Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Om Prakash Verma vs Union Of India on 28 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No.265/2011 Judgment reserved on 16.03.2012 Judgment pronounced on 28. 03.2012 Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Honble Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) Om Prakash Verma S/o Shri Surant Singh R/o RZ/34 Gopal Nagar Extension Main Dhasa Road, Near Nanak PIO, Khowal, Dharam Kanta Wali Gali, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. -Applicant (By Advocate: Dr. D.C. Vohra) Versus 1. Union of India, through The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110011. 2. Police Commissioner of Delhi, Police Headquarters, Indrastha Estate, New Delhi-110002. -Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Alka Sharma for R-2) O R D E R
Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) The applicant is before us in this fourth round of litigation. He had earlier come before this Tribunal first in the OA No.2551/2000, and then in OA-1482/2005, in which orders had been pronounced respectively on 02.08.2001 & on 04.09.2006. Thereafter, in the third round he had filed a Contempt Petition No.224/2007 in OA No.1482/2005, which came to be disposed of an year later on 05.09.2007. This being the fourth round of litigation by the same applicant, we have to first examine as to the extent of the overlapping between the reliefs as prayed for by him in the second OA No.1482/2005, which reliefs were found to have been satisfied while dismissing his Contempt Petition, and the reliefs as now prayed for by him in the present OA.
2. The first OA of the applicant No.2551/2000 had been filed on account of clubbing of pay scales in Delhi Police, and also for parity not having been accorded in the pay scale of ASI (Drivers) at par with the Grade-I Staff Car Drivers of other Central Government Departments. Relying upon the judgment of Randhir Singh v. Union of India & others (1982) 1 SCC 618, and Maharaj Singh v. Union of India & others (WP No. 1432 of 1987) decided by the Honble Apex Court on 3.8.1988, and taking into account the ratio laid down in Union of India & others v. P.V. Hariharan & another: 1997 SCC (L&S) 838, that the Tribunal should not interfere in the matter of parity of pay scales, as it should be left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commission and the Anomalies Committee to decide on the same and for the Government to implement, directions were issued to the Respondent No.1, therein, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, to constitute a Special Committee, drawing representatives from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Finance, and Commissioner of Police Delhi, to make recommendations with regard to the pay scales of the posts of ASI (Drivers) Grade-I w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the date of implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC in short) recommendations.
3. The respondents obeyed the order, and the grievance of the applicant in that OA that the pay scales of the ASI (Drivers) of the Delhi Police had been wrongly fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 was redressed by the respondents by passing their order dated 16.10.2001, produced by the applicant himself as Annexure J-8, by which the pay scales of the ASI (Drivers) Grade-I were upgraded from the then existing pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
4. The case of the Central Government Staff Car Drivers Association through its General Secretary and another vs. Union of India decided on 05.05.2000 by this Tribunal in OA-2529/96 was at that time not considered relevant for being cited while passing the order in the Applicants first OA No.2551/2000 on 02.08.2001, though 15 months had elapsed in between the two orders.
5. Later, in the second OA, the applicant had assailed the order passed by the respondents therein on 24.11.2004, whereby his still further request to extend the next higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- to 5% of the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs in short) (Driver) in the Delhi Police, in parallel with, and in accordance with, DOPT OM dated 15.2.2001, applicable to the Govt. of India Staff Car Drivers, and also the decision of the Ministry of Railways in respect of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force (RPF in short) vide their letter dated 17.5.2001, had been turned down. The ground taken by the respondents therein was that the posts on the executive side in Delhi Police cannot be excluded, and that the said DOPT OM would have been applicable to the Drivers in Delhi Police only if the Drivers in Delhi Police were non-uniformed personnel, and did not carry the designations available with the executive ranks of Delhi Police.
6. After examining the case law in Randhir Singh v. Union of India & others (supra), in Maharaj Singh v. Union of India & others (supra), and the case law in Central Govt. Staff Car Drivers Association & another v. Union of India (OA No.2529/1996) decided on 5.5.2000 by this Tribunal, and the judgment in the present applicants own first OA No.2551/2000, passed by the Tribunal on 2.8.2001, and discussing the factual matrix of the case in detail, this Tribunal had once again partly allowed the second OA No. 1482/2005 of the applicant, and the impugned order dated 24.11.2004 had been set aside, and the matter was once again remitted back to the Respondent No.1, i.e. Union of India, for re-examination in the light of the observations made in the judgment.
