Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Jaiveer Singh vs Union Of India Through on 7 July, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3148/2012 MA-2638/2012 MA-2639/2012 Reserved on : 03.07.2014.
Pronounced on :07.07.2014.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
1. Dr. Jaiveer Singh, S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh, R/o H.No. 185, 2nd Floor, Surya Niketan, Delhi-92.
2. Dr. Virendra Singh Yadav, S/o Sh. C.S. Yadav, R/o 3/152, Sec.2, Rajendra Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad(UP).
3. Mr. Gaurav Vishnu, S/o late Sh. Shyam Vishnu, R/o 5K/104, NIT, Faridabad.
4. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh, S/o Sh. Harihar Singh, R/o H.No. 60, Type-III, Old Central Govt. Colony, NH-4, Faridabad.
5. Dr. Raja Ram Saini, S/o Sh. Chhaju Ram Saini, R/o H.No.02, Type-III, Old Central Govt. Colony, NH-4, Faridabad.
6. Mr. Anuj Kumar Upadhyay, S/o Sh. V.S. Upadhyay, R/o H.No. 451, Sector-21, B, Faridabad.
7. Sh. Hari Charan Mehto, S/o Sh. Paltan Mehto, R/o DDA Flat No. 321, Sector-B-4, Packet-1, Narela.
8. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Kaul, S/o Sh. Bansi Lal Kaul, R/o 37/1, Lane 23, Tawi Vihar, Sidhra, Jammu (J&K).
9. Mr. Satvir Singh, S/o late Sh. Karnail Singh, R/o H.No. 9801, Joshi Nagar, Habbowal Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab.
10. Mr. Sanjay Mehra, S/o late Sh. Shiv Raj Mehra, R/o 253, Avtar Avenue, Exide Power Colony, Mujitha Road, Amritsar, Punjab.
11. Dr. Uma Shankar Shukla, S/o late Sh. P.P. Shukla, R/o H.No. 106, Type-3, Kendrachal Colony, Sector-K, Aliganj, Lucknow (UP).
12. Mr. Saiyed Iqbal Hussain, S/o late Sh. S. Ahmed Hussain, R/o H.No. 521, Type-III, K.A. Bada, Chand Ganj, Lucknow (UP).
13. Dr. Nahar Pal Singh, S/o Sh. R.P. Singh, R/o H.No.42, Type-III, Sector-K, Ali Ganj, Lucknow (UP).
14. Mr. P.B. Girdhar, S/o Sh. Mulk Raj Girdhar, R/o 65/5, Plot No.7, K.K. Govind Nagar, Kanpur (UP).
15. Mr. Achhey Lal Maurya, S/o Sh. Ramfer Maurya, R/o 33, Anand Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
16. Mr. Akshay Yakub, S/o Sh. A. Yakub, R/o F-167, Aakriti Eco City, E-8-Estension, Bhopal(MP).
17. Dr. Madhur Prakash Verma, S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Verma, R/o Q.No. 34, Sector-2, Nirman Vihar, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur(Rajasthan).
18. Mr. Ramesh Chand Meena, S/o Sh. Amba Lal Meena, R/o Q.No. 26, Type-III, Nirman Vihar-III, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Sector-3, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
19. Mr. Tapas Bhattacharya, S/o Sh. Tarabal Bhattacharya, R/o Flat No. 301, Lachhit Nagar, Annapurna Palace, Guwahati (Assam).
20. Mr. Gautam Chakraborty, S/o late Sh. R.N. Chakraborty, R/o H.No. 461, Bagharbori, Post Office-Panjabari, Guwahati-37 (Assam).
21. Mr. Prakash B. Babannvar, S/o Sh. Bharamappa Babannvar, R/o A/901, Amrut Park Bldg. No.7, Near Khadakpada Circle, Kalyan (W), Distt. Thane, (Maharashtra)-421 301.
22. Mr. Harish Katam, S/o late Sh. K. Veera Brahaman, R/o 283, Sh. Venkateshwara Temple Road, Swaroop Nagar, Balaji Enclave, Uppal, Hyderabad-39(AP).
