Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Jai Prakash Singh vs Union Of India Through on 20 May, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
TA-649/2009
New Delhi this the 20th day of May, 2009.
Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A)
Honble Mr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member(J)
Sh. Jai Prakash Singh,
S/o Sh. Lalji Singh,
R/o J-109, Saurabh Vihar Jaitpur,
New Delhi. .. Applicant
(through Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
its Secretary,
Ministry of Communication,
Department of Telecom,
Sanchar Bhawan,
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. General Manager South-II,
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,
43, Chiranjeev Building,
IIIrd Floor, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-19.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer(Phones),
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited,
Division-V, 68 Building Nehru Place,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Dinesh Agnani, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A) The applicant was initially engaged as Daily Rated Mazdoor and after 10 years regularized on 01.04.1993. He was promoted as Phone Mechanic in July 1996 and posted under SDO Phones, Nehru Place. When Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) was created in November 1998 along with others the applicant also exercised option whether to remain in D.O.T. or to go to MTNL. The applicant opted for D.O.T. At that time he was working under SDO Phones Division-V, under GM South-II MTNL and he was allowed to continue to perform his duties under MTNL.
2. It is submitted that although other Phone Mechanics who were working in D.O.T. and had opted for MTNL were absorbed according to their option, the respondents did not transfer the applicant to D.O.T. and he continued working in MTNL performing the same functions as were being done by other Phone Mechanics who had been absorbed in MTNL.
3. After some time the respondents started giving pay scale to the applicant on the basis of D.O.T. whereas they continued to take work from the applicant in MTNL. On the other hand Phone Mechanics working in MTNL kept on getting the pay scales of MTNL, which are much better than those of D.O.T. The applicant has illustrated the difference by a chart, which indicates that the MTNL pay and allowances were about double those as per D.O.T. rates. The applicant preferred several representations for being received but they were of no avail. It is contended that the applicant is similarly situated as the Phone Mechanics working in MTNL and on the principle of equal pay for equal work, since the applicant possesses similar qualifications and does the same work as also in view of the mandate of Article 39(d) of the Directive Principles of the Constitution, the respondents cannot deny the same benefits to the applicant and discriminate against him, which would be illegal and unjustified. It is stated that not only are all the Phone Mechanics working in the same office but were appointed under the same Recruitment Rules and their names appear on the same gradation list, their source of promotion is also the same. Yet the applicants requests went unheeded neither was he relieved to join D.O.T. nor given MTNL benefits for working there. In this background, the applicant prays for a direction upon the respondents to extend the same pay scales and benefits to him which were being given to Phone Mechanics working in MTNL performing the same duties and under the same office.
4. By their counter reply the MTNL have submitted that since the applicant had exercised option not to remain in MTNL he became entitled to pay scales of D.O.T. However, it is also stated that the petitioner could not be relieved to join D.O.T. It is clarified that MTNL was created in 1986 and initially all employees were on deemed deputation with MTNL but in the year 2000 a Scheme was prepared for absorbing Group-C&D employees in MTNL. All were given opportunity to exercise their options and the applicant did not opt for MTNL but for D.O.T. Orders were issued as at Annexure R-1 on 08.10.2002 by the office of Chief General Manager Telephones, K.L. Bhawan, New Delhi to General Manager, MTNL, Nehru Place stating that transfer orders of the applicant who had opted for D.O.T. were issued in March 2001 but nothing has been done to relieve him. It further states that the applicant had also opted for BSNL as intimated by AGM (P-1) MTNL HQ New Delhi letter dated 28.09.2001. Accordingly, it was requested to look into the matter and arrange to relieve the applicant immediately. Once again on 27.06.2003 a letter was issued to GM (S II), Nehru Place asking the applicant to be relieved. It is seen that the applicant was struck off the strength of GM(S-II) on 09.07.2003 and relieved to join AGM(A), NTR, BSNL, Kidwai Bhawan, New Delhi for further duties. It is stated that the applicant could not be relieved earlier because there was no response from D.O.T. As such, it is denied that the applicants claim is justified and the MTNL could be held liable for violation of the principles of equal pay for equal work or for discriminating against the applicant in any manner.
5. By his rejoinder the applicant has added that other employees, namely, Raj Karan and Shiv Kumar, regular Mazdoors who had opted for D.O.T. were relieved from M.T.N.L. but the applicant was not. The letters exchanged by the MTNL and G.M., South-II, MTNL, New Delhi were not received by him. The applicant had, however, made representations, as per copies annexed with the OA, addressed to G.M., South-II, MTNL, New Delhi through proper channel on 03.12.2001, 21.01.2002 and 02.05.2002 pointing out that he had neither been transferred to D.O.T. nor given the benefits of M.T.N.L. while doing the same duties as other employees of the MTNL and therefore necessary compensation should be paid to him in lieu of working in MTNL.
6. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the pleadings. Opportunity given to file further documents considered necessary has not been availed by either side although requited for.
7. It has been pointed out that this matter was earlier filed as Writ Petition No. 3559/2002 before the Honble High Court of Delhi and has been transferred as TA-649/2009 to the Tribunal by directions of the Honble High Court dated 22.02.2009.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant has taken us through the grounds put forward in the O.A. and strenuously argued that when the applicant was working as Phone Mechanic in MTNL along with other Phone Mechanics who had been absorbed in MTNL, only because he was not relieved for joining D.O.T. as per option exercised, it was not open to the respondents to deny him the same pay and allowances which would be payable as per the duties and responsibilities of Phone Mechanic in MTNL and which were being paid to other similarly situated persons. The principle of equal pay for equal work is well settled in law and there being no doubt with regard to the identity of duties and responsibilities, belonging to same feeder category and coming through the same method of recruitment etc. It was neither fair nor just on the part of the respondents to deprive the applicant in this manner.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the applicant could not be relieved due to lack of response from D.O.T. As such MTNL could not be held liable to give pay and allowances to the applicant at MTNL rates because he had already opted for D.O.T. and the D.O.T. rates were to be given to him.
10. From the material on record, it is evident that the applicant had repeatedly brought to notice that he had neither been transferred to D.O.T. nor given the pay and allowances of MTNL. Correspondence was exchanged in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 within the MTNL for relief of the applicant from MTNL, but the same reached conclusion only with the order dated 09.07.2003. It is not disputed that the applicant had been working in MTNL as Phone Mechanic even after he had opted for D.O.T. It is not the MTNLs case that the applicant was at fault for not having joined D.O.T. or refused to do so. The material on record shows that he was not relieved from his duties in MTNL for the purpose of joining D.O.T. despite representations noticed above. The application of the principle of equal pay for equal work lies in the domain of expert bodies but I find that it could not be ignored merely because an option given by the applicant to move to D.O.T. from M.T.N.L. had not been acted upon by the authorities, even if the period for which it would be relevant was a limited one. That the qualifications, background of recruitment, duties and responsibilities of the applicant while working in MTNL were the same as other Phone Mechanics absorbed there as per option is not disputed. There is therefore considerable force in the claim of the applicant which is allowed and the MTNL with whom the applicant was working at the time are directed to extend to him the same pay scale and benefits as were given to Phone Mechanics absorbed and working in MTNL doing the same duties and under the same office for the period from the date the applicant began to be paid at D.O.T. rates after giving option, until his relief from MTNL. The orders in this regard shall be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and payments released within one month thereafter. No costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (N.D. Dayal)
Member(J) Member(A)
/vv/