Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Renu Venkaik W/O Shri R.K. Venaik ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Through The ... on 3 October, 2006
ORDER
M.A. Khan, Vice Chairman (J)
1. The applicants Nos. 1 to 3 are Senior Hindi Translators and applicant Nos.4 to 10 are Junior Hindi Translators working in Central Board of Excise and Customs. They have filed this OA for a direction to the respondents to revise their pay scale to Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 as are applicable to the Junior and Senior Hind Translators in Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS).
2. These applicants have been granted pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 as replacement scale on the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission. Similar pay scales were granted to their counter parts in CSOLS. By order dated 10.2.2003, the Government revised the pay scale of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators working in CSOLS from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.5500-9000 and from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 respectively, notionally with effect from 1.1.1996 and with actual financial benefits being allowed with effect from 11.2.2003. The applicants want their pay scale also to be revised at par with that of the pay scale of the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators working in CSOLS.
3. The case of the applicants is that 4th Pay Commission had recommended the pay scale of Junior and Senior Hind Translators as Rs.1400-2600 and Rs.1640-2900. It also directed the Government to rationalize the pay scale of about 2400 posts of Hindi Officers working in 20 pay scales in various Ministries/Departments other than those working in CSOLS. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 and Rs.1400-2600 respectively in all the Ministries but the applicants were not granted the pay scale recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. Prior to the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission, the applicants' pay scale was equal to the pay scale of CSOLS Hindi Translators. Senior and Junior Hind Translators working in Armed Forced Headquarters (AFHQ) and those working in Inter-Services Organisations(ISO), filed an OA No.1310/1989 titled V.K. Sharma and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors. for grant of scale of Rs.1640-2900 and Rs.1400-2600 respectively for Junior and Senior Hindi Translators and their prayer was allowed. The applicants were constrained to file OA No.763/1999 for extending the benefit of the order passed in the case of V.K. Sharma and Ors. (Supra). They were granted the relief claimed in the OA with all consequential benefits with effect from 1.1.1996. Certain other OAs of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators, who were working in subordinate offices, for grant of similar relief, were also granted, the particulars of those OAs are mentioned in para 4.19 of the OA. Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure issued OM dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure A-5) revising the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/Rs.1400-2600 and Rs.1600-2660/Rs.1640-2900 respectively from 1.1.1996 to the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 respectively. Accordingly, the Ministry of Home Affair's OM dated 8.11.2000 (Annexure A-6) granted the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 as a replacement scale of Rs.1400-2300/1400-2600 and Rs.1600-2660/Rs.1640-2900 to the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators with effect from 1.1.1996. The respondents accordingly issued orders dated 22.10.2001 and 8.5.2002 whereby the applicants were placed in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 respectively with effect from 1.1.1996 and the notional fixation of pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 and Rs.1640-2900 was made with effect from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1995 and actual financial benefits with effect from 1.1.1996 (Annexure A-7 and Annexure A-8). Similarly Junior and Senior Hindi Translators in the Central Passport Organisation were also granted the same pay scale vide order dated 20.9.2003 (Annexure A-9).
4. It is submitted that the pay scale of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators in the Ministries and Departments under the CSOLS has further been upgraded from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.5500-9000 and from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 respectively but the same has not been extended to other offices and departments including the Central Excise and Customs where the applicants are working as Junior and Senior Hindi Translators. The scales have been revised notionally with effect from 1.1.1996 with actual financial benefit with effect from 11.2.2003. The representation of the applicants for granting them similar upgraded pay scale has been rejected by the respondents. Hence this OA.
5. The respondents have contested the case and have stated that the applicants are working as Hindi Translators in subordinate offices and they are claiming parity with Hindi Translators in Central Secretariat Offices. The employees of the Central Secretariat perform the job different from the employees in subordinate offices. A Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M.V.R. Rao and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. ATFBJ page 260 has held that in terms of maintenance of secrecy, workload, etc. the job performed by Central Secretariat Staff is different from those performed by non-Central Secretariat Staff, therefore, different pay scales were in order. It is also submitted that 5th Central Pay Commission has not granted higher pay scale to Junior Hindi Translators. The Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) which is the nodal department has upgraded the pay scale of Junior and Senior Hindi Translator and Assistant Director (OL) in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 respectively notionally with effect from 1.1.1996. Those upgraded pay scales are specific to the post in CSOLS and not to subordinate offices. In para 70.134 of 5th Central Pay Commission it has been mentioned that the principles of hierarchy may be applied to subordinate offices, subject to functional requirement and the aspect of functional requirement has been brought in view while upgrading the pay scale of Junior Hindi Translators of CSOLS. Grant of higher pay scale to CSOLS Hindi Translators does not justify the claim of the applicants for higher pay scale.
