Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mahaveer Tripathi vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 24 July, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi T.A.No.353/2009 Friday, this the 24th day of July 2009 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) 1. Mahaveer Tripathi working as Sr. Hindi Translator in AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 2. Rajender Prasad Kaushik working as Sr. Hindi Translator in AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 3. Smt. Anita Rai working as Jr. Hindi Translator in AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 4. Pramod Kumar working as Jr. Hindi Translator in AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 5. Smt. Prem Lata working as Jr. Hindi Translator in AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 6. Ku. Laxmi Rawat working as Jr. Hindi Translator in AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 7. Vijay Kumar working as Jr. Hindi Translator in AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 8. P.S. Tomar working as Hindi Translator in AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi ..Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus 1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences through the Director Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 2. The Senior Administrative Officer All India Institute of Medical Sciences Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 3. The Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Govt. of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 4. The Secretary Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Sanjeev Joshi for Shri Mukul Gupta for respondents 1 & 2 - None for respondents 3 & 4) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
In the matter of equal pay for equal work, if there is no distinct feature, non-application would be against the law, as ruled by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dineshan K.K., AIR 2008 SC 1026. Also held by the Division Bench of High Court in Union of India & others v. Mohinder Singh & others, (2008) 1 SLJ (HC) 131 that similarly placed employees should get similar treatment in the matter of pay. Recently the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar & others, 2008 (9) SCALE 557 ruled that equal pay for equal work is to be applied when identical duties are performed.
2. Equality in the matter of pay may not be a fundamental right but it is one of the Directive Principles enshrined under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
3. In the above backdrop, it is no more res integra that Ministry of Health, which is the cadre controlling authority, after comparing the duties and all other functional requirements of Hindi Translator cadre in AIIMS with others in the Department of Official Language, has sent a proposal to the Ministry of Finance for revision of pay scales of Rs.4500-7000 and Rs.5000-8000. The aforesaid proposal has been turned down by the Ministry of Finance only on the ground that as the 6th Central Pay Commission is in vogue, a decade old issue cannot be taken up. This has been communicated to the applicants by the respondents on 20.3.2006 (Annexure P-1).
4. Learned proxy counsel appearing for AIIMS vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that in the matter of grant of benefits, which are not to be extended automatically to the employees of autonomous bodies, the same can be extended only if the post is comparable to similar posts in Ministries / Departments in terms of Recruitment Rules.
5. It is further argued on behalf of AIIMS that the post of Junior Translator in AIIMS is not comparable to similar posts in Ministries / Departments.
6. Learned proxy counsel for respondents-AIIMS places reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in State of Orissa & others v. Balaram Sahu & others (2003) 1 SCC 250 and Union of India & another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar, AIR 2008 SC 435 to contend that equivalence in pay demands on several factors and two unequals cannot be treated equally.
7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material placed on record.
8. A shifting stand or a contradictory stand by the respondents, more particularly when Ministry of Health, after comparing the functional requirements of the post in AIIMS with other comparable posts, when arrived at a conclusion that when they performed equal work and when the rejection of the request of the applicants does not contain any observation as to the applicants being unequal to others, a presumption in law has to be drawn that the applicants are performing the same functions, insofar as the grant of pay scales recommended by 6th CPC to the employees of autonomous bodies are concerned.
9. We found on record an order passed by the respondents dated 24.2.1998 where Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has extended to the employees of NIHFW the pay scales, which clearly shows that there has been a discrimination for extending the pay scale recommended by 6th CPC to AIIMS to the applicants herein.
10. In Dr. Manju Vatsa v. The Director, AIIMS & another (WP (C) No.3005/2008) decided on 28.8.2008, a similar controversy as to grant of pay scales when raised before the High Court, Regulation 35 of the AIIMS Regulations, 1999 has been relied upon to hold that there can be no reasons as to petitioner therein working as Principal, Nursing College, AIIMS should not get the same benefit in relation to grant of pay scale recommended by 6th CPC when it is extended to her contemporary working Principal in other colleges. As we find that on comparison it has been found that applicants are discharging the identical duties with their counterparts, this finding when not objected to by the Ministry of Finance, the only reason to deny that the grant of pay scale after 6th CPC has been constituted after a decade would not be reasonable and justified ground to reject the request of the applicants.
11. In the result, TA stands allowed. Respondents are directed to upgrade the benefits of pay scale to the applicants in the entire Hindi Translator cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1996 along with arrears. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/