Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Om Kumar vs M/O Defence on 15 January, 2024
1
OA No. 3019/2018
(C-IV, item -61)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3019/2018
This the 15th day of January, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
1. Shri Omkumar, Washerman, (Aged about 51 years), S/o
Late Shri Prakash, R/o A-71, Nai Basti Kondli, Delhi-
110096.
2. Shri Neki Ram, Washerman (Aged about 48 years), S/o
Late Shri Prakash, R/o A-71, Nai Basti Kondli, Delhi-
110096.
3. Shri Rattan Lal, Washerman, (Aged about 52 years), S/o
Sh. Punni Lal, R/o A1B/94, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
4. Shri Bisember Dayal, Washerman, (Aged about 52
years), S/o Late Sh. Janki Parsad, R/o 35/12, New CVD
Line, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi-10.
5. Shri Shanker Kumar, Washerman, (Aged about 49
years), S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal, R/o A-23, Shah Vihar,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110059.
6. Shri Rajan Singh, Washerman, (Aged about 56 years),
S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal, R/o RZ-68/B, Gali No.1, Madhu
Vihar, New Delhi-110059.
7. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Washerman, (Aged about 54 years),
S/o Late Sh. Manna Lal, R/o 44/1, CVD Line, Sadar Bazar,
New Delhi-110010.
8. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Washerman, (Aged about 54 years),
S/o Sh. Hemchand, R/o RZ G 32, Gali No.1, Sitapuri, Part
II, New Delhi-110045.
9. Shri Jawahar Lal, Washerman, (Aged about 58 years),
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal, R/o H.No.4759, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi-110033.
2
OA No. 3019/2018
(C-IV, item -61)
10. Shri Ashok Kumar, Washerman, (Aged about 51 years),
S/o Late Chunni Lal, R/o 35/2, New CVD Line, Sadar
Bazar, New Delhi-110010.
11. Shri Subhash Chandi, Washerman, (Aged about 38
years), S/o Om Prakash, R/o New K4/4185, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut.
12. Shri Sukhbir Singh, Washerman, (Aged about 38
years), S/o Late Sh. Mangat Ram, R/o Village Saidpur,
District Gurgaon Tasilpur, Faruk Nagar, Haryana.
13. Shri Nurain Baitha, Washerman, (Aged about 49 years),
S/o Sh. Vikhi Baitha, R/o RZ-131A/253 Gali No.2,
Jugdamba Vihar, West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046.
14. Shri Kartulain Baitha, Washerman, (Aged about 56
years), S/o Vikhi Baitha, R/o RZ 141/253 Gali No.2,
Gagdamba Vihar, West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046.
15. Shri Mangal Singh, Washerman, (Aged about 40 years)
S/o Sh. Fakir Chand, R/o 11 Masjid Lane, Jangpura
Bhogal, New Delhi-110014.
16. Smt. Laxmi Devi Yadav, Washerman, (Aged about 55
years), S/o Sh. Measi Singh, R/o H.No.26, Jandeal Colony,
Sharmalaka Than Ka Pass, Delhi-110037.
17. Shri Subhash Chand II, Washerman, (Aged about 50
years), S/o Shri Ram Parsad, R/o CB 283 Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi-110028.
18. Shri Anand Kumar, Washerman, (Aged about 53 years),
S/o Jai Ram, R/o H.No.P36/9, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi.
19. Shri Lal Chand, Washerman, (Aged about 50 years),
S/o Late Sh. Hare Jugan, R/o Vill-Huagpur, Tehl. Shona,
Distt. Guru Ghasan, Haryana.
20. Shri Madanlal, Washerman, (Aged about 50 years), S/o
Late Hera Lal, R/o P 35/3 CVD Line, Sadar Bazar, Delhi
Cantt.-10.
21. Shri Mukesh Kumar, Washerman, (Aged about 50
years), S/o Late Sh. Manna Lal, R/o B2C-Flat No.37B,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-58.
3
OA No. 3019/2018
(C-IV, item -61)
22. Shri Gopal Ram, Washerman, (Aged about 46 years),
S/o Late Sh. Kumar Ram, R/o T6/2 No.4, Poltry Form,
Delhi Cant.-10.
