Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Pamposh Kilam vs Union Of India on 20 April, 2011
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
(THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011)
Original Application No. 19 of 2009
(U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
Honble Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Member (J)
Honble Mr. D.C. Lakha, Member (A)
Pamposh Kilam, aged about 44 years, Son of Shri P.N. Kilam, resident of 6/II, I.G.M.R.I. Staff Colony, Meerut Road. Hapur-245101, District Ghaziabad. Presently working on the post of Photographer at IGMRI, Hapur.
.. Applicant
By Adv. : Shri Shyamal Narain
V E R S U S
1. Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry of consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
3. The Director, Indian Grain Storage Management and Research Institute, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department of Food and Public Distribution, Hapur 245101.
.... Respondents
By Adv. : Shri R. D. Tiwari
O R D E R
(Delivered by Honble Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Member-Judicial)
1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, O.A. No.1047 of 2007 was disposed of with the following directions to the respondents-
Having heard parties counsel, we are satisfied that the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority is wholly non speaking and cryptic and not passed in accordance with law in view of AIR 1986 SC 1173 Ram Chandra Vs. UOI & others. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that this case is squarely covered by the decision of the order of the Principal Bench passed in O.A. No.2149 of 2003; Mr. Ganga Sahai Vs. Union of India & others decided on 07.04.2005. We hereby quash and set aside the appellate order and direct the respondents to dispose of the appeal of the applicant taking into account the decision of Principal Bench passed in O.A. No.2149 of 2003; Mr. Ganga Sahai Vs. UOI & others decided on 07.04.2005 and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2. The applicant was initially appointed as Photographer on 19.05.1989 in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. This scale got revised as Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. This pay has been fixed on the basis of recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission vide Para 55.189 & 189, meant for smaller cadre of photographers. According to the applicant, the pay scale should have been Rs.4500-7000 and in support of his case the applicant drew a parallel to the case of one Ganga Sahai (O.A. 2194 of 2003). The respondents rejected the claim of the applicant giving the reasons that the higher pay scale was neither recommended by the pay commission, much less accepted by the Government impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 03.12.2008 refers.
3. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order on the following grounds:-
(a) The order impugned is based on an incorrect and invalid presumption that the applicant is a grade to Photographer only, whereas the applicants designation is photographer simpliciter.
(b) 1200-2040 is a pay scale attached to photographer-I and as such the applicant cannot be held inferior to photographer grade-I, whose pay scale is revised to 4500-7000.
(c) In fact, the applicant did not work in the erstwhile 950-1500 pay scale which only stood revised to 4000-6000. As such, the above scale does not apply to the applicant.
(d) The revised pay scale for 1200-2040 in respect of photographer figures in part-B of the CCS (RP) Rules, 1997 and as such normal replacement scale is not applicable to it.
(e) Respondents have miserably misinterpret the provisions of Para 55.188 & 189 of the pay commission recommendations. Para 55.189 of the report recommendation has been made for standard replacement grade for photographer only in the case of organizations of large scale and for smaller cadres of photographers the same may be corresponding to their existing grade and the recruitment rules.
4. The applicant has sought the following relief/s:-
(i) Issue a suitable order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 (Annexure No. A-1 to Compilation No.I) rejecting the applicants claim for being accorded the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, instead of the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 actually given to him.
(ii) Issue a suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to grant the applicant the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. the due date i.e. 1.1.1996 along with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and other emoluments, with penal interest at such rtes as may be found appropriate by this Honble Tribunal, and be further pleased to direct the respondents to grant the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme to the applicant w.e.f. the due date on the basis of the revised pay scale of Rs.450-7000, instead of Rs.4000-6000, along with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Issue such other suitable orders or directions as might be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the costs of this Original Application in favour of the applicant, throughout.
