Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Sanjay Kumar Joshi vs M/O Finance on 23 February, 2021
1 OA No.200/701/2020
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/701/2020
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 23rd day of February, 2021
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. NAINI JAYASEELAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Sanjay Kumar Joshi, Date of Birth - 20.06.1966, S/o Shri Shankar Vitthal Rao
Joshi, Occupation - Administrative Officer, Grade - II, R/o 18, Satyanand Vihar
Colony, Rampur, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482008, Mobile - 9406717577.
2. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Date of Birth - 15.06.1966, S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal
Gupta, Occupation - Income Tax Officer, Jabalpur, R/o 746/5, Vijay Nagar, Near
SBI Zonal Office, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482002, Mobile - 9406717617.
3. Rajendra Kumar Das, Date of Birth - 26.05.1964, S/o Late Shri Rangadhar
Das, Occupation - Income Tax Officer, R/o 917, Sanjeevani Nagar, Garha,
Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482003, Mobile - 9406717576.
4. T.V. Chacko, Date of Birth - 30.07.1967, S/o Shri T.C. Varghese, Occupation
- Inspector, R/o A-121, Priyadarshani Colony, Dumna Road, Jabalpur (M.P.) -
482001, Mobile - 9406717612.
-Applicants
(By Advocate - Shri Vijay Tripathi)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New
Delhi - 110001.
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -
110001.
3. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), (MP & CG), Central
Revenue Bldg, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) - 462011.
Page 1 of 11
2 OA No.200/701/2020
4. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Central Revenue Bldg, Napier
Town, Jabalpur (M.P) - 482008.
5. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Rc AC (AU) - I, Central Revenue
Bldg, Napier Town, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482008
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Sanjay Lal)
(Date of reserving order : 09.01.2021)
ORDER
By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM.
The applicants are aggrieved by orders at Annexure A-1, A-2 and A-3 whereby pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 granted to them w.e.f. date of joining as Data Entry Operator (DEO) Grade-A has been withdrawn.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants were appointed as DEOs vide order dated 17.04.1989. All the applicants were graduate at the time of appointment and fulfill the qualification prescribed under the rules. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.12.1993 (Annexure A-9), the cadre of Data Entry Operator was restructured in four different pay scales viz; Data Entry Operator Grade-A (1150-1500), Data Entry Operator Grade-B (1350-2200), Data Entry Operator Grade-C (1400-2300) and Data Entry Operator Grade- D (1600-2660). The order dated 22.12.1993 (Annexure A-9) mentions that the existing DEOs will continue to draw pay in the pay scale of Rs.1200- 2040 as personal to them and will be redesignated as DEO Grade-A till they Page 2 of 11 3 OA No.200/701/2020 are appointed/promoted to the post of DEO Grade-B. It further mentions that all the DEOs appointed before the promulgation of Amendment Rules, 1988 on the basis of essential qualification of Graduate are entitled to draw pay in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 and re-designated as DEO Grade 'B'. 2.1 The applicants have joined the post of DEO after 01.01.1986 but before issuance of Office Memorandum dated 11.09.1989. In pursuance to the order dated 08.09.1999 passed by the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in Original Application No.30/1997, whereby the persons appointed prior to 11.09.1989 as DEO Grade-A were granted the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200, the applicants also approached this Tribunal in Original Application No.850/2000, which was allowed vide order dated 22.03.2002 (Annexure A-10) directing the respondents to grant similar benefits to the applicants. Accordingly, the applicants were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 from the date of appointment i.e. 01.05.1989. However, they were not designated as DEO Grade-B. The applicants thereafter pursued their grievances to the respondent department, which ultimately vide Annexure A-11 dated 16.01.2006 rejected their claim for designation of DEO Grade 'B. Page 3 of 11 4 OA No.200/701/2020 2.2 The applicants feeling aggrieved by order dated 16.01.2006 (Annexure A-11) approached this Tribunal by filing Original Application No.84/2006, which was allowed vide order dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure A-12) directing the respondents to grant the applicants the designation of DEO Grade-B w.e.f. the date when they were granted pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 with all consequential benefits. The order of this Tribunal was also affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.3161/2008, decided on 12.01.2010. Accordingly, the respondents have issued an order dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure A-5) granting the applicants designation of DEO Grade 'B' w.e.f the date they joined as DEO.
2.3 The applicants submit that now after 10 years, the respondents have issued an order dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure A-1), whereby order dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure A-5) has been withdrawn without giving any opportunity to the applicants. Further, the respondents are withdrawing the order dated 29.10.2002 (Annexure A-6) whereby the applicants were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 and have decided to refix the pay of the applicants after 18 years of implementation of the said order. The applicants further submitted that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Page 4 of 11 5 OA No.200/701/2020 Civil Appeals No.10862-10867 of 2014 dated 09.12.2014 (Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao etc.), as referred in the impugned order dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure A-1), is not applicable as the issue therein relates to appointment in pay scale of Rs.950-1500, whereas applicants were appointed in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 with the qualification of Graduate.
