Karnataka High Court
Smt Ishwari M W/O Sri Sadananda vs The Senior Regional Director (Hfw) on 27 March, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.8481 OF 2012(S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
Smt.Ishwari M
Aged about 48 years
W/o Sri Sadananda,
Working as Technical Assistant,
Regional Office for Health and Family Welfar,
Government of India,
2nd Floor, 'F' Wing,
Kendriya Sadan,
Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 034.
Residing at No.104/75,
Kay-Kay Heights,
1st Floor, Flat No.5, 2nd Main,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri N.Shankaranarayana Bhat, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The Senior Regional Director(HFW)
Regional Office for Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India,
2nd Floor, 'F' Wing,
Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala
Bangalore - 560 034.
2. The Director General of Health Services
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. The Secretary
The Union of India
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 011. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri T.A.Ramachandraiah, CGC)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the
records and quash the order of the CAT, Bangalore in
OS.No.80/02 dated 25.11.2011 vide Annexure-B by set
aside the direction to give the petitioner the scale of pay
of Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f 1.1.96 with consequential
benefits etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day,
Ravi Malimath J., made the following:-
3
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as C.A.T.) in O.A.No.80/2002, partly allowing the application and directing the respondents to grant Vth Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.), scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the applicant has filed the present petition seeking the pay-scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. That the respondent in pursuance to the IVth C.P.C., the basic pay attached to the said post is Rs.1,400-2,300. In the Vth CPC, the pay was revised to Rs.4,500-7,000/- and the basic pay in respect of Assured Career Progression (ACP) is Rs.5,500-8,000 and in the second 4 ACP Rs.5,500-9,000. That the basic pay of a graduate, who is recruited under the same Rules according to the Vth CPC is Rs.5,000-8,000/-.
3. The petitioner is a post-graduate in Statistics. In view of such an anomaly, she made a representation to the authorities to fix her basic pay. Since the same was not considered, she filed an application in O.A. No.1653/2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein a direction was issued to the respondents to dispose off the representation within 60 days.
4. On considering the same, the respondents intimated the petitioner that as per the Recruitment Rules, the said post was not a statistical functional post and therefore she is not eligible for upgraded replacement scales of pay of Rs.5,000-8,000/- and Rs.5,500-9,000/-. She was intimated that her pay is 5 fixed in the revised pay-scale at Rs.4,500-7,000 on the recommendation of the 5th CPC. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred an application before the C.A.T.
5. The Tribunal was of the view that it could not determine the post as statistical functional post or not, since it lacks necessary expertise. That when the expert body like 5th CPC has not recommended the higher scale, the Tribunal could not grant it. Accordingly, the application was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.49834/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
6. By an order dated 19.11.2010, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal was set-aside and the entire order was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in the light of the observations made therein. 6
7. On remand, the Tribunal by the impugned order partly allowed the application. It directed that the petitioner be given an upgraded scale in the 4th CPC of Rs.1,600-2,660/- and a replacement scale in the 5th CPC of Rs.5,000-8,000/-. The plea of the petitioner for replacement scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- was rejected. Hence, the present petition seeking for replacement scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. That the Tribunal failed to consider the contentions advanced.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order.
10. Heard learned counsels and perused the material on record.
7
11. The Tribunal while considering the contentions advanced was of the view that it is just and proper to grant the replacement scale of Rs.5,000- 8,000/-. It considered the qualification so far as the Technical Assistant and Statistical Assistants are concerned. Under these circumstances, the impugned order was passed.
12. We have considered the contentions and the impugned order and do not find any error that calls for interference. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the qualification to hold the post of Technical Assistant, as held by the petitioner, is one of Master Degree in Mathematics or Statistics. That the qualification to hold the post of a Statistical Assistant is a mere graduate. Therefore, the petitioner being a post-graduate is entitled to a higher scale than that of a Statistical Assistant. However, no material is produced other than the fact that she is a post graduate, in order 8 to substantiate such a plea. It has remained a mere contention. That there is no statutory Rule or otherwise that would enable the Court to grant the higher scale of pay only because she is a post graduate as pleaded by the petitioner.
13. The only contention advanced is that the qualification for a Technical Assistant being that of a post-graduate, her scale of pay should be higher than that of a Statistical Assistant, whose qualification is a graduation. However, on considering the basic requirements it could be seen that the qualification for a Technical Assistant is any Master Degree in Mathematics or Statistics or a graduate in Mathematics or Statistics with three years experience in handling statistical material. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that she possesses a higher qualification than the entry level than that of a Statistical Assistant is ill- founded. Even a Graduate with three years experience 9 is qualified to be appointed as a Technical Assistant. Therefore, the contention is unacceptable.
14. The further contention advanced is that the post of the Technical Assistant is a post in isolation. There is no evidence produced in support of such a plea. However, on hearing the contentions we are of the view that, it cannot be a sole ground for granting a higher scale of pay to the petitioner. The scale of pay that has been granted is in tune with the prevailing Rules.
15. The contentions advanced by the petitioner are not backed with any material to support such a plea. This Hon'ble Court while disposing off the earlier writ petition emphasized the fact that any pay-scale that is likely to be fixed by the Tribunal cannot be less than what is prescribed for a Graduate. In the instance case, what has been granted to the petitioner is not a scale 10 that is less than that of a Graduate. In fact, the same scale of pay has been accorded. Therefore, the direction of the Court in the earlier writ petition has been complied with.
16. On the contrary, the Division Bench of this Court has not stated that the scale of pay should be higher than that of a Graduate. In fact, what has been stated is that the scale of pay cannot be less than that of a Graduate. Therefore, we do not find any error in the Tribunal's order in following the direction of this Court.
17. The further direction by this Court was that the Tribunal should look into para-81.17 of 5th C.P.C. The Tribunal has considered the said direction. We have also considered the para, which has been produced vide Annexure-A10. Even on considering the same, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order. Consequently, the pay as granted to 11 the petitioner is in accordance with the Rules, the directions issued by this Court, as well as the relevant facts.
18. In the result, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well-considered order of the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JJ