Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
R.D. Jain, Gyan Chand And Neema Harbola vs Union Of India (Uoi), Secretary Of ... on 29 November, 2006
ORDER Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. As these three OAs are founded on common facts with identical question of law, to avoid multiplicity and conflicting opinions, are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In all these OAs applicants either Punch Card Operators or Punch Card Supervisor, challenge respondents order dated 25.5.2006, whereby their request to placement in the grade of Data Entry Operator (DEO) Grades 'B' and 'C' from the date they have completed six and nine years of service with consequential benefits has been turned down.
3. We will take the facts of OA-1299/2006 as the lead case for convenience.
4. Applicants, who joined the service with Computer Centre in 1983, have been by their nomenclature designated as Punch Card Operators but with the introduction of electronic technology and card systems in the field of computers adopted the trade of Electronic Data was kept open to be decided by a special committee by the IV Pay Commission. Accordingly, a committee, namely Seshagiri Committee was constituted, which in its suggestions adopted, on restructuring, the pay scale of EDP staff. The report of the said committee was published on 11.9.89 and recommended EDP personnel to be re-designated as DEOs. Those who had not completed six years of service as on 11.9.89 were given Grade 'A' and those completed six years service but short of nine years had been placed in Grade 'B' and lastly who have completed 9 years and more were given Grade 'C'. As applicants had completed six years service on 11.9.1989 were given grade 'B' and their pay was revised accordingly. A seniority list was issued and when applicants had completed nine years' service in 1992 neither they had been given Grade 'C' nor their pay has been fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Several OAs preferred, including Baldev Raj and Ors. v. The Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and P.I. OA No. 603/2005, decided on 6.10.2005, wherein respondents have accorded the benefit from retrospective date on completion of nine years to the incumbents vide Statistics Department implementation order dated 31.1.2006. In one of the Full Bench decisions, OM of 11.9.1989 was considered on 31.7.2000, in Babu Lal v. Union of India and Ors. OA No. 2639/1999, of which orders have been upheld in CWP No. 3118/2002 on 31.7.2002 by the High Court has been placed reliance by a coordinate Bench in OA No. 20/2005 Dilbagh Singh Nirmal v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 27.9.2005, wherein respondents have been directed to pass an order in consonance with the decision, which having been implemented, applicants seek extension, being similarly circumstanced, in the wake of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in K.C. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1998 (1) SLJ SC 54.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for applicants would contend that the decision of the Full Bench, being binding on us, squarely covers the present issue.
6. Learned Counsel would also contend that the Punch Card Operators fall within the stream of EDP staff and cannot be deprived of the pay fixation and re-designation as per OM of 11.9.1989, given effect to from 1.1.1986.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that several decisions of the Tribunal, including OA 1876/98 J.R. Arora v. Union of India OA No. 1763/99 Urmil Jaitley v. Union of India, though fixed the pay scale on re-designation to the EDP staff under the OM of 11.9.89 from 1.1.1986, the decision of High Court of Delhi as to the cut off date, as in the present case the implementation has been expected to be complied with prospectively. The High Court of Delhi in Union of India v. Lal Bhadur Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. LPA No. 437/2000 and CM 1523/2000, decided on 29.11.2005, where the Single Bench decision as to the parity of the pay scale to be applied whether retrospectively or prospectively in Delhi Police at par with other police organizations, ruled that cut off date has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved and when not mala fide, cannot be treated as arbitrary or irrational and held that the pay fixation on implementation when specific date has not been given in the order of implementation would always be prospective in nature.
8. In the above backdrop learned Counsel of respondents relied upon a coordinate Bench decision in OA 1953/2005 R.P. Raghav and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 12.5.2006, wherein applicants seeking refixation in EDP pay scale from 1.1.1986 while raising the issue of limitation held that paragraph 2 of OM dated 11.9.1989 would not confer any title upon applicants to claim parity with EDP posts. The Full Bench decision in the case of Babu Lal (supra) was not made applicable, as the posts were re-designated from other cadres and is not falling within the EDP cadre.
