Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
I.S. Dahiya vs Union Of India Through The on 2 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3732/2009 MA No.2635/2009 New Delhi this the --------2nd day of September, 2011. Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) 1. I.S. Dahiya, R/o 137, Lancer Road, New Delhi. 2. Nathi Singth S/o late Sh. Nanno Ram, R/o 878, Sect. 5, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 3. A.K. Jain, s/o late Sh. A.P. Jain, R/o T-3/8, Survey Colony, EC Road, Dehradun. 4. M.S. Kolata, S/o Sh. Daya Ram, H.NO. 83, Kailish Nagar, Ambala City. 5. Rohtash Singh, V&PO Jharsa, Gurgaon, Haryana. 6. Prem Singh S/o late Sh. Bihari Lal, R/o 209, Sidharth Vihar, Kandoli, Dehradun-248001. -Applicants (By Advocates Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj) -Versus- 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, Technolgoy Bhawan, New Mehrauli Marg, New Delhi. 2. The Surveyor General of India, Survey of India, Dehradun, Uttaranchal. 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, New Delhi. 5. The Secretary, M/o Finance (Department of Expenditure) North Block, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri Rajesh Katyal) O R D E R Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J):
MA No.2635/2009 for joining together in single application under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is allowed.
2. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicants have filed OA No.2122/2007 before this Tribunal which was decided on 9.9.2008 and the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the applicants in that OA and other applicant in OA-2123/2007 (Hemant Kumar Vashist) filed before the Principal Bench and another OA-54/2008 filed by P. Satyanarayana Reddy before the Hyderabad Bench, regarding upgradation of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to the posts of Assistant Store Officer (ASO), Store Assistants and Storekeeper in the Survey of India in pursuance of the recommendations of the Ad hoc Anomaly Committee.
3. The respondents vide impugned OM dated 4.3.2009 have passed a detailed order and rejected the representation of the applicants. Perusal of the impugned order shows that such decision was taken with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure dated 6.2.2009. It is this order, which is under challenge in this OA, whereby applicants have prayed that the impugned order dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure A-1) may be quashed and direction may be given to the respondents to grant to the applicants the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with all arrears of pay, along with interest.
4. It may be stated here that vide the aforesaid impugned order the competent authority has considered the case of various categories, such as ASO, Store Assistants, Storekeeper, etc. Here we are concerned with the category of ASO. The case projected by the applicants in this case is that the case of the applicants for grant of scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500 has not been considered by the respondents in right prospective, whereas in respect of the same category in some other departments the ASOs are being granted the higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. Further grievance projected by the applicants in this case is that despite repeated representations made by respondent No.2 and also by the Anomaly Committee for grant of pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 respondents by a cryptic order have rejected their claim without any basis. It is further argued that the post of ASO has been designated as Group B post and pursuant to the recommendations made by V Central Pay Commission all Group B posts have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000. As such the applicants should also have been granted at least the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 even in order to restore the vertical relativity within the cadre. According to the learned counsel of applicants, respondents while taking the decision has ignored these important aspects. Applicants have further argued that the matter regarding parity of pay scale has been examined in respect of the post of Ordnance Officer Civil (Stores) of IRDE, Ministry of Defence, whereas the case of applicants ought to have been examined in respect of the post in Atomic Energy etc.
5. On the contrary, the respondents have opposed the claim of applicants on the premise that V CPC has not recommended any specific pay scale for ASOs of Survey of India, therefore normal replacement pay scale, as recommended by the V CPC, i.e., Rs.5500-9000, was allowed to them. According to respondents, as per Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and Training notification No.13012/1/98-Estt.(D) dated 20.04.1998 the group B post is defined as a Central Civil post carrying a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of not less than Rs.9000 but less than Rs.13500. Thus, the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 can be granted to Group B post. Respondents have further stated that applicants are comparing the cadre of ASO with other cadres whose nature of duties, mode of recruitment, hierarchy, educational qualifications etc. are different. Further, according to the respondents it is not a case of anomaly. Respondents have also stated that the claim of similar pay scale as in other departments is not justified unless there is a wholesale identity on every parameter exists. Respondents have further stated that V CPC has recommended the pay scale of Rs.2500-4000 (revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000) for all Group B. Thus, according to the respondents applicants cannot base their claim that since the post of ASO has been designated as Group B they should also be granted the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000. Respondents have also placed reliance upon the following observation of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department and others v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153, which thus reads:
"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 verticle relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's 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 Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. Respondents have also placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.C. Chandra & others v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2008) 1 SCC 630.