7. It was further held by the Tribunal that, in the event it is decided to grant this special grade to Drivers in Delhi Police in consonance with the DOPT OM dated 15.2.2001, and at par with the Drivers in RPF, and the Staff Car Drivers in other Departments of Govt. of India, the benefits with arrears would flow as a consequence to the applicant ante-dated from 1.1.1996 onwards. In deciding so, the Bench had also considered the case law in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. State of West Bengal : (2001) 5 SCC 327, the Constitution Bench judgment of Honble Apex Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand : (2005) 3 SCC 551, and had also considered the powers of this Tribunal as laid down in Union of India & others v. P.V. Hariharan & another (supra), and in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. Dairus Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627, apart from the landmark judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner : 1978 (1) SCC 405.
8. Thereafter, the respondent Ministry of Home Affairs passed a consequential order on 22.05.2007, and a further consequential order was passed by the Delhi Police also on 3.8.2007, as was noted by the Bench hearing the present applicant/petitioners Contempt Petition. Since the directions to re-examine the claim of the petitioner had been fully complied with, the Contempt Petition was disposed of. However, the learned counsel of the present applicant/petitioner therein had stated that many obiter dicta of this Tribunal had been over-looked by the respondents. Therefore, liberty was once again given to the applicant herein/petitioner of that Contempt Petition, that if any of his grievances still subsist, appropriate proceedings may be taken up in accordance with law. This OA has followed thereafter, and was filed on 14.01.2011 after a gap of 3 years and 4 months from the date the liberty was given on 05.09.2007.
9. The applicant has produced as Annexure A-4 the communication dated 3.8.2007 received by him from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi, forwarding to him the Ministry of Home Affairs letter dated 22.5.2007, which has been produced herein as Annexure A-5.
10. The applicant has this time filed at Annexure A-1 a copy of order in OA No. 2529/96 of this very Principal Bench of the Tribunal, dated 05.05.2000, in the case of Central Govt. Staff Car Drivers Association through its General Secretary and another vs. Union of India (supra) and an extract of the Pay Structure of the Delhi Police has been filed through Annexure A-6, and an extract of Bahris Compilation on the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and Allowances together with Pay Fixation Tables as Annexures A-7 and A-8. He has also filed a copy of his representation dated 12.01.2009 addressed to the Respondent No.2, herein, and his representation dated 15.07.2009 and 05.08.2010 as Annexures A-10&11 respectively, both of which have been addressed to the Respondent No.2. He has also filed a copy of the Govt. of Indias letter dated 27.08.2009, addressed by the Respondent No.1 to the office of the Respondent No.2, regarding the proposal for removal of anomalies in implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations in the cadre of ASIs (Stenographers) w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
11. On 17.02.2011, the learned counsel for the applicant filed sets of judgments and orders/correspondence, which he claimed were supportive of the case of the applicant, including the copies of the judgments in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & other (supra), Inder Pal Yadav & others vs. Union of India & others (supra) of this Principal Bench of the Tribunal (ATR 1988 (2) CAT 518), as also the judgment of this Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.2551/2000 dated 02.08.2001 of the same applicant and many other documents.
12. The Respondent No.1 never filed any reply. From a perusal of the Acknowledgement Due Receipt, it seems that the letter addressed to the Respondent No.1 was received at the reception counter of the building in which the office is located, and, therefore, it cannot be held that as per the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code, the notice was ever properly served on Respondent No.1. However, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, purporting to be on behalf of the Respondent No.2, though Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi was not named as a party respondent in the case. However, since the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi has partial control over the Respondent No.2, the reply written statement/counter filed by the learned counsel for the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi on 21.10.2011 was taken on record, and through orders dated 02.11.2011, it was admitted/stated to be the reply of Respondent No.2.
13. Since judicial notice of the reply filed by the learned counsel for the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi had been permitted to be taken on record and treated as the reply on behalf of Respondent No.2, and since during her arguments she has specifically submitted that she had more or less covered the case of Respondent No.1 also in the reply written statement, the case was heard on merits and reserved for orders.