5. Respondents have contested the O.A.. According to them, photographer post in the respondents organization is a solitary post. They have further stated that 5th Central Pay Commission in para 55.188 had mentioned that the scale of Rs.1200-2040 to be given as per recommendation to directly recruited matriculate with diploma in photography in 2 years experience was to be revised to (S-7) Rs.4000-6000 based on 5th CPC recommendations. It is admitted that para 55.188 mentions the grade of Rs.1200-2040 (recommended for photographer Grade-II and Rs.1400-2300 (recommended for the photographer Grade-I). However as per Part A of the First Schedule replacement scale of Rs.1200-2040 IS (S-7) Rs.4000-6000/- while replacement scale of Rs.1400-2300 is 4500-6000/-. Thus his case falls in Part A of the First Schedule not in Part B of the First Schedule.
6. Respondents have further contended that the standard grade structure is implemented in the organization having large cadre of photographic post like Armed Forces, fill and photo division if the ministry of defence etc. for smaller once the revision should be corresponding to their existing grade and on the basis of recruitment rules. The pay scale of 4000-6000 afforded to the applicant is only replacement scale. The applicant does not come under Part-B of the revised pay rules.
7. Counsel for the applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit reiterating his contentions as made in the O.A.
8. Arguments were heard documents perused. First, it has to be clarified that the case of Ganga Sahai (O.A. 2194 of 2003) would not fit in the case of the applicant as he was holding the post in Statistical wing. The case of statistical wing has been dealt with by the Pay Commission and the Government in separately and there is no comparison between the two posts.
9. The question for consideration is whether the applicants case falls under part A or Part B of the CCs (RP) Rules, 1987. Even if it is assumed that the applicants case falls under part B, the same is prospective in nature and that certain conditions are to be fulfilled. In this regard, the said Part B is reproduced as under:-
The revised scales of pay mentioned in column 4 of this part of the Notification for the posts mentioned in Column 2 have been approved by the Government. However, it may be noted that in certain cases of the scales of pay mentioned in column 4, the recommendations of the Pay commission are subject to fulfillment of specific conditions. These conditions relate inter alia to changes in Recruitment rules, restructuring of cadres , redistribution of posts into higher grades, etc., Therefore, in those cases where conditions such as changes in Recruitment rules etc., which are brought out by the Pay commission as the rationale for the grant of these upgraded scales, it will be necessary for the Ministries to decide upon such issues and agree to the changes suggested by the Pay Commission before applying these scales to those posts with effect from 01-01-1996. In certain other cases, where there are conditions prescribed by the Pay commission as pre-requisite for grant of these scales to certain posts such as cadre restructuring, redistribution of posts, etc., it will be necessary for the Ministries/Department concerned to not only accept these pre-conditions but also to implement them before the scales are applied to those posts. It would, therefore, be seen that it is implicit in the recommendations of the Pay commission that such scales necessarily have to take prospective effect and the concerned posts will be governed by the normal replacement scales until then.
10. The respondents have, after reflecting in para 9 of their counter the features of essential qualifications, stated that the replacement scale in place of Rs 1200 2040, for the post with the above qualification is Rs 4000 6000/-. There does not appear to be any changes made to the above provisions and it is only when certain changes are contemplated and those completed that the revised pay scale would be made applicable and till then, it is only the replacement scale that would be available to the photographers. The contention of the applicant that there is no inner division as photographer I and II and the designation is photographer simpliciter does not assist the applicant. For, if the appellation is not reflecting any sub divisions, the pay scales attached to it would indicate and the same in this case if photographer Gr. II which carries pay scale of Rs 1200 2040 as the pay scale for photographer I is Rs 1400 2300. The replacement scale for Rs 1200 -2040 being Rs 4000 6000 the same had been maintained and since the post is an isolated post, for ACP purposes, the next scale of Rs 4,500 7000 had been taken into account and the same granted to the applicant.
11. We do not find any legal lacuna in the order of the Respondents. Hence, the OA lacks merits and is dismissed. No cost.
(D.C. Lakha) (Dr. K.B.S. Rajan)
Member-A Member-J
Sushil
??
??
??
??
Page 8 of 8