6. Applicants have also filed rejoinder, thereby reiterating the averments made in the OA.
7. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the material placed on record. It may be stated here that the case of the applicants was considered by the respondents in the light of the direction given by this Tribunal in earlier OA-2122/2007, whereby the earlier impugned order dated 5.10.2006 was set aside and it was stated that it is not a case of anomaly and the respondents were directed to place the matter once-again before the Ministry of Finance, which shall consider the case of applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order upon their prayer for grant of higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. As already stated above, the matter of up-gradation of pay scale of ASO was once-again considered by the department. At this stage, it will be useful to quota paras 6.4 and 10 of the impugned order, which are relevant and thus read:
6.4 A comparative analysis between the Assistant Stores Officer of Survey of India and comparable posts in other Central Govt. Departments is reproduced below:
Post Parameter Post proposed to be upgraded Assistant Stores Officer (Group B-Gazetted) of Survey of India under DST to pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 Comparable Post-1 Stores Officer (Group B Gazetted) of Geological Survey of India (GSI) Min. of Mines in the revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 and Rs.7500-12000 Comparable Post-2 Ordnance Officer Civil (Stores) (Stores Officers-III & II (Group B Gazetted of IRDE, Ministry of Defence Rs.6500-10500 and Rs.7500-12000 1 2 3 4 Pre-revised pay scale Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900 Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500 Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500 Method of recruitment-Promotion or direct recruitment 50% posts by direct recruitment through UPSC. Rest 50% posts by promotion from Store Assistants through DPC. 50% posts by direct recruitment through UPSC. Rest 50% posts by promotion from Store Keeper Grade I through DPC. 25% posts by direct recruitment through ARB.
75% by promotion from Senior Store Superintendent through DPC.
Educational qualifications both for promotion and direct recruitment (separately) Direct recruitment Graduation + Diploma in material management and 3 years experience in procurement of surveying instruments etc. Promotion- B.Sc. (Maths) at the entry level and about 20 years experience storekeeping in feeder cadre. Direct recruitment Graduation + Diploma in material management and 3 years experience in procurement.
Promotion- B.Sc. (Maths) at the entry level and about 20 years experience storekeeping in feeder cadre. Direct recruitment Graduation+ Diploma in material management and 3 years experience in procurement.
Promotion- Matric at the entry level and about 20 years experience storekeeping in feeder cadre.
Promotional post and pay scale attached to such posts (both pre-revised/ revised) Deputy Stores Officer (Group A) (JTS) Pre-revised scale- Rs.2200-4000 Revised scale-Rs.8000-13500 Deputy Controller of Stores (Group A) (STS) Pre-revised scale Rs.3000-4500 Revised scale Rs.10000-15200 Civilian Staff Officer (Stores) (Group A) (STS) Pre-revised scale-Rs.3000-4500 Revised scale Rs.10000-15200 Feeder post and pay scale attached to such post (both pre-revised/ revised) Stores Assistant (Division) (Grade I) Pre-revised scale Rs.1350-2200 Revised scale Rs.5000-8000 Stores Keeper Grade I Pre-revised scale-Rs.1400-2300.
Revised scale Rs.5000-8000 Stores Superin-tendent Pre-revised scale Rs.1400-2300.
Revised scale Rs.5000-8000.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 10. Keeping in view the comparative analysis as brought out in Tables at para 6.4, 7.2 and 8.1 and on careful examination of the matter relating to upgradation of the pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.96 attached to the posts of Assistant Stores Officer (From Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500), Store Assistant (from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.5500-9000) and Store Keeper (from Rs.4500-7000 to Rs.5000-8000) keeping in view the recommendations of the Ad-hoc Anomaly Committee of this Department and in pursuance of directions of different benches of Honble CAT the Government find that:-
Assistant Stores Officer (ASO)
(i) It has been indicated that since the post of ASO is a gazetted post, the same should be placed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. It is, however observed that even prior to implementation of recommendations of the 5th CPC, the post was placed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. There has not been any change in the status of the post as a result acceptance of the recommendations of the 5th CPC. Thus, no anomaly has arisen as a result of implementation of recommendations of the 5th CPC and, therefore, it would not strictly fall within the purview of the anomaly committee. The post cannot be upgraded simply for the reason that the same had been categorized as a gazetted post at some point of time.
(ii) In so far as comparison of with the post of Assistant Store Officer with the post of Stores Officer in Geological Survey of India (GSI), Ministry of Mines and with the post of Ordnance Officer Civil (Stores) of IRDE, Ministry of Defence, it may be seen that the post of ASO in S&T was in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 (corresponding to Rs.5500-9000) while the post of Stores Officer in GSI and the post of Ordnance Officer Civil (Stores) of IRDE, Ministry of Defence was in pre-revised scale of Rs.2000-3500/- (Corresponding to Rs.6500-10500). Therefore, the posts of Stores Officer in GSI and Ordnance Officer Civil (Stores) of IRDE, Ministry of Defence were in the higher scale of pay even prior to implementation of recommendations of 5th Pay Commission. Moreover, their hierarchy is also different. The promotional posts of Stores Officer in GSI and the Ordnance Officer Civil (Stores) of IRDE are in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 (corresponding to Rs.10,000-15200) while the promotional post of ASO in S&T i.e. Deputy Store Keeper is in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 (corresponding to Rs.8000-13500). Therefore, the wholesale parity is not established between the post of ASO in S&T vis-`-vis the Stores Officer in GSI and Ordnance Officer Civil (Stores) of IRDE.
