Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Santosh Dattatraya Yadav vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 3 April, 2019
i OA Na P3273, F32623, 733/13, 734013 & P3873 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAL,. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.731/2013 with MA No.961/2013 QA No.732/2013 with MA 962/2013 OA No.733/2013 with MA 963/2013 OA No.734/2013 with MA 964/2013 & OA No.735/2013 with MA 965/2013 Date of Decision: 03.04.2019. CORAM: DR. BHAGWAN SAHAI, MEMBER (A) RN. SINGH, MEMBER (2) Smt. Aditi Vinod Bandre, Age 34 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 008. R/at 4/2 Tata Colony, Khadegolawali (Gaon) Vithalwadi, Ralyan (BE). .. 9 Applicant in O4 No. 731/13 Shri Vadukot Jose Justin Age 38 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 608. R/at Riddhi Siddhi Apartment 'A' Wing, 5" Floor, R.No.502, . Buisewadi, Thane (W). w. Applicantin OA No.732/13 Shri Santosh Dattatray Yadav, Age 38 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai. R/at Aat Niwas, Jin Baug, Near Old Juni Baug, Old Swami Samarth Mandir, Kalyan (East)... Applicant in OA No. 733/13 Smt. Anindita Samir Nandi Age 34 years, working as Junior Laboratory Assistant in CDTL, Mumbai 400 008. R/at C3/40, . Hyde Park, Residencey, Near Tulsidham, Thane (W). .. Applicant in OA Ne 734/13 Shri Amardeep Maruti Ningappagal Age 42 years, R/at ESIS Hospital, 16/9 Road No.33, Wagle Estate, Thane we 2 04 Nex rt 3, 732/14 3, P33893, P3473 & FIS/T3 (W), Pin -- 400 604, . Applicant in OA No. 738/13 (By Advocate Shri Vicky Nagrani} VERSUS 1. Seeretary Govt. of india, ' Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Moulana Agaz Road, - At Post New Delhi 110 011. ba Drugs Controller General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan Moulana Agaz Road, At Post New Delhi 110 011. 3. Union of India, through Director Incharge, Central Drugs Testing Laboratory-Mumbai, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, | Gavt. Medical Store, Department Compound, © Opp. Sahil Hotel, Belasis Road, Mumbai Central, At post Mumbai 400 008. 4. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, At Post New Delhi 110001... Respondents in all the OAs. (By Advocate Shri NK. Rajpurohit) : ORDER (Oral)
Per: RN. Singh, Member 64) Heard Shri VA. Nagrani, learned counsel for the Applicants and Shri NLR. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the frre 2, In all the aforesaid five OAs «tied wunder Section La of: the Administrative Tribunals Rot TaRs Tha amniieants are AELDURALS Ae » ASOD. Li8 BDDLLCAanNts are 7 PbReadiar simtitariy Yareed fnasmurhk ae admittedly similarly placed inasmuch as at the time of filing of the respective OAs, 3 Od No. P3213, P3273, P35013, P3413 & PIAS they have been working as Junior Lab ;
Assistant {(JLA} a Group ''D' past under the respondents and all of -them have been aggrieved of the same/similar orders dated 18.05.2012, 22.02.2012, BSO.21D.2013 and 13.07.2012 (Annex. A~L(a),A-l(b), A-i{e) & A> i{d} and the aforesaid applicants have prayed for the following reliefs in the respective OAs:- .
"Sy This Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to eall for the records of the case regarding implementation of recommendation of Vth Pay Commission above Lab Asstt. Ministry of Health and FW and pass orders upholding that applicants are entitled to similar benefits.
8.8} Quash and set aside letter & decisions proposal dated 18,08.2012, 222.2012, 30.11.2011; 13,7.2012 and Alfa), Alf), Alte) & Alfa respectively.
8c} Hold and declare that withholding of. benefits to applicants although same granted to Lab Assistant in CIPL NICD NMEP is discrim iatory.
Bd Be further graciously pleased to allow the QA and direct respondents to extend all benefits granted by Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench order in O4 No. 1935/2005 to CIPL Lab Assistant (VP challenging it dismissed by Hon'ble High Court, Delhi) within 3 months with all consequential benefits such as arrears, affixation af pay, rectification of pay conferential in further grades.
8.¢) Hold and declare that non extending of similar benefits to similarly placed person is discriminatary. 8h Direct respondents ta -- eansider representations gent by applicants on £7 22.2008 d OA Na P3LGS, P3293, 7337S, ? of has ah ea tag Re at Sa hat sone ay (Exh. AlQ) within 2 months by issuing speaking and reasoned order.
8g) Any other and such further relieffs) as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 8A} Cost of an be saddled on respondents and paid te applicant."
