Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Government Of India Press Workers Union vs Union Of India on 2 February, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi. OA-16/2010 MA-10/2010 New Delhi this the 2nd day of February, 2011. Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. Government of India Press Workers Union A-331, Minto Road Complex, New Delhi-110002. (through Shri Bhadra Sain Chandolia, its General Secretary) 2. Bhadra Sain Chandolia, S/o late Shri Bali Ram R/o FF-28, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. 3. Ram Karan, S/o late Shri Dhan Singh, R/o V&PO Khewa, District Sonipat (Haryana). 4. T.S.Rawat, S/o late Shri Dalip Singh, R/o G-703, Sriniwas Puri, New Delhi. 5. R.P.Gupta, S/o late Shri Budh Sain, R/o E-36B, South Anarkali, Jagatpuri, Delhi-110092. 6. Tara Chand, S/o late Shri Jogi Ram, R/C-261, Minto Road Complex, New Delhi-110002. 7. Shyam Sunder, S/o late Shri Ram Sarup, R/o G-617, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. 8. D.D.Chauhan, S/o Shri Bhule Ram S-679A, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi. 9. P.N.Dhaundial, S/o Shri N.R.Shaundiyal, GI-1062, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. 10. B.P.Mandal, S/o late Shri Sarabjit Mandal, R/o C-235, Minto Road Complex, New Delhi-110002. 11. Bakshi Ram, S/o Shri Sunder Ram, R/o C-65, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. 12. Ganga Shanker Lal, S/o late Shri B.B.Srivastava, R/o C-36, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. 13. Jagdish Singh Bisht, S/o late Shri D.S.Bist, R/o C-157, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023. 14. Shiv Charan Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh R/o 114, Type- II,Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. . Applicants (through Sh. L.R. Khatana, Advocate) Versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110011. 2. Director, Directorate of Printing, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110011. 3. General Manager, Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. Respondents (through Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate) O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The applicants, who are currently working as Key Board Operators under the respondents organization, and their Union have filed this application challenging the order dated 27.08.2009 in which their representation to grant similar facilities as were given to other members of their cadre in the order dated 10.09.2003 placed at Annexure-A7 was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:-
2.1 The applicants who were earlier working as Compositor Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 3500-4590/- and Compositor Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- opted at the time of reorganization for the posts of Key Board Operator (KBO) in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. After successfully passing a training course and a trade test they, along with Lino and Mono Operators, were appointed as KBOs. They have filed Office Order dated 20.07.1990 (Annexure-A2 Colly. Page-26) to indicate that common appointment orders were issued not only for erstwhile Compositors Grade-II but also for erstwhile Lino Operators and Compositors Grade-I. In this appointment order, there is one Mohinder Pal at Serial No. 4, who was earlier working as a Lino Operator. Similarly, the name of B.P. Mandal is at Serial No.12 and he was working as Compositor Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. In other words, employees from different categories were put in the cadre of KBOs after a selection process and were given the same higher pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-.
2.2 After Government decided to introduce Advance Progression Scheme (ACP), those of the employees who satisfied the conditions of the Scheme, were granted Ist ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- on 25.11.1999. However, pursuant to clarification issued by Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) on 23.06.2000, this order was withdrawn and the members of the reconstituted cadre of KBO were treated as direct recruits on the ground that their pay scale was higher and it was held that these members were entitled to first ACP only after completion of 12 years of service as KBOs and no benefit would be given to them towards their past service.
2.3 Some of the applicants challenged this order in OA-384/2001 and some others in OA-388/2001. Both the OAs were taken up together and dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2001 in which the contention of the respondent authorities that the members of the reconstituted cadre of KBOs having got higher pay scale their case should be treated as of direct recruit candidates was upheld and the OAs were dismissed. This order had attained finality.
2.4 Nevertheless, the erstwhile Lino and Mono Operators represented for a review of this decision and it was decided by the respondent department in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) that the previous service rendered by Lino and Mono Operators would count for computing the total service for grant of ACP benefit. This order was issued on 10.09.2003 and it has created a sense of grievance among the employees who have come from other sources particularly from the ranks of Compositor Grade-II and Compositor Grade-I. They represented for similar benefits. On rejection of their demands, OA-2534/2006 was filed in which the respondents were directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant for grant of parity with erstwhile Lino Operators. On the question of discrimination, the views of the Tribunal were as follows:-
6..no escape from the conclusion that after their direct recruitment to the Grain Shop Department the personnel coming from sources (ii) and (iii) had shed their genetic peculiarities and become members of the same class or unit governed by the same conditions of service. For the purposes of absorption, seniority, promotion etc. in regular departments, therefore, they were entitled to be treated alike. Relying on the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Roshan Lal Tandon Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1889 and in the case of General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Anr. Vs. A.V.R. Siddhantti & Ors., 1994 (4) SCC 335 it was held that there could not be any discrimination between employees coming from two different categories which were merged into one cadre and given similar responsibilities and conditions of service. The respondents were directed to reconsider the claim of the applicants particularly as regards their request for reckoning their past service for the purpose of ACP as was allowed to the erstwhile Lino and Mono Operators. The respondents carried an appeal to the Honble High Court and lost it. The impugned order has been passed as a consequence of this direction. It has relied on the quotation from the same judgment in the case of A.V.R. Siddhanti & Ors. (supra), but came to a different conclusion. It says that the applicants belong to a lower grade and treating them as equal to the Lino and Mono Operators would amount to setting a bad precedent leading to wider repercussions in the matter of seniority, etc. Therefore, it was held that the Compositors could not be treated as equal in all respects with Lino and Mono Operators. The applicants were working as Compositors Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-; they have got two financial benefits by redeployment as KBOs: firstly their promotion was due to the rank of Compositor Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- and subsequently to the next higher grade of Rs. 4500-7000/-. Since they have got the benefit of the scale of Rs.4500-7000/- as KBOs, which is equivalent to the second financial upgradation in their original hierarchy they should be treated as direct recruits in the new cadre and made eligible for the 1st and 2nd financial upgradations on completion of 10/20 years of regular service from the date of their redeployment.