14. The Union of India, DOP&T had issued its OM dated 15.02.2001, prescribing the Promotion Scheme for staff car drivers by implementing the orders of this Tribunal dated 05.05.2000 in Central Government Staff Car Drivers Association through its General Secretary (supra), and had prescribed that, on a parity with the posts of Master Craftsman/Head Staff Car Drivers in the Railways, a new grade for 5% of the total cadre strength of Staff Car Drivers, to be called a Special Grade, shall be created w.e.f. 8.11.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, with the intra-cadre strength of the various grades being prescribed as follows:-
S.No. Grade Pay SCale Percentage
1. Ordinary Grade Rs.3050-4590 30
2. Grade-II Rs.4000-6000 30
3. Grade-I RS.4500-7000 35
4. Special Grade RS.5000-8000 5
15. Thereafter, the present applicant along with four others made a representation before the 2nd respondent for the grant of similar Special Grade in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. That request of those 5 petitioners before Respondent No.2 was referred through Annexure J-11 filed by the applicant to the Dy. Secretary (Home) Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, requesting for consideration for grant of such a Special Grade.
16. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Deputy Secretary (Home), Establishment Department also thought it fit to recommend the case of the 5 petitioners before Respondent No.2 to the Director (Delhi), Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, working under Respondent No. 1, through their letter dated 27.08.2004 (Annexure J-12). This was the proposal of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, which had been rejected by the Respondent No.1 on 24.11.2004 and had been assailed by the present applicant in his second OA No.1482/2005.
17. As already mentioned above, when by the orders dated 04.09.2006 of this Tribunal on that second OA of the present applicant, his prayer was partly allowed, and the impugned order of the Respondent No.1 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Respondent No.1 Union of India for re-examination, they had accordingly once again constituted another Committee, and passed the orders dated 22.05.2007 (Annexure A-5), forwarded to the applicant herein on 03.08.2007 through Annexure A-4. It would be relevant to examine as to the considerations which weighed with the second Committee appointed by the Respondent No.1 in turning down the request of the present applicant, as follows:-
To Dr. K.K. Paul, Commissioner of Police, PHQ, New Delhi.
Subject : O.A. No. 1482/2005, M.A. No. 2307/2006 Titled ASI OM Prakash Vs. Union of India.
Sir, I am directed to refer to Police Headquarters letter No. 1344/CR-II/PHQ dated 20.2.2007 on the above noted subject and to say that CAT vide its order dated 4th September, 2006 had directed that In the result, for the forgoing reasons, OA is partly allowed, Impugned order is set aside. Matter is remitted back to respondent NO.1 i.e. Union of India for re-examination in the light of our observations made above, which would culminate into reasoned order to be issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, it is decided to grant the Special Grade to the drivers in Delhi Police in consonance with DOPT OM dated 15.2.2001 and at part with the drivers in RPF and staff car drivers in other Departments, the benefits with arrears would flow as a consequence from 1.1.1996. No cost,.
The matter has been examined in consultation with Ministry of Law and Ministry of Finance but it has not been found to possible to accede to the request of applicants for granting higher scale of pay of RS. 5000-8000 to the drivers of Delhi Police due to the reasons stated below :-
(i) Despite the recommendations of the 5th CPC which placed the post of ASI originally in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000, they were later upgraded to Rs. 4500 7000. Further upgradation of the post of ASI would therefore not be justified.
(ii) The Delhi Police cannot seek parity with Central Govt. civilians drivers Cadre. The Drivers of Delhi Police has sought for parity with Central Govt. civilian cadre. This may not be appropriate given the fact that the Drivers of Delhi Police are uniformed combatised personnel drawing several benefits not available to the civilians such as uniforms, rations, extra leave of 30 days duly paid and so on. The Recruitment Rules, eligibility conditions, medical fitness etc. of Delhi Police Drivers differ from Civilian Drivers.
(iii) The SI grade does not exist in the Delhi Police and would tantamount to creation of a new grade. Creation of new grades and pay scales cannot be done based on Court decisions and requires detailed studies by expert bodies like the Pay Commissions of cadre reviews with full justification and matching savings.
(iv) The Delhi Police Executive cadre has been traditionally higher or at par compared to the Drivers cadre given the nature of duties performed by them. Therefore, any changes effected in the Drivers cadre would have ramification in the entire cadre of the Delhi Police. Presently, the existing pay scales have already got vitiated with the ASI (Exe) in a lower scale getting Rs. 4000-6000 and the ASI (Drivers) Rs. 4500-7000.
(v) The Delhi Police has been traditionally at par with the Railway Protection Force with regard to its pay scales, terms and conditions of employment etc. The RPF have been getting the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 due to the fact that the Drivers of RPF/RPSF were decaled Artisans by the Railways in 1984 and were designated as Head Constable drivers Grade I, II AND III and their percentage was also9 decided. Later on, the percentage of Drivers grades I, II and III was also introduced with equivalent to 5% of the total strength of Drivers being extended the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 . No separate instructions for Drivers of RPF/RPSF were issued, the instructions issued by the Railway Board for Artisan category relating to % in each grade stood application to RPF/RPSF also.