9. Shri A.K. Bhardwaj has also cited a decision in Dharam Paul and Ors. v. Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and PI and Ors. OA NO. 1058/2004 decided on 23.12.2004, to rely upon interpretation of paragraph-2 of OM dated 11.9.1989.
10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. The Full Bench in Babu Lal (supra) when dealing with the EDP personnel who have been re-designated as DEO benefit of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1989 as per OM dated 11.9.89 was the issue, which has been resolved on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dawra and Ors. v. Union of India 1998 (2) SC SLJ 390 and Kamlakar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1999 (3) SLJ SC 307, DEOs have been granted benefit of OM dated 11.9.1989 w.e.f. 1.1.1986, with all consequential benefits. The decision cited by the learned Counsel of respondents as to coordinate Bench decision in Raghav's case (supra), where applicants sought benefit of full Bench decision in Babu Lal's case (supra), its applicability has been ruled out by the Bench on the ground that as the posts erstwhile held by applicants were not in the stream of EDP and as such the same would have no applicability. Limitation was also pressed in.
11. In this regard, we are of the considered view that the Punch Card Operators on modernization and introduction of electronic set up cannot be treated differently from EDP staff and have to be reckoned as part and parcel of it. Accordingly, the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Dilbagh Singh (supra), which is yet to be overturned by the High Court, the decision of the Full Bench in Babu Lal's case (supra) has been made applicable and the decision in OA-3360/2002 in the case of one Ms. Godliba Xalxo as well as decision of the High Court in CWP No. 3118/2002 (supra) dated 27.7.2002 when complied with by the respondents, applicants being similarly circumstanced cannot be denied the benefit.
12. As regards cut off date, the decision of the High Court lays down a proposition as to cut off date in case of parity between Delhi Police and other police organizations would have no applicability, as the decision in the present case having been settled by the Apex Court is a binding precedent.
13. Moreover, insofar as the contention raised by the respondents counsel as to relying upon Clause 2 of OM dated 11.9.1989, which is reproduced as under:
2. All Ministries/Departments having Electronic Data Processing posts under their administrative control will review the designation, pay scales and recruitment qualification of their posts and revise the same in consultation with their Financial Advisers to the extent necessary as per pay structure indicated in para 1 above. Where it is found necessary to revise the pay scale of existing posts, notification will be issued by concerned Ministry/Department and copy of notification endorsed to Implementation Cell, Department of Expenditure. The revised pay scales will be operative from the date of issue of notification by concerned Ministry/Department.
that the same would be operative from the date of issue of the notification is concerned, first of all, we want to clarify that among the pay structure to the EDP posts certain posts have been left out and examples have been cited in this regard. In order to keep out of the purview of the OM any post, Clause 6 of OM ibid mandates a reference made to the NIC for clarification. As no clarification has been sought, post of Punch Card Operator is to be deemed as post of EDP, for which necessary consequential benefits cannot be denied.
14. As per the Scheme, the recommendations prescribe completion of six years' and less than nine years' fore placing an incumbent in Grade 'B' and who have completed nine years have to be placed in Grade 'C'. This is when the decision as to the pay scale has been given retrospective effect w.e.f. 1.1.1986 the OM of 27.8.87, which places Punch Card Operators prospectively from this date, cannot be countenanced on the same analogy, as the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Full Bench in Babu Lal's case (supra) and by the Apex Court mutatis mutandis apply to the present case as well. The defence taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced.
15. The decision cited by the learned Counsel of respondents in Dharam Paul (supra) is without any reference to context and distinguishable in the present circumstances, as claim of applicants therein was to insist upon the pay scale in the DPA/TL, which on restructuring ceased to exist. Here applicants are claiming benefit of the OM of 11.9.1989 with respective grade on fulfilling the criteria of regular service of particular number of years. Accordingly, the issue of retrospectivity of OM having not dealt with in the decision of the coordinate Bench, there is no ratio decidendi to be followed as a precedent.
16. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, the decision of the coordinate Bench being distinguishable is not binding on us. OA is, therefore, allowed. Respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of applicants w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and they may be considered for grant of Grades 'B' and 'C' from the date(s) they had completed 6 and 9 years' regular service respectively with all consequential benefits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
17. Let a copy of this order be placed in each case.