3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that not all the applicants got the benefit of two higher scales at the time of redeployment as KBOs. He pointed out that applicant No.10, Sh. B.P. Mandal, was working as Compositor Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- before he was deployed as KBO. He was in no way inferior in pay scale as regards Lino and Mono Operators having identical pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. Secondly, placing reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case B. Manmad Reddy and Others Vs. Chandra Prakash Reddy and Others, [(2010) 3 SCC 314], he argued that classification was possible only if there were fair, intelligible criteria having clear nexus with the object of classification. Arbitrary classification is against the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution. This position was discussed in the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-2534/2006 and it was held that after employees were merged in to a single cadre, there could not be any discrimination among the members of this new cadre on the ground that they had come from different sources. So long as the respondent authorities had treated them all as direct recruit members of the new cadre of KBOs, the applicants had no grievance. The moment the O.M. dated 10.09.2003 was issued granting benefits to some members the applicants were within their rights to claim similar benefits. The rejection of their claim vide O.M. dated 22/27.09.2006 was arbitrary and could not be justified by taking recourse to the argument that the decision was taken in consultation with DoP&T.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously argued that the present O.A. was barred by operation of the principle of constructive resjudicata. He pointed out that the applicants along with other similarly situated persons had filed OA-384/2001 and OA-388/2001, which were dismissed by this Tribunal. Once there claim had been dismissed, the applicants are estopped from making similar claims in this OA. When asked that the claims of erstwhile Lino and Mono Operators had also been dismissed by this Tribunal and there was no legal compulsion before the respondents to review their stand but they did that and granted the benefit of computing past service to erstwhile Lino and Mono Operators and by doing so, the respondents have introduced a fresh cause of action and in this background the doctrine of resjudicata would not operate, he fairly conceded the point.
5. The impugned order has quoted from the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in AVR Siddhantis case (supra) to support the contention that the guarantee of equality as enshrined in the Constitution was not applicable to members of distinct and different classes of service. It is true that the Constitution does not command that in all matters of employment absolute symmetry was to be maintained; nor does it say that a wooden equality as between all classes of employees regardless of qualifications, kind of jobs, nature of responsibility and performance of the employees is to be maintained, nor it is practicable if the administration is to run.
5.1 However, it is felt appropriate to refer to the conclusion of the Honble Supreme Court in that case about there being no escape from the conclusion that after their direct recruitment to a Department, the personnel coming from different sources shed their genetic peculiarities and become members of the same class or unit governed by the same conditions of service. For the purposes of absorption, seniority, promotion etc. in the regular department they were entitled to be treated alike.
6. We called for the office records to appreciate the reasoning why this facility was granted to the erstwhile Lino and Mono Operators. The extracts from the advice recorded by DoP&T read as under:-
3. Earlier, the administrative authorities have treated this placement of DTP Operators as promotion and thus has held that they are entitled to second financial upgradation only in the scale of Rs.5000-8000. DTP Operators have sought review of this stand on the ground that this places them at a disadvantage vis-`-vis lino/mono operators who continued in their posts.
4. In the specific facts of the case, we may agree that such Mino/Lino Operators who are appointed as DTP Operators cannot be put to any disadvantage vis-`-vis those who continued in the grade of Lino/Mino Operators as their appointment on transfer basis itself was not correct and, therefore, they may also be allowed two financial upgradations in the grades of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 after counting the service already rendered in the grade of Lino/Mino Operators. The Department should immediately review the matter of framing fresh Recruitment Rules providing for filling up of such staff only on deputation basis. These notings do not reveal special reasoning why the benefit of past service should have been given to the erstwhile Lino and Mono Operators, which should be denied to the applicants. Having conferred these benefits to some members of reconstituted cadre of KBOs, it does not lie with the respondents to deny it to others. In the circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order which is accordingly set aside. Respondents are directed to extend the same benefits to the applicants which have been granted to some members of the reconstituted cadre of KBO in the matter of computing of past service for the purpose of ACP.
7. In the result, the O.A. is allowed in above terms. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member (A) Member (J) /vv/