3. The respondents have filed their short reply on 14.01.2021 and reply to the prayer of interim relief on 18.04.2021. In the short reply, it has been stated that as per the advertisement, the educational qualification for DEO was graduation with age limit of 25 years and 8000 key depressions per hour. Since eligible candidates were not available, the Recruitment Rules were modified to Matriculates up to the age of 30 years with speed of 8000 key depressions per hour. Thereafter, a third advertisement was issued on 23.07.1988 as per amended Recruitment Rules. As per the appointment orders filed by the applicants (Annexure A-8 collectively), they were appointed as DEO in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 vide order dated 17.04.1989, wherein it is mentioned that their selection was made on the basis of tests conducted in February, 1989. Thus, the tests were held as per Page 5 of 11 6 OA No.200/701/2020 the amended Recruitment Rules and amended advertisement dated 23.07.1988. The CBDT, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.05.1994 circulated the DEO Recruitment Rules, 1994 and it was directed that those DEOs (1200-2040) who were recruited prior to July 1988, when minimum educational qualification was Graduate, may be designated as DEO Grade- B and place in the scale of Rs.1350-2200 retrospectively w.e.f. 11.09.1989. It was also directed that no DEO, who was recruited from examination/test for which Matriculation was the prescribed minimum qualification is granted the higher scale of Rs.1350-2200 irrespective of whether he might be possessing Graduate or higher qualifications at the time of appointment. Further directions were issued that if any person has been erroneously granted pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 on the basis that he was Graduate at the time of recruitment, this mistake should be corrected immediately and such persons may be brought in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. Since the applicants were not appointed prior to July 1988, none of them were eligible for the scale of Rs.1350-2200 or designation of DEO Grade-B. It has also been submitted by the respondents that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10862-2014 and other connected appeals, has decided the similar issue and after considering the earlier decisions by the various Benches/Courts, Page 6 of 11 7 OA No.200/701/2020 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Data Entry Operators Grade-A are not entitled for scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or thereafter merely on the basis of their qualifications or for the fact that they have completed their period of requisite service. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that any decision rendered by any Tribunal or any High Court contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is wrong. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 09.12.2014, the impugned orders dated 22.09.2020 and 13.10.2020 are as per rules and law.
4. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants has placed on record the order passed by the Patna Bench of this Tribunal in Original Application No.050/00232/2020, decided on 27.01.2021 (Narendra Kumar Sinha vs. The Union of India & others). Learned counsel argued that the applicants are also similarly situated to that of before the Patna Bench and, therefore, they deserve identical relief.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
Page 7 of 11 8 OA No.200/701/2020
6. It is an admitted fact that the applicants were appointed on 17.04.1989 as DEO and on cadre restructuring, the applicants were re-designated as DEO Grade-A in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040. Subsequently, in view of the orders passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.850/2000 dated 22.03.2002, the applicants were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1350- 2200 vide order dated 29.10.2002 (Annexure A-6) w.e.f. the date of joining as DEO Grade-A. It is also admitted fact that the applicants were designated as DEO Grade-B vide order dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure A-5) w.e.f the date they joined as DEO, in pursuance to the order passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.84/2006, which was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.3161/2008, decided on 12.04.2010. It is the case of the applicants that respondents have since implemented the orders passed by this Tribunal, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the pay scale of DEO Grade-B cannot be withdrawn at this stage by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjuna Rao (supra).
7. We find that the issue in hand is identical to that of Mallikarjuna Rao (supra), where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the DEO Grade-B is a Page 8 of 11 9 OA No.200/701/2020 promotional post from DEO Grade-A and merely on the basis of having qualification of Graduate cannot entitle the DEO Grade-A for scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 or thereafter. The relevant paragraph of the judgment read as under:
"23. Prior to 1986 there were in existence two grades of operators viz. Junior Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs 260-400 and Senior Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs 350-
560. The pay scales of all these posts were revised to Rs 950- 1500 and Rs 1200-2040, respectively w.e.f. 1-1-1986 pursuant to the recommendation made by the Fourth Pay Commission. These posts came to be redesignated as Data Entry Operator, Grade A and Data Entry Operator, Grade B in the scale of Rs 1150-1500 and Rs 1350-2200, respectively pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 11-9-1989 whereby the Electronic Data Processing posts have been reorganised.
xxx xxx xxx
26. The classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. There may be more grades than one in a particular service.
27. The Government on consideration of the report submitted by the Committee issued Office Memorandum dated 11-9-1989 prescribing therein different pay scales and different grades of Data Entry Operators besides the mode and manner of recruitment to and qualifications for each entry grade post as well as eligibility and experience for promotional grades. The Court or the Tribunal, in our opinion, would be exceeding its power of judicial review if it sits in appeal over the decision of Page 9 of 11 10 OA No.200/701/2020 the executive in the matter of prescribing the pay structure unless it is shown to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Difference in pay scales based on educational qualifications, nature of job, responsibility, accountability, qualification, experience and manner of recruitment does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
xxx xxx xxx
32. In view of the findings recorded above we hold that the Data Entry Operators Grade A are not entitled for scale of pay of Rs 1350-2200 w.e.f. 1-1-1986 or thereafter merely on the basis of their qualifications or for the fact that they have completed their period of requisite service. We further hold that any decision rendered by any Tribunal or any High Court contrary to our decision is wrong. Further in view of the reasons and findings recorded above while we hold that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit as they sought for before the Tribunal or the High Court, all the impugned orders passed by the CAT Benches and the High Courts in favour of the respondents being illegal are set aside."
8. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Patna in the case of Narendra Kumar Sinha (supra) has dealt with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and has allowed the Original Application in favour of the applicant. Since, the applicants were also not the party before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the case of Mallikarjuna Rao (supra) is not applicable in the case of the applicants, which is entirely different from the case of Mallikarjuna Rao (supra). However, we are of the view that since the question relating to rationalisation of pay scales of Page 10 of 11 11 OA No.200/701/2020 Electronics Data Processing posts/DEOs in different departments of Ministries of the Government of India has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mallikarjuna Rao (supra), we cannot differ from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has the effect of binding precedence, irrespective of the fact that the applicants were not party before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. In the result, we do not find any irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Naini Jayaseelan) (Ramesh Singh Thakur)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 11 of 11