23. Mr. Dayanand Venkataraman Naik, S/o Sh. Venkataraman Naik, R/o Flat No. C-16, JBM Colony, Coast Fatorarda, Margao, Goa.
24. Dr. Anil Kumar Gehlot, S/o late Sh. Mool Chand Gehlot, R/o H.No. 9, Type-III, Kendranchal, Jam Tower, Rajkot, Gujarat. . Applicants (through Sh. D.S. Chaudhary, Advocate) Versus
1. Union of India through The Secretary, Deptt. of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-5.
2. The Agriculture Marketing Advisor to the Govt. of India, Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Head Office, NH-4, Faridabad, Haryana.
3. The Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-1.
4. The Secretary, Deptt. of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi-1. . Respondents (through Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate) OR D E R Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) MA-2639/2012 This M.A. has been filed for granting permission to the applicants to join together and file a single O.A. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed. MA-2638/2012
2. This M.A. has been filed under Section-21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for condonation of delay in filing this O.A. The applicants have stated that they were actively pursuing their remedy with the respondents and delay of 202 days occurred on account of the fact that the applicants were located in different parts of the country and could not met on time. The respondents have not objected to the same. Accordingly, this M.A. is allowed and delay in filing this O.A. is condoned.
3. The applicants of this O.A. are Group-B Gazetted, Non-Ministerial officers of the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection (DMI) which is an attached office of the Department of Agricultural and Co-operation (DAC). They are working as Marketing Officers with different places of posting. They have stated that there are three types of Marketing Officers as given below:-
Group-I Officers under this category are recruited through UPSC with essential educational qualification of Masters degree in Agriculture or Botany or Agril Economics or Agricultural Marketing or Economics or Commerce with Economics. They are, inter alia, assigned the work of quality control of agricultural commodities.
Group-II Officers of this category are recruited through UPSC with essential qualification of Graduate in Veterinary Science. They are, inter alia, assigned with qualify control work of Meat and Meat Products of Animal origin.
Group-III Officers under this category are recruited through UPSC with essential educational qualification of Masters degree in Chemistry/Agriculture Chemistry/Dairy Chemistry/Dairying or Bachelors Degree in Oil Technology/Food Technology/Chemical Technology/Dairy Technology. They are, inter alia, assigned with the work of quality control of oil and fats.
3.1 According to the applicants all the marketing officers mentioned above have the same nature of work and perform the same type of duties in their assigned commodities or group of commodities or products. All the three categories were placed in the pay scale of Rs.650-1200 by 3rd Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1973. The 4th Central Pay Commission revised their scale to Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Further, the 5th Central Pay Commission revised their scale to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Further, the applicants have stated that their Recruitment Rules and other benefits were also same for all the three categories. However, respondent No.1 vide their order dated 21.02.2000 upgraded the pay scale of all Marketing Officers of Group-II category from Rs.6500-10500 to Rs. 8000-13500 whereas the Marketing Officers of the remaining two groups were retained in the same pay scale. Further, the Central Governments on the basis of recommendations of 6th CPC revised the aforesaid pay scale and assigned Pay Band-II with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 to Group-I and Group-III Marketing Officers (which was subsequently increased to Rs.4600) whereas Marketing Officers of Group-II were given PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.5400.
3.2 The applicants have further stated that the post of Assistants in Central Government was in the pre-revised scale of Rs.5500-9000. This was first merged with the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and then upgraded to Rs.7450-11500. In the revised pay scales the Assistants were given PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4600. Thus, they have been placed equal to the applicants despite the fact that the post of Assistant is a non-gazetted ministerial post and the duties performed by them are purely of clerical nature.
3.3 Further, the applicants have stated that under the MACP Scheme the respondents have allowed grade pay of Rs.4800 only to the applicants. They have thus got a benefit of Rs.200 p.m. only. On the other hand, under the ACP Scheme they were entitled to get higher pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 pre-revised corresponding to grade pay of Rs.5400 after 12 years of service. The applicants have also made a comparison with State Marketing Inspectors of Punjab, Haryana, Himchal Pradesh and Rajasthan as well as Income Tax Officers and Superintendents of Central Excise. They have stated that in 4th CPC they were equal to Marketing Officers. Before the recommendations of the 5th CPC became available, the pay scales of ITOs and Superintendents in Central Excise Department have been upgraded. The applicants have also stated that benefit of upgradation of scales has also been allowed to the cadre of Accounts Officers whereas they have been discriminated against.