23. Shri Surender Pal, Barber, (Aged about 60 years), S/o
Late Sh. Rudmal, R/o, RZ-1144, Lohia Marg, Raj Nagar,
Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110067.
24. Shri Sayar Kumar, Barber, (Aged about 59 years S/o
Late Sh. Bansdhar, R/o H.No.3/1, Gali No.6, Raksha
Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Mohan Garden, New Delhi-110059.
25. Shri Kailash Chand Meena, Barber, (Aged about 50
years), S/o Late Sh. Mool Chand Meena, R/o Vill:-Patan
Baas, Teh: Reni, PO Patan, Distt. Alwar Rajasthan.
26. Shri Pawan Kumar Sain, Barber, (Aged about 41 years),
S/o Sh. Shiv Dayal, R/o Vill. Narayanpur, P.O.Narayanpur,
Teh: Thanagaaji, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan).
27. Shri Bhawani Shankar, Barber, (Aged about 39 years),
S/o Sh. Satya Narain, R/o RZ-295 M, Raj Nagar Part-I, Gali
No.6, Palam Colony, New Delh-110077.
28. Shri Deepak Karoliya, Barber, (Aged about 40 years)
S/o Late Sh. Rattan Lal, R/o P-88/8, Base Hospital, Delhi
Cantt.-10.
29. Shri Puran Bahadur, Barber, (Aged about 36 years),
S/o Sh. Dalahadur, R/o 03 Polo Road, Delhi Cantt.-10.
30. Shri Shankur Thakur Barber, (Aged about 48 years),
S/o Late Sh. Devilal, R/o PN Mess Qtr-87/3, Base
Hospital, Delhi Cantt.-10.
31. Shri Kishan Dass, Barber, (Aged about 47 years), S/o
Sh. Bhartu Ram, R/o Plot No.-C2/73, Nangli Vihar Extn.,
Baaprola, New Delhi-110043.
32. Shri Radhey Shyam, Barber (Aged about 47 years), S/o
Late Sh. Kahiya Lal, R/o Kabul Line, Sadar Bazar, Delhi
Cant.-10.
4
OA No. 3019/2018
(C-IV, item -61)
33. Shri Harpreet Jaiswal, Barber, (Aged About 40 years).
S/o Late Sh. Chotte Lal, R/o WZ-1101/A, Sadh Nagar, Gali
No.12, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045.
34. Narender Kumar, Barber, (Aged about 30 years), S/o
Sh. Hari Singh, R/o P-26/12 APS Colony, Delhi Cantt.-10.
35. Shri Prahlad Thakur, Barber, (Aged about 30 years),
S/o Late Sh. Ram Lal Thakur, R/o P-25/14, APS Colony,
Delhi Cantt.-10.
36. Shri Surender Kumar, Barber, (Aged about 50 years),
S/o Late Sh. Phool Singh, R/o WZ-1101/A,
Sadh Nagar, Gali No. 12,
Palam Colony, New Delhi - 110045.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India Through The Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defense, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Directorate General of Medical Services (Army).
Adjutant General's Branch, Integrated Head Quarter of
MOD (Army). L-Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Commandant, Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt-10.
4. The Commandant, ASDC, Rao Tula Ram Marg, Delhi
Cantt-110010.
5. The Director (Admn.). Army R&R Hospital, 11, Dhaula
Kuan, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi-110010
6. The Commandant, 1, CBPO, C/o 56 APO Rao Tula Ram
Marg, Delhi Cantt-10.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S. N. Verma)
5
OA No. 3019/2018
(C-IV, item -61)
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A):
The applicants herein are variously posted as Washerman/Barber in the Directorate General of Medical Service (DGMS) of the Indian Army. Their grievance is that benefit of appropriate scale of pay has not been extended in their favour. Ventilating their grievance, they seek the following reliefs:
"(i) To quash and set aside impugned office order No. B/72750/Pay Scale/Washermen/DGMS-3B dated 23.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.
2.
(ii) To direct the respondents to fix the pay of the applicants at par with their counterparts in Delhi Police and further at par with the Cooks employed in different units of the Respondent themselves, with all consequential benefits and arrear thereof.
(iii) To allow the OA with cost.
(iv) Such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit an proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case may please also be passed."
2. Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicants, briefly takes us through the history and background of the case and submits that all through, till the recommendations of the 6th CPC, the pay scale awarded to the Washerman/Barber of DGMS have been equal to the pay and allowances awarded to identical categories of employees in Delhi Police. For the reasons not known, neither stated, this historical parity was disturbed 6 OA No. 3019/2018 (C-IV, item -61) in the 6th CPC, resulting in a lower scale of pay and allowances to the present applicants and their counterparts vis-a-vis similarly placed persons in the Delhi Police. This disturbance of the parity is violative of the principles of equity, as also equality, and further it amounts to gross discrimination. The principle of equal pay for equal work is enshrined in service jurisprudence and by denying the applicants their claim, the respondents are acting against this principle, he argues. He goes on to submit that the applicants had preferred a comprehensive representation (Annexure A-2) to the Competent Authority but the same has been rejected through a cryptic and non-speaking order which cannot sustain in the eyes of the law. Therefore, learned counsel argues, the present OA be allowed by way of directing the respondents to refix the pay and allowances of the applicants at par with their counterparts in Delhi Police w.e.f. the date recommendations of 6th CPC were implemented and further the consequential benefits, including arrears, be allowed in their favour.
3. Mr. S. N. Verma, learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel, drawing support from the counter affidavit, strongly opposes the OA and arguments extended by the 7 OA No. 3019/2018 (C-IV, item -61) learned counsel for the applicants. He submits that it can be no ones case that pay and allowances should be awarded to him over and above what is stipulated in the relevant notification and recruitment rules, and the recommendation of the respective Pay Commission as adopted and notified by the Government. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the applicants are being awarded pay and allowances in accordance with what has been notified for their posts and is strictly in accordance with the rules. The pay and allowances are integral part of the service conditions and there is not even a whisper that any of the conditions have been violated. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Mr. Verma argues, is limited to the adjudication of service matters and this jurisdiction cannot be extended to determine and award particular pay scale to any set of employees. He further explains that DGMS and Delhi Police are two distinct organizations under two separate Governments. Further, their charter of duties is also different, even though the nomenclature of the post may be the same. The parity which is being sought by the applicants is beyond the scope of consideration as there is no parallel between the two organisations, he argues. 8 OA No. 3019/2018 (C-IV, item -61)
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length. We are not convinced that the applicants herein can claim parity in terms of pay scale on the analogy of the personnel of Delhi Police. By no stretch of imagination can any parallel be drawn between the two organizations. The conditions of service are also determined by the relevant recruitment rules. In the instant case, the category of the present employees and the organization is governed by its own set of recruitment rules. The Delhi Police is an organization of Govt. of NCT of Delhi even though it may be under the control of Ministry of Home Affairs whereas the applicants herein are part of the Indian Armed Force. Moreover, the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work is also not applicable in this case as the duties assigned to the personnel of Directorate General of Medical Services of the Indian Army and that of personnel of Delhi Police are not comparable. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.05.2018 vide which the claim of the applicants has been rejected. However, we do take note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that as far as Cooks employed in the different units of Directorate General of Medical Services are concerned, there has been a historical 9 OA No. 3019/2018 (C-IV, item -61) partiy which has continued since the inception of Directorate General of Medical Services between the Cooks and the Washerman and Barbers. It is only during March, 2001 that this parity was disturbed and Cooks were awarded a higher grade pay of Rs. 1900/- to the detriment of the present applicants who remained in the grade pay of Rs. 1800/-.
5. While appreciating that the applicants are nursing a genuine grievance, we are also conscious of the confines of our jurisdiction. We cannot appropriate the role and authority of policy making to decide the pay and allowances which the various categories of employees are entitled to. We can only take note of the parity which has been disturbed. Thus, we only recognise that the applicants nurse a grievance of discrimination against them and expect the respondents to rectify it.
6. Without interfering with the impugned order, we dispose of the present OA with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents that should the applicants prefer a fresh representation expressing their grievances/demands with respect to their pay and allowances, the competent authority shall give due 10 OA No. 3019/2018 (C-IV, item -61) consideration to the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with the rules, instructions and policy governing the subject and communicate the decision so taken to the applicants by way of a reasoned communication.
7. Before parting with this OA, we make it clear that besides the limited directions given above, nothing should be construed as our opinion on the merits of the claim of the applicants. No costs.
(Manish Garg) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/as/