3. With the consent of the parties, all' the aforesaid: OAs iB re being disposed of by a Fys$ common order. However, OR No.731i/2013 has mad case by. the learned ry © G oF ct ty a pa 2} ry) oh ty f MO 2 counsels for the parties and accordingly the facts are being taken from the pleadings in OA No. ?3i/feais3.. q, The precise facts of the case (s) are noted as under;
The Applicants were holding Technical Posts i.e. the post of Junior Lab Assistant in the Central Drug Testing Laboratory, Mumbai under the Ministry of Health. This is the second round of litigation inasmuch as in the first round of Litigation, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by ®@ £ g spective OAs i.e. OA Nos.330/2009, 3321/2004, 332 /2005, 333 /2008 & 3234/2009 under Section i8 oF the Administrative Tribunals Act, i985 and the same w& (_ a * yo » sah yn Pak da wel 4 disposed of by a common order /jucddgmant dated
5. OA No. FSRI3, 732/13, P2BRUS, PR413 & PISS 2010 fAnnex.Rd 160). on at the order /judgment qd 2010 reads as under:
"3. It is also brought to our notice by the ak ace learned counsel for applicants that the respondents have constituted Anomalies Cammitiee to resolve the whole issue and submits that a suitable direction be given fo the respondents to treat the present OAS as representations within the meaning of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and place the same before the Anomalies Committee for proper appreciation of the grievances of the applicants,
4. _ The learned counxel far applicants has alse brought to our notice order dated 11.07.2006 passed by Division Bench of this Tribunal, sitting at the Principal Bench, New Dethi, in OA No f933/05 | (Sanjay Kumar & & others Vs. Union of india & Ors} wherein similar issue had been raised by Laboratory Assistants working at CIPL, Ghaziabad and they have been granted similar benefit of pay --
revision based an the reconmmendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The applicants are also similarly situated and, therefore, cannot he discriminated against.
'5. After hearing the learned counsel af parties and perusing the pleadings, we are of the considered opinion that ends af fustice would be-
met if direction is given to the respondents to place the case of the applicant before the Anomalies Committee and ta expeditiously take final decision in respect of their grievance (applicants) taking into consideration the present OAs by treating the same as a representation, within the meaning of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Final decision to be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this arder.
Sif Needless to say, while considering the above said representations and the OAs of the applicants, the Anomalies Committee will also taken inte consideration the judgement of the Principal Bench in OA [935/08 fsupre) and alzo the fact that The relevant a
6 OA No T3113, P32°13, 733413, P3aT & P3573 the said judement has been implemented by the respondents in respect of Laboratory Assistants working at CIPL, Ghasiahad In case the | applicants are still aggrieved, in any.manner, by the decision taken by the respondents In their respective cases, they will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
6. With the above said directions and observations, all the five OAs stand disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
5. From the aforesaid, it is. evident that the Tribunal had relied Woon. the order/judgment dated 11.07.2006 of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in QA No,1935/2005, titled Sanjay Kumar & 8 Ors. Vs. Union of -- India & Ors. The relevant portion of the order/judgment dated 11.07.2006 in Sanjay Kumar (supra) reads as under:
"od dt is trite law that equals cannot be treated unequally, This will vielate the principle of equality . enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Merely because there had been delay in approaching the respandents would not render the continuous cause of action ef grant of pay and allowances as redundant. We find that there is no reasonable justification ta deny the pay scale from L196 when tf has been extended to all those who are similarly circumstanced. We also note that recommendation of the S° CPC are accepted by all the Ministries and Departments yet the department situated in the same Ministry is denying the benefits fo the applicants and ultimately they have to approach for extension of benefit, which is unfortunate,
3. in the result, we find thet extending the benefit fram £9.4.2005 and withholding from 1.1.96 cannot be countenanced in law, Accordingly, OA is © 7 OA No? 3i7i3, 732/18, PARTI, 734/19 & PIMLS partly allowed. impugned arder is set aside to the extent that the benefit of pay of Rs.4000-6000 from 19.4.2005 has been extended. Respondents are directed to accord to the applicants the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 wef 1.1.96 with arrears within a period af three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
6, Tt is admitted Eact that the order/judgment dated 11.07.2006 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Sanjay 'Kumar (supra) attained finality inasmuch aa the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by dismissing "the WPCC} No. is?3/2007? vide order /judgment dated 12.03.2007 in the case of Secretary, Government of India & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar has further & Ors. fAnnex.RJ-9) and the s cy iD oS been implemented by the respondents as could eh be evident rom the office order dated
107. eek ;
Bent mo oa) a. The gxyievances of the epplicants in the present aforesaid OAs are that though in compliance of the directions of the Principal Bench of thie Tribunal in Sanjay Kumar (supra), the respondents have granted the benefit of Pay Scale of Rs.4000-6000 to the applicants Sanjay Kumar (supra) from te in the case of S ry different dates as applic GS OF Nel 3hIS, 73273, F323, $3413 & PINTS the respective applicants, in view the fact Rs.4000-100-6000 has been wee.f. O1.01.1996. However, the directions of order / judgment dated 14.07 filed by the however, that the Pay this Tri 2016 in present applicants, keeping Scale of made applicable in compliance of bunal ain common the OAs the respondents have qranted the Pay Scale of Rs. 40Q00- 100+ 65000 no tha only w.ee.f. 01.01.2006 SG.112.20112 and therefore discriminated inasmuch Le ced as 1 applicants fooek p.
