Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajit Singh vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 4 August, 2022
1
O.A. No.4644/2015
Item No.03
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4644/2015
M.A. No.4346/2015
M.A. No.198/2019
This the 4th day of August, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
1. Ajit Singh, Aged about 49 years,
S/o Sh. Lekh Ram, Post:- O.T Technician,
R/o House no 86,Madangri Village ,N.Delhi.62.
2. Dalip Singh, Aged about 45 years,
S/o Late Sh. Radhe Singh Negi,
Post:- O.T Technician,
R/o B-32, Type-II, ESI Hospital, Okhla, Delhi.
3. Krishan Kumar, Aged about 47 years,
S/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore,
Post:- O.T Technician,
R/o Ho no-669A, Shiv Colony,
Railway Road, Palwal-121102.
4. Kishan Singh, Aged about 53 years,
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Singh,
Post:- O.T Technician,
R/o Ho.No-354, Munrika ,village , New Delhi.67.
5. Suresh Sharma, Aged about 49 years.
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Sharma,
Post:- O.T Assistant,
R/o K-55, Jattpur Ext. Badarpur. N Delhi. 44.
6. Bijender Singh, Aged about 50 years,
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Sharma,
Post:- O.T Assistant,
R/o 5-357, School, Block Shakerpur,
Delhi-92.
7. Hemant Singh, Aged about 37 years,
S/o Sh. Gamdhir Singh,
Post:- O.T Assistant,
R/o House No-1/319,
Dakshinpuri, Extension, N. Delhi.
2
O.A. No.4644/2015
Item No.03
8. Rajbir Singh, Aged about 49 years,
S/o Late Sh. Nathan Singh,
Post:- O.T Assistant,
R/o C-2, Indra Enclave New Sarai,
New Delhi.68.
9. Mahender Singh, Aged about 36 years,
S/o Sh. Chater Singh,
Post:- O.T Assistant,
R/o V-26, Type-II
ESI Hospital Staff Colony
Ph-1, N.D-20.
10. Pramod Kumar.Age 49 years,
S/o Sh.Chandu,
Post at Present:- C.S.S.D Technician.
R/o Q. No-1, ESIC Campus Gurgaon,
Sector 9A (Hr.).
11. Niraj Xavier Thakur, Age 39 years.
S/o Sh.Xavier Peter Thakur,
R/o H.No-274, Type-1, ESI Colony Basaidarpur,
N.Delhi. 15.
12. Kamal Singh, Age 37 years,
S/o Sh.Vikram Singh,
R/o Q.No-224,E.S.I Colony,Basaidarapur,
New Delhi. 15.
..Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri Soumyajit Pani)
Versus
1. Director General,
E.S.I. Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan,
Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002.
2. The Director,
Directorate (Medical) Delhi,
Employees State Insurance Scheme,
E.S.I. Hospital, Sector -9, Gurgaon.
3. The Director,
Directorate (Medical) Delhi,
Employees State Insurance Scheme,
Dispensary Complex, Tilak Vihar,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal for Shri
Yakesh Anand)
3
O.A. No.4644/2015
Item No.03
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) :-
The applicants are aggrieved that they have not been awarded the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 pursuant to the recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) in the year 1996, whereas this pay scale has been awarded to several other similarly placed categories.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are variously employed/appointed as OT Assistant/Technicians and CSSD Assistants/CSSD Technicians in the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). Subsequent to the recommendations of 5th CPC in the year 1996, they were placed in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules got introduced in the year 1997 and vide the Notification dated 30.09.1997 of the Ministry of Finance, several categories were awarded the pay scale of Rs.4000- 100-6000/-. The applicants are aggrieved that all of these categories, which were awarded higher pay scale, were enjoying the same pay scale as the applicants prior to the recommendations of the 5th CPC. Aggrieved by this alleged 4 O.A. No.4644/2015 Item No.03 discriminatory treatment, they have filed the present OA seeking the following relief(s):-
"i) To quash & set aside the order dated 19.02.2015 & 20.02.2015.