3.4 According to the applicants they submitted representations seeking removal of anomalies in their pay scales. DMI forwarded the same to respondent No.1 on 06.10.2010. The applicants submitted another representation on 24.01.2011 seeking redressal of their grievance. This is available as Annexure-A/7 to this O.A. However, the claim of the applicants could not be put before the Anomaly Committee due to objections raised by internal finance. The applicants again submitted a representation on 28.03.2011 and even asked for a personal hearing with the Agricultural Marketing Advisor. This was refused on 30.03.2011. Thus, the representations of the applicants have not been considered and their grievances have not been redressed.
4. The respondents have filed their reply in which they have stated that the Marketing Officers are divided into three groups on the basis of functional requirement. All the three groups have separate recruitment rules and separate channels of promotion right up to the level of Dy. Agricultural Marketing Adviser. As far as Group-II Marketing Officers are concerned, the 5th Central Pay Commission recommended that posts requiring a degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry with registration in the Veterinary Council of India as the minimum essential qualification may be placed in a common entry grade corresponding to the existing entry scale applicable to the general duty Medical Officers and Dental Doctors under the Government of India. The Pay Commission also recommended that the Veterinary Officers should also be paid a Non-practising allowance @25% of their basic pay as has been recommended for Medical Docotrs. Thus, the recommendation of the 5th CPC was separate in the case of Marketing Officers of Group-II. Further, the respondents have stated that comparison with Assistants and other cadres is not in order as the nature of duties, qualifications, recruitment rules etc. are different for different cadres, drawing a comparison with them is unjustified.
5. We have considered the submissions of both sides. The respondents have also made available the relevant recommendations of the Pay Commission as Annexure R-I. The relevant para is reproduced below:-
Parity with Medical Doctors On the question of upgrading the Veterinary Officers uniformly and bringing them at par with medical doctors, we observe that a degree in Veterinary Science is comparable to an MBBS degree and holders of these degrees in both cases are registered and authorized to practice medicine, authenticate health certificates and give evidence as experts under the Indian Evidence Act. We also feel that there is no apparent reason to keep one of the two categories in a lower status. We, therefore, recommend that posts requiring a degree of B.V.Sc. & AH with registeration in the Veterinary Council of India as the minimum essential qualification may be placed in a common entry grade corresponding to the existing entry scale applicable to General Duty Medical Officers and Dental doctors under the Government of India. Veterinarians should have complete parity with Dental and General Duty Medical Officers, as given in Annexe 55.9, in terms of pay scales and career prospects. In the matter of NPA, there is a small difference in the slabs over which a rate is applicable, resulting in Veterinary Officers getting lower NPA at some stages of the basic pay. In view of the suggested parity, educational and practice requirements, and the need to be available even outside duty hours for domestic and farm animal health care, we recommend that Veterinary Officers should also be paid a Non-practising allowance at the rate of 25% of their basic pay as has been recommended for medical doctors.
5.1 From the above, it appears that the recommendation of the Pay Commission was made in the context of parity of Veterinary Doctors with other Medical Doctors. The Pay Commission had not considered the cadre of Marketing Inspectors of DMI as a whole and had therefore not given any recommendation regarding the other groups of Marketing Officers of DMI. Thus, selectively the pay scale of Group-II Marketing Officers got upgraded whereas Group-I and Group-III Marketing Officers were left out.
6. From the above submissions, it is clear that the applicants have made several representations to the respondents but the same have not so far been considered by them. In our opinion, this O.A. is, therefore, not ripe for judicial review as the respondents have yet to take a decision on the representations of the applicants. We, therefore, dispose of this O.A. by directing the respondents to consider the representations made by the applicants in consultation with Ministry of Finance and dispose of the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The averments made in this O.A. may be treated as a supplementary representation. Needless to say that if the applicants are still aggrieved, they will be at liberty, if so advised, to approach this Tribunal by means of fresh judicial proceedings. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/