(vi) Given the facts that the Drivers of RPF/RPSF have been granted the special grade of pay scale of 5000-8000 due to its parity with the Artisans of the Railways, the same arguments cannot be stretched to the mean that Delhi Police should also be granted the special scale. There are different grades and different ratios prescribed by the Ministry of Railways in the skilled categories which do not exist in the Delhi Police. Both organizations have a different purpose and different organizational structures. Therefore extending the ratio for special grade given to Drivers of RPF/RPSF to the ASI (Drivers) of Delhi Police does not appear to be based on sound logic.
The decision of the Government may kindly be conveyed to the applicants.
This issues with the approval of Ministry of Finance vide their ID No. 70/12/2004 dated the 22nd May, 2007. (Emphasis supplied).
18. As already mentioned above, this consideration and passing a reasoned and speaking order by Respondent No.1 was deemed to be sufficient compliance for the purpose of dismissing the Contempt Petition No.224/2007 filed by the present applicant on 05.09.2007, with liberty being granted for him to agitate the matter further, if any grievance still subsists. The applicant has not given any explanation in the present OA as to why and how it has taken him more than three years and four months thereafter to file the present OA 265/2011. Also, no Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay has been filed along with this OA, and even during oral arguments no prayer was made for condoning the delay in the applicant agitating his remaining grievances.
19. Still, we have to examine as to when and how the cause of action, if any, arose in favour of the applicant for him to file this third OA. Nearly one year and two months after his Contempt Petition was dismissed on 05.09.2007, on 30.11.2008 the applicant retired from the service of Delhi Police. However, he has stated that he could not take up the issue regarding his grievance in the meanwhile, as he was given to understand that the matter has already been taken up in the Memorandum submitted by the Delhi Police to the 6th Central Pay Commission. But, when on 29.08.2008, the Govt. of India issued its Resolution accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the relief as prayed for by the present applicant was still not granted. The ASI (Drivers) of Delhi Police who were allowed the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 were placed in Pay Band-I with grade pay of Rs.2800/-, but the contention of the applicant herein is that they were entitled to the enhanced pay scale of 5000-8000, which had been fitted in the Sixth Central Pay Commission, in Pay Band-2, with the grade pay of Rs.4200/-.
20. After his retirement, on 12.01.2009, 15.07.2009 and 05.08.2010, the applicant again made representations through Annexures A-9,A-10&A-11 as already mentioned above. The applicant has admitted in the OA that as such there is no impugned order on the basis of which the present OA has been filed, but has insisted that his entitlement already flows out of the benefits of the various judicial pronouncements of the Honble Apex Court and of this Tribunal. For the purpose of limitation, the applicant has cited his representations at Annexures A-9,A-10&A-11 to have given a lease of life for his case, because of which this OA was filed on 14.1.2011.
21. In comparison to the pay scales of the Staff Car Drivers of the Govt. of India as prescribed through the Office Memorandum dated 15.02.2001, as cited above in para 14, the Respondent No.2 explained that the strength of the relative intra-cadre percentages within different pay scales in respect of the Drivers of Delhi Police have been prescribed as follows:-
S.No. Name of the post Grade % of post Scale of pay (w.e.f. 01.01.1996) 1. Constable III 55% Rs. 3050-4590 2. Head Constable II 25% Rs. 4000-6000 3. Asstt. Sub-Inspector I 20% Rs.4500-7000
22. It was further submitted that on representations being received for introduction of the Special Grade of Rs.5000-8000 for 5% of the posts of civilian Staff Car Drivers being introduced in the Delhi Police also, the proposal was considered by the Government and it was felt that the provisions of the aforesaid office Memorandum of DOP&T could be considered to be applied in the case of Drivers of Delhi Police only if they became non -uniformed personnel, and did not carry the designations and perquisites available to the Executive ranks of the Delhi Police.