6. In the rejoinder, the applicants have reiterated their own case and hence denied the allegations made in the counter.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
8. The short question is whether the applicants were entitled to be granted the upgraded pay scale of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators working in CSOLS. By order dated 29.3.2004 (Annexure A-1) of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure the upgraded pay scale of Rs.5500-9000, Rs.6500-10500 and Rs.7500-12000 were respectively granted to Junior Hindi Translator, Senior Hindi Translator and Assistant Director (OL) notionally with effect from 1.1.1996 and with actual financial benefits with effect from 11.2.2003. It was further clarified that the upgraded pay scales approved by the Government are specific to the posts in CSOLS and cannot be extended to similarly designated posts elsewhere and in some departments if the same have been granted, those pay scales would be withdrawn.
9. Honable Supreme Court in case of Union of India and Anr. v. P.V. Hariharan (CA 7127/1993) 1997 SCC (L&S) 38 cautioned the Tribunals in interfering with the pay scales since it was a serious matter and has a cascading effect on several other categories. Honable Court made the following observation:
Before parting with the appeals we feel to impelled to make a few observations. Over the past few weeks, we have come across several matters decided by Administrative Tribunal on the question of pay scales. We have noticed that quite often the Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated as well as those situated as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realize that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission which goes in to the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue very often, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, is also being misunderstood and misapplied freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunals will exercise due restraint in the matter.
10. The Supreme Court in Secretary, Finance Department and Ors. v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Ors. has succinctly laid down the parameters for interference of the court in such matters:
We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the pay commissions etc. But that is not to say that the court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction. Courts must, however, realize that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability of the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalization of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g. (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employeres capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasize that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the judicial secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the sub-registrars to the second (state) pay commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the registration service before him in his capacity as the chairman of the third (state) pay commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and courts interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.
11. Referring to the above judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association has observed as under:
10. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the state government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the state government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the state government. In the context of complex nature of issues involved, the far reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration of the state government courts have taken the view that ordinarily courts should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the government. The courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed by the government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be given to the state government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the government to implement the same.
12. The principles of law enunciated in the above cited judgments clearly laid down that the Tribunal may interfere in the claim of pay scale only if there was hostile discrimination between two equal individual or class.
13. The thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that earlier the applicants had filed OA for parity in the pay scale with the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators working in the Armed Forces Headquarters who were granted the higher pay scale, which was applicable to the Junior Hindi Translators working in subordinate Departments. The pay scale of the applicants and the Translators working in CSOLS was equal but upgradation of the pay scales of CSOLS again created a disparity without any justifiable reason.
14. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made and the earlier judgments of this Tribunal cited. The Full Bench of this Tribunal in M.V.R. Rao and Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. (Supra) has held that there may be difference in the pay scales of the Stenographers/Assistants working in the Central Secretariat Services and those working in the subordinate offices. In the present case, the order of upgradation of the pay scales of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators and Assistant Director (OL) working in CSOLS has been issued with a clear direction that those pay scales are specific to the posts of CSOLS and cannot be extended to similarly designated posts elsewhere. The Government, as such, has taken a conscious decision of the upgradation of the pay scales of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators in CSOLS only and had not granted the benefit to similarly designated posts in the other departments. Unless we have a clear and cogent material available before us that it amounted to a hostile discrimination with the present applicants, we would not be able to interfere with the order in exercise of judicial review. There can be discrimination in pay scale on intelligible differentia. In the present case the pay scale has been revised/upgraded only of the Hindi Translators working in CSOLS and not others. CSOLS is a Central Secretariat Service. Therefore, the Hindi Translators working in CSOLS forms a class apart. The applicants, who had been working on similar posts in other departments including the Central Board of Excise and Customs, simply because of similar designation, could not be extended the benefit of the said upgradation. They may be performing duties of similar nature, i.e. same as of Hindi Translators working in CSOLS, but that by itself is not enough to grant them upgradation. Take example of an State employee/State Administrative Service Officers working as Executive Magistrate or a Deputy Collector. He draw his pay in the pay scale of his State service. He cannot claim parity in the matter of pay scale with an Officer of the Indian Administrative Service who has also been working as Deputy/Executive Magistrate discharging exactly same duties and functions. The difference is on account of their service. In the present case, only CSOLS personnel have been granted the upgraded pay scale. The pay scales, which were granted to these personnel as per recommendation of the 5th CPC, were also granted to the applicants. Further upgradation of their pay scale would not automatically entitle these applicants to have those pay scales. Accordingly, we do not find that it is a case of hostile discrimination and the applicants should be granted the upgraded pay scale as have been granted to the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators of CSOLS vide OM dated 19.2.203 and 29.4.2004. Upgraded pay scale cannot be granted on the basis of the judgment in V.K. Sharma and Other's case (Supra).
15. The result of the above discussion is that the OA fails and is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.