Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sharad Tewatia vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 November, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 2380/2010
New Delhi this the 15th day of November, 2011
Honble Mr.G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A)
1. Sharad Tewatia
S/o sh. Randhir Singh
R/o 1449/82, Durga Puri,
Gali No.5, Shahdra, Delhi-93.
2. Devender Singh
S/o Sh. Darshan Singh
R/o A-4, Fire Station Moti Nagar,
New Delhi-15.
3. Suman Kumar
S/o Sh. Dharam Dass
R/o Vill & P.O. Barwasni,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
4. Sijender
S/o Sh. Jai Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Bawan Lakha,
Distt. Panipat, Haryana.
5. Ram Prakash
S/o Late Sh. Deep Chand Sharma,
R/o 336, Vill. & P.O.
Nangal Thakran,
Delhi-39.
. Applicants
(By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Chief Secretary,
5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya,
New Delhi.
2. The Principal Secretary,
(Home), GNCT Delhi,
5th Floor C Wing,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Director,
Delhi Fire Service,
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Renu George)
O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
Applicants are holding the posts Fireman and Leading Fireman in Delhi Fire Service. They are seeking a direction to the respondents to maintain parity with regard to their pay vis-`-vis the Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspector of Delhi Police/CPMF. According to them, such parity was being maintained by the respondents, till the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Government. However, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs has considered the disparity caused by the implementation of the said recommendation in this regard and rectified it by themselves in the year 1998. Thereafter, the parity continued to be maintained till the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission. However, In para 3.8.12 of the recommendation of the report, the Commission has made the following recommendations.
3.8.12 Fire Fighting staff exists in various Union Territories as well as different Government organizations. Their job requirements and duties necessitate that the various posts of fire fighting staff should be afforded pay scale on par with those being recommended for the posts of Constable and Head Constable in CPMFs, Delhi Police, IB and CBI. Accordingly, the pay scale of the fire fighting personnel in various UTs and departments/ministries of Central Government shall be revised as under:
Designation Present pay scale Recommendation pay scale Corresponding & Grade Pay Pay Band Pay Band Grade pay Firemen 2610-3540 3050-4590 PB-1 1900 Leading Fireman 3050-4590 3200-4900 PB-1 2000 Station Officer 4000-6000 4500-7000 PB-1 2800 Asstt. Divisional Fire Officer 5000-8000 6500-10500 PB-2 4200 Deputy Divisional Fire Officer 6500-10500 7450-11500 PB-2 4200 Divisional Fire Officer 8000-13500 8000-13500 PB-3 5400
2. As a result, the Fireman and Leading Fireman in the Delhi Fire Service are now being equated with Constables and Head Constables in Delhi Police and their pay has been substantially reduced. They have, therefore, sought a direction to the respondents to grant one step higher pay scales to them and to maintain their pay parity with those of Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors of Delhi Police and other CPMFs w.e.f 1.1.2006.
3. In the reply affidavit, the respondents have submitted that they are in full agreement with the claim made by the applicants but the decision in this regard in not within their competence. Accordingly, they have examined the matter and referred the case to the Home Department, Government of NCT of Delhi being the administrative/controlling authority. However, the Home Department in consultation with the Finance Department has advised them that the case shall be sent to the Anomaly Committee under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India for appropriate action in the matter. Accordingly, vide their letter dated 27.1.2011 they have referred this case to the Chairman, Anomaly Committee.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for applicant is that there is no reason for the respondents to refer the matter to the Anomaly Committee as similar issue when cropped up after the acceptance of the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission, it was resolved by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India itself. He has, therefore, submitted that the respondents should have considered the matter in the light of the earlier decision taken by them in the year 1998, and pass appropriate orders maintaining the parity in the matter of pay scales between the applicants and the Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors of Delhi Police and CPMF w.e.f. 1.1.2006 itself.
5. Counsel for the respondents, Smt. Renu George, on the other hand, has submitted that when the case of the applicants has already been referred to the Anomaly Committee which is the appropriate and the competent forum in such matters, they should be allowed to consider it and to take appropriate decision.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the applicants had the same pay scales as those of Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police and CPMFs till the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission were accepted. The respondent Government themselves have resolved the issue and maintained parity on the basis of the representation made by the then members of the Delhi Fire Service. However, it is seen that the 6th Central Pay Commission has once again took a different view and suggested different pay scales for the Fireman and the Leading Fireman in Delhi Fire Service comparable with the Constables and Head Constables in Delhi Police. In such circumstances, our considered view is also that the Anomaly Committee set up by the Government of India under the Ministry of Finance is the appropriate authority is to consider the matter in all respects and take a final decision in the matter. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for applicant that the matter should be resolved by the Government on its own without referring the matter to the Anomaly Committee. Accordingly, this OA is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Before we part with this order, we express our hope that the Anomaly Committee will look into this matter and take a conscious decision as early as possible. As neither the Ministry of Finance, Government of India nor the Anomaly Committee set up under it is a party in this case, respondents shall bring it to their notice about this order.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd