP benefit treating them on par with the post of Jobber and Laboratory Attendant allowing the OA. This Tribunal in OA No.585/2021 considering the case of Shri L.Raghukumar, a Helper directed the respondents to decide the applicant's (Shri Raghukumar's) pending representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a time frame fixed. Accordingly, Shri L.Raghukumar was treated on par with Laboratory Attendant in the light of the order dated 22.10.2016 of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal and as the pay scale of the Helpear and laboratory Attendant was the same, granted 1st ACP with Grade Pay of Rs.2000, 2nd MACP with Rs.2400 and 3rd MACP with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-.
7 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Both these cadres being different, the applicant cannot seek the same benefit on parity. Accordingly, seeks for dismissal of OA.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parities and perused the material on record.
6. The moot question that arises for our consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to ACP/MACP benefits on par with Shri Raghukumar, applicant in OA No.585/2021?
7. The factual aspects are not in dispute. The applicant was appointed as a Jobber with effect from 28.03.1990 in the office of the 3rd Respondent with pay scale of Rs.775-1025 and Grade Pay of Rs.1800. First ACP was granted to the applicant on 28.03.2002 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 with Grade Pay of Rs.1900. After completion of 20 years of regular service, 2nd MACP was granted vide order dated 21.11.2011 with Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- .
8. It is not in dispute that the applicant though was getting initially the pay scale of Rs.775 as Jobber, higher than the initial pay scale of Rs.750 drawn by Shri L.Raghukumar as Helper, in view of the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.585/2021 directing the 8 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Development Commissioner, Ministry of Textile, New Delhi to decide the applicant's pending representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order, Shri L.Raghukumar's case was considered treating the post of Helper on par Laboratory Attendant. It appears that this decision has been taken pursuant to the order passed by CAT, Madras Bench in OA No.320/2014, wherein the issue regarding implementation of ACP Scheme for isolated post of Helper has been analysed. The Clarification No.10 issued by DOPT in OM dated 10.02.2000 has been referred to. The same reads thus:
"For isolated posts, the scales of pay for ACPS shall be the same as those applicable for similar posts in the same Ministry/Department/Cadre except where the Pay Commission has recommended specific pay scales for mobility under ACPS. Such specific cases may be examined by respective Ministries/Departments in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training. In the case of remaining isolated posts, the pay scales contained in Annexure-II of the Office Memorandum dated August 9, 1999 (ACPS) shall apply."
9. Having regard to the nature of duties performed by the Helpers comparable to that of Jobber and Laboratory Attendants with reference to recommendation made by the Respondents No.2 and 3 9 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH herein as well as the Deputy Director (Tech), Ministry of Textiles, it has been held by CAT, Madras Bench that there is no reason to disagree with the views expressed by the Field Level Officers of the Organization in so far as comparable nature of duties. Hence the respondents were directed to grant the applicants therein, ACP benefits on par with the post of Jobber and Laboratory Attendant. Thus there were two options available to the respondents to treat Shri L.Raghukumar i.e., in the cadre of Jobber or in the cadre of Laboratory Attendant. However, the Shri L.Raghukumar's case was considered on par with the Laboratory Attendant, a promotional hierarchical post with pay scale of Rs.750-940 as the post of Helper carried the same pay scale. On promotion as Laboratory Assistant with the pay scale Rs.975-1540, 1st ACP was granted in Grade Pay of Rs.2000.
10. The controversy herein has cropped up pursuant to the order passed by the Ministry of Textile Office, Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), New Delhi dated 29.06.2022 issued in the case of Shri L.Raghukumar in furtherance to the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.585/2021 dated 23.12.2021. The applicant is seeking parity with Shri L.Raghukumar seeking 1st ACP with Grade 10 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH pay of Rs.2000/- and 2nd and 3rd MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.2400 and Rs.2800 respectively. As per the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Regional Offices (Stenographer Grade 'C') Recruitment Rules, 1990, the scale of pay for the post of Laboratory Attendant is Rs.740-12-870-EB-14-940 and scale of pay for the post of Laboratory Assistant is Rs.975-25-1150-EB-30-1540. As per the Recruitment Rules, 1984 the pay scale for the post of Jobber is Rs.200-250 whereas the pay scale for the post of Skilled Worker is Rs.260-400, which is next promotional post to the Jobber. In other words, Jobber is the feeder post to the post of Skilled Worker, whereas the post of Laboratory Attendatnt is the feeder post for the post of Laboratory Assistant. Actual anomaly is in the pay scale fixed to Laboratory Assistant, a promotional post to the Laboratory Attendant at Rs.975- 1540, the said anomaly subsists in the Recruitment Rules. Shri L.Raghukumar was considered as Laboratory Attendant, considering the pay scale of Helper and Laboratory Attendant being the same i.e., Rs.750-940. The authorities are bound to follow the Recruitment Rules. Merely for the reasons that the initial pay scale of Jobber, the applicant herein was in higher pay scale than the initial pay scale of the Helper, ACP/MACP cannot be granted on par with the Helper ignoring 11 OA 326/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the Recruitment Rules. Hence the request of the applicant for grant of first ACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.2000 has been rejected vide impugned order dated 26.07.2022. No parity can be made with posts coming under different cadres. The post of Helper being an isolated post having no promotional avenue was treated on par with Laboratory Attendant whereas the post of Jobber having promotional post of Skilled Worker, being a different cadre, rule of parity is not applicable. We find no irregularity or illegality in the order impugned. Accordingly, OA is devoid of merits.
Resultantly, OA stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.