23. It has been submitted in reply to para 4.8 of the OA that since the Drivers of Delhi Police are uniformed combatised personnel, drawing several benefits not available to the Civilian Drivers such as uniforms, rations or ration allowances, one months extra leave, leave compensatory pay etc. and enjoyed the Executive ranks of Delhi Police, and the perquisites associated therewith, the Memorandum of DOP&T, which is applicable only for the civilian drivers not enjoying such extra perquisites, and extra leave, and ration allowances etc., could be made available to them only if they did not enjoy those perquisites, and did not carry the designations available to the Executive ranks of Delhi Police. It was further submitted that Pay Band-2 Rs.7450-12000/- with grade pay of Rs.4600/- has been made applicable only to the Inspectors of Delhi Police and the same Pay Band-2 of Rs. 7500-12000/- with the higher grade pay of Rs.4800/- is the entry grade for the Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Police Service (DANIPS). However, it was admitted that in some posts, like ASI/SI Radio Technical & SAST (Stenographers), on different considerations of comparison of allowances and extra leave etc., the fixation of their pay has been made in the Pay Band-2 with grade pay of Rs.4800/-.
24. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, cited the following judgments:-
a) S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand AIR 2007 SC 3021
b) Union of India v. Hiranmoy Sen AIR 2007 SCW 7025
c) State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh AIR 2006 SC 161.
25. The case was argued vehemently, and the learned counsel for the applicant laid much emphasis upon the theory of irrational classification, and in this context submitted the judgment in the case of The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of Gujarat and Others and related cases (1975) 2 SCC 175. The Honble Apex Court had laid down in those cases that even though Article-14 of the Constitution does not forbid classification, but in order for such classification to be a permissible classification, such classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. Learned counsel for the applicant also laid down much emphasis on the various judgments filed by him through Annexures J-1, J-2, J-3, J-6 & J-9 apart from the order in the applicants earlier OA filed as Annexure J-7, which has been discussed above.
26. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of this case. It is trite law that differentiation can be made only if such differentiation is founded on an intelligible differentia, and the differentia concerned must have a rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved. As has been reproduced in Para-17/above, the Committee constituted on the orders of this Tribunal has in its conclusions (i-iv) noted that the drivers of the Delhi Police are uniformed combatised personnel, drawing several benefits not available to the civilian drivers, such as uniforms, rations, extra leave of 30 days duly paid, and so on. Also, it has been noted that the Recruitment Rules, eligibility conditions, medical fitness criteria etc. of the Delhi Police Drivers differ from those of the civilian drivers. It was further noted that implementation of the earlier orders of the Tribunal have already vitiated the existing pay scales of the Executive cadres of Delhi Police, inasmuch as the ASI (Executive) is getting salary in the lower scale of Rs.4000-6000, while the ASI (Drivers) are drawing the higher salary of Rs.4500-7000 by virtue of the orders passed on 16.10.2001 through Annexure J-8. While it was noted that Delhi Police had traditionally been treated in the past at par with the Railway Protection Force (RPF) with regard to its pay scales and terms and conditions of employment, and the RPF does have a category of 5% of its total strength of Drivers in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, but since they had been declared as Artisans by the Railways as long back as in 1984, and the general instructions of the Railway Board applicable to the Artisans category were made applicable to RPF, parity to 5% of the drivers of the RPF in the Special Grade pay of Rs.5000-8000 has been granted only on the basis of the parity of the Artisans of Railways. It was, therefore, decided by the Committee that the Special Grade given to 5% of the cadre of Artisan/Drivers of RPF cannot be given to the ASI (Drivers) of Delhi Police, who already enjoyed much greater benefits of extra uniforms, extra rations and extra leave of 30 days etc., which are not enjoyed by the Artisans of the Railways and the Special Grade drivers of the RPF.
27. To our mind, the differentia identified and described by the Committee constituted on the directions of this Tribunal are intelligible differentia, which are fully covered and protected under the orders of the Honble Apex Court in the case of The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of Gujarat (supra).
28. It may be cited here that in OA No. 703/PB/2004/CAT Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal Amritsar Customs Gr. D Officers Association Vs. Union of India & Ors. had decided on 14.05.2007 as follows:-
The law has been explained by the Apex Court of the country a number of times that the Courts are ill equipped for evaluation of nature and duties of officials working in different departments. They cannot enter into such evaluation of claims of one set of employees working in one Department by their own comparison of such duties on the basis of information of such claimants for parity of pay scales with others Such decision is best left to expert bodies like Pay Commission.
29. Civil Writ Petition No.10660 of 2007 had been filed against this order of the Tribunal before the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, and the Honble High Court has since confirmed these orders of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. Further, in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Surjit Singh : (2009) 9 SCC 514, it has been held by the Honble Apex Court that Pay parity cannot be granted unless there is a complete and wholesale identity between the two groups of posts.