8. Thus, as can be seen from the portion as quoted above, the reasons which weighed with the department in not granting the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 to the applicants are (i) that even prior to the implementation of the recommendations of the V CPC the post of ASO was placed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and there is no change in the status of the post, as a result of the acceptance of the recommendations of the V CPC, (ii) that the higher pay scale cannot be granted on the premise that post stands upgraded and categorized as a gazetted post at some point of time, (iii) the post of ASO in the S&T was in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, corresponding to Rs.5500-9000 while the post of ASO in S&T i.e.. Deputy Stores Officer is in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 (corresponding to Rs.8000-13500). Thus, according to the respondents the post of Stores Officer in GSI and Ordnance Officer Civil (Stores) of IRDE, Ministry of Defence were in higher pay scales even prior to the implementation of the recommendations of the V CPC. Thus, according to the respondents no parity can be given, (iv) there is hierarchical difference also. The promotional posts of Stores Officer in GSI and the Ordnance Officer Civil (Stores) of IRDE are in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 (corresponding to Rs.10,000-15200) while the promotional post of ASO in S&T i.e. Deputy Store Keeper is in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 (corresponding to Rs.8000-13500). Therefore, the wholesale parity is not established between the post of ASO in S&T vis-`-vis the Stores Officer in GSI and Ordnance Officer Civil (Stores) of IRDE.
9. As already stated above, this decision was taken by the respondents after taking into consideration the concurrence of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. This, in view of the factual position where the wholesale parity has not been established between the posts of the applicants and corresponding posts in other departments, the question which is required to be considered by us is whether direction can be issued to the respondents to extend the higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 to the applicants?
10. At the outset it may be relevant to state here that the Apex Court has considerably water-down the principle of equal pay for equal work and this principle has hardly ever been applied in the recent decisions. Further the Apex Court in the case of S.C. Chandra & others v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897 has held that fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter, which is for the executive to discharge. It was further observed that granting of pay parity by the Court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences. It was further held that:
Two groups of employees may be doing the same work, yet they may be given different pay scales if the educational qualifications are different. Also, pay scale can be different if the nature of jobs, responsibilities, experience, method of recruitment, etc. are different. Thus, in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj it was held that the principle can only apply if there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. Even if the employees in the two groups are doing identical work they cannot be granted equal pay if there is no complete and wholesale identity e.g. a daily-rated employee may be doing the same work as a regular employee, yet he cannot be granted the same pay scale. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because nature of work is same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience & other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply.
11. That apart, parity cannot be claimed on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay, as contended by the applicant. The issue was considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and another v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and others, (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 1, and it was held that equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It is dependent on various factors such as educational qualifications, nature of jobs, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment, etc. Comparison merely based on designation of posts is misconceived. The principles relating to granting higher scale of pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work are well settled. The evaluation of duties and responsibilities of different posts and determination of the pay scales applicable to such posts and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities are complex executive functions, to be carried out by expert bodies. Granting parity in pay scale depends upon comparative job evaluation and equation of posts. The burden to prove disparity is on the employees claiming parity. Courts should approach such matters with restrain and interfere only if they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees.
12. If the matter is viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the recent trend of the Apex Court, whereby the earlier decisions have been considerably diluted, we are of the view that the applicants have not made out any case for grant of relief, as it is not a case of wholesale parity. Simply on the ground that the post of ASO has been designated in Group B gazetted at some point of time and also that the matter was regarding higher pay scale was being recommended by the official department as well as by the Anomaly Committee, the upgraded pay scale cannot be granted to the applicants.
13. Learned counsel of applicants have also placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of Delhi in UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association through Swapan Deb & Anr., (Writ Petition (C) No.1006/2008, decided on 02.08.2010. We fail to understand how the applicants can take any assistance from that judgment. That was a case where to meet the functional requirements, two cadres were created. First was in construction, electrical and engineering discipline and the second was in group B gazetted posts in the disciplines of construction, electrical and engineering were created and the officers were designated as junior design officers (JDO). The second division was armament in which posts designated as civilian technical officers (CTO Design) were created. Since inception both the cadres were placed in the same pay scale till the acceptance of implementation of the recommendations of the V CPC w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Whereas the CTO was placed in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 and that of JDO was in the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500. It was in the light of these facts that the High Court of Delhi held that since the inception of the cadre and till the recommendations of the V CPC were enforced, both posts were in the same scale of pay and it is not the case of the petitioner that a wrong had been committed in the past which required to be undone vis-`-vis the post of CTO. The twin reason of there being parity in the scale of pay in the past which now has been violated in sum of Rs.50/- only for which marginal difference no reasons are forthcoming, one is led to the conclusion that an insidious discrimination has ensued. It was in the light to this factual background that the High Court has directed to maintain parity in the pay scale. It is not a case of such nature.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the present OA is bereft of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Smt. Manjulika Gautam) (M.L. Chauhan) Member (A) Member (J) San.