fsupra) and in spite of a COMMON Ore Tribuneil in the (14.07.2010, the OAs have not been correct pet Cale w.ee.F. the tA Co he +.
oD 4 | ted ie) \ oy 5 &. In response to the Tribunal, the reply andoon the basis of additional affidavit dated NK. Raypurchit, learned respondents submits that SA nnn an a naan ena sagen eee eee present vide they directions of thi ex/ notice ' i the imougned applicants order dated been they have -
are Similarly in Sanjay Kumar C2 ' A ai es de udgment dat in the present.
such reply and O1.G1.2015, Mr. counsel for the orders w © D 9 OANoTU/18 732/218, 733/13, 734/13 & T35/13 are apt in " He further submits that the present applicants have not been gzanted the benefit of Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-100- 6000 wee.f. 01.01.1996 and have been granted. w.e.f. 01.01.2006 for the reason that the applicants had neither raised the issue of anomaly befo the Department nor they made any Fepresentation before the 5° cpc. He further Submits that the applicants who have been working as dunisor Lab Assistant in- Central Drug Testing Laboratory, Mumbai are holding technical posta and were performing the same nature of duties and hold responsibility and they are Similarly Situated employees as the applicants in Sanjay Kumar (supra). g. We have gone through the relevant pleadings and have considered the rival contentions. We have again gone through the order/judgment dated 11.97.2006 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Sanjay Kumar (supra) as well as the common order/jJudgment dated 14.07.2016 of this 'Bench and we find that the respondents have not teken the defence that the henefits f , 10 OA No. 73173, PBaALS, BeI8 , P3MTS & IBS cannot be granted te the applicants therein for the reason that they have not raised the < . eS i ¥ an: te are ~~: th Lesue before the department or before the 5 direction was given to the respondents to Committee and therefore it was not incumbent upon the praesent applicants to raise the matter before thre Anomalies Committee, before the 3 CPC or before the department. Moreaver, once it is admitted case that the icants are fully identical and Similar to Sanjay Kumar (supra) . such z technical objections raised by the respondents are not sustainable in the eyes of law. .
D ph.
io. The Applicants have also Fil o = Q. application seeking condonation of delay & oA eS ~ SS oe | by ae PKA oe = 4 GA, Ene applicants have sought for extension of 'benefit of judgment which has already attained finality. Learned counsel for the yy Li OANo. T3013, 732/03, T3RTR, T3B413 & FBSA13 applicants further argues of benefit of Judgment given to the applicants that the extension should have been by the respondents at their OWT without compelling the applicants to approach this Tribunal again by the present OAs more particularl é 3 y in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.c. Sharme Vs. Union of India, L988({i) AISLI 54. Learned counsel for the applicants further argues that the issue in 1n ake dk ~ the present OA is about fixation of pay the right pay scale and from the date from which the same has been granted to similariy placed persons and on account of grant of Pay from the wreng date, the applicants are suffering recurring loss and therefore heir OAs are within limitation, howeve 8 by od aD respective applications have been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of delay as €& matter of abundant pre ecantion. The delay is admittedly of around two months, However, it is also found that mo reply is the rr fe coe a 3 33 fe ro ct fot b i633 rh 3 y a wh te oo ee Hs C3 c S. ez] ct B oS re) @ Ow 733/93 3, PRaIF @ FISD a | aa | oa filing of the respective OAs age condoned. id. in view of the aforesaid, the OAs are partly allowed with the following directions;
{i} The Respondents are .directd to pass necessary arder{s}) to grant the Pay Scale of Re,€000-100-6006 to the applicants from OL.OL.1996 in granted to ct @ Case afr consequential arrears.
oF i2. zr Srder Cy as to (RN. Singh) Member (J) any, che iz Od No. 731/13, 73213, 73 place of Co ow.e.f. O1.0:
Similarly placed Sanjay Kumar (supra) be payment nefits L.@,.
spondents are aforesaid exercise receipt of cte and edreumse direeted * tances, 1.2006 as persons in O with ali = OE to PG (Dr, Bhagwan Sahai) Member (A)