30. While laying down the law in the case of SI Roop Lal and another Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi & others (2000) 1 SCC 644, the Honble Apex Court had examined the issue of equivalence of posts for the purpose of absorption of deputationists from one cadre into the new cadre in which they were earlier on deputation. It was clearly laid down by the Honble Apex Court that while looking into the equivalence of posts, pay is not the only criteria. The Honble Apex Court had observed that for the purpose of examining equivalence, the benefits associated with the posts have to be seen and compared for the purpose of determination of equivalence of the posts.
31. Equivalency of two posts is not judged by the sole fact of equal pay. While determining the equation of two posts, many factors other than Pay will have to be taken into consideration, like the nature of duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification etc., as was held in Union of India & Anr. Vs. P.K. Roy & Ors., (1968) 2 SCR 186. Further, in the case of Vice Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University Vs. Dayanand Jha; (1986) 3 SCC 7, it was laid down by the Apex Court that the true criteria for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts.
32. In the instant case, the applicant has come before this Tribunal pleading for equivalence being granted with 5% of the promotional posts of a different cadre of civilian drivers. Though civilian drivers may be getting uniforms, but none of them get rations or ration allowance, nor do they get 30 days extra leave for performance of onerous duties. The whole case of the applicant before us is built on the edifice of equivalence of civilian drivers with police drivers. He has nowhere tried to make out his case for equivalence with the other cadres of ASI (Exe.) or ASI(Technical) or ASI (Stenographers), or any such cadre with which his equivalence could have perhaps been examined in a manner better than examination of an equivalence with the cadre of civilian drivers. From the tables as re-produced above in paragraphs 14 and 22, it is clear that even the percentages of posts in the different pay scales of the civilian drivers are different then the percentage of posts in the three different pay scales of Constable (Drivers), Head Constable (Drivers) and Assistant Sub-Inspector (Drivers). In his entire pleadings, the applicant has nowhere whispered about the extra uniform allowance and the ration entitlements, and 30 days extra leave over and above the normal leave, which was admissible to him by virtue of his onerous duties in the Delhi Police, none of which is available to the civilian drivers with whom he has sought equivalence in the instant case.
33. At the end of the arguments, a question was put to the learned counsel for the applicant, when the applicant was standing beside him, as to whether he would be satisfied if his prayer of grant of higher pay scale is allowed by this Tribunal, and simultaneously it is ordered that the monetary value of all the extra benefits enjoyed by the ASI (Drivers) over and above their counter-part civilian drivers, like extra uniforms, rations/ration allowance and the 30 days extra pay is ordered to be recovered, but the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would not like relief to be granted to him in this conditional manner.
34. Obviously, the applicant is trying to have his cake and eat it too, which cannot be allowed in any circumstances whatsoever. The very fact of grant of rations/ration allowances and 30 days extra leave puts the Constable (Drivers), Head Constable (Drivers) and Assistant Sub-Inspector (Drivers) of Delhi Police on a separate pedestal, different altogether than either the Artisan drivers of the RPF, or the civilian drivers covered by the DOP&T OM dated 15.02.2001.
35. Most respectfully, it may be submitted that the benefit of the judgment in the case of Randhir Singh V. Union of India (supra) was granted by the Honble Apex Court without adverting anywhere in the judgment to the extra emoluments and perquisites enjoyed by the drivers of the Delhi Police in their posts, when the three Judge Bench of the Honble Apex Court had laid down the law of equal pay for equal work in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Others (supra). However, as has been laid down by the Honble Apex Court itself, that since pay includes allowances in the nature of rations/ration allowances and other perquisites in the nature of extra days of leave, even if the total equality and congruence of the nature of work is established between the drivers of Delhi Police on the one hand and the civilian drivers and Artisan drivers of the RPF on the other hand, even then, while computing the equal pay in their cases, the monetary value of the allowances of extra uniforms, rations/ration allowances, and the monetary value of 30 days extra leave has to be taken into account, even in accordance with the judgment in the case of Randhir Singh cited (supra), though the Honble Apex Court had not said so in as many words in that particular judgment. However, since the law as laid down in different judgments has to be read together, it is held that the applicant is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in this OA, and the OA is liable to be rejected.
36. The OA is, therefore, rejected. No costs.
(Sudhir Kumar) (Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (A) Member (J) cc.