i) To extend the benefits of the 5th Pay Commissions revised report of 30.09.1997 to the applicants & grant the pay scale of Rupees 4000-100-6000 w.e.f 01.01. 1996 along with all consequential benefits. Same pay scale has been replaced in Rs.5200-
20200/-Grade pay Rs.2400/- as per 6th C.P.C and directs the respondent to pay interest on the arrears of pay till the date of payment.
ii) Award the cost of the O.A.
iv) To pass any other orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Arguing the case, learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to the judgment rendered by this Tribunal on 19.04.2016 in OA No.2995/2014 with other connected matter titled Dharambir Singh Ranga Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors. Learned counsel draws parallel of the facts and circumstances of the present case with the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid OA, wherein too, all the applicants were variously posted as OT Assistant/Technicians and CSSD Assistants/CSSD 5 O.A. No.4644/2015 Item No.03 Technicians and this Tribunal while deciding their claim had held as under :-
"8. Since the applicants who are working as O.T.Assistants/CSSD/CSR Assistants are identically placed like the Plaster Assistants and Laboratory Assistants of the respondent-ESIC, and for parity of reasons, we reject the contentions of the respondents and accordingly, allow the OA. The respondents are directed to implement the scale notified vide Resolution dated 30.09.1997, i.e., by granting the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to the applicants. However, they are entitled for arrears with effect from the date of filing of the OA, without any interest thereon. This exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order is subject to the result of the Writ Petition filed by the order respondents against the orders of this Tribunal dated 13.01.2004 in OA No.1464/2003-Ashok Kumar & Others v. Union of India and also the Writ Petition No.18/2015, filed against the orders dated the orders dated 19.12.2013 in OA No.3227/2011 (Brham Pal & Others v. Union of India). No costs."
4. Learned counsel points out that this judgment of the Tribunal, though under challenge in Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has since been implemented by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents confirms that the judgment has been implemented, subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition which they have filed. It is also not in dispute that the present applicants are holding identical positions as the 6 O.A. No.4644/2015 Item No.03 applicants in the aforesaid OA, in which the Tribunal has specifically directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.4000-100- 6000 to the applicants and since then that pay scale has been awarded to them with effect from the date of filing of the OA, without the benefits of any other arrears or interest thereon. Learned counsel confines his argument to this limited issue that since vide the said judgment the benefit of an enhanced pay scale has already been awarded to several other similarly situated persons, denial of the same to the present applicants amounts to a discriminatory treatment.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argues that the Notification dated 30.09.1997, vide which, the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 was awarded to various categories, cannot be made applicable to the present applicants. To substantiate her claim, she draws attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 20.01.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.152/2022 titled Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Union of India and Ors. She claims that vide the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that ESIC being an Autonomous Organisation is governed by its own set of regulations. In view of this, the present applicants cannot 7 O.A. No.4644/2015 Item No.03 claim benefit of pay scales, in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th CPC.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also gone through the documents on record.
7. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the present applicants are holding identical positions as had been held by the applicants in the OA No.2995/2014 i.e. Dharambir Singh Ranga Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors. Since the matter has been adjudicated upon by this Tribunal in identical facts and circumstances, there is absolutely no cause even for us to deviate from the same. Moreover, the respondents have implemented the judgement in the aforesaid OA allowing the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000, in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th CPC of 1996. There is no cause why the same benefit should not be extended to the present applicants, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in that order. We have also very meticulously gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. We find that the facts of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court related to the Dynamic Assured Progression Scheme and the issue before the 8 O.A. No.4644/2015 Item No.03 Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether promotion of employees of ESIC shall be governed by the ESIC's own Regulations or Govt. of India Guidelines. We do not find any parallel or similarity between the two. In our view, the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents does not have any bearing in the instant matter.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the present OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 to the present applicants, in accordance with the order/judgment dated19.04.2016 of this Tribunal in OA No.2995/2014 with connected OA titled Dharambir Singh Ranga Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Ors. However, as directed in the judgment in OA No.2996/2014, the applicants shall be entitled to arrears only with effect from the date of filing of this OA, without any interest thereon. It is clarified that, as recorded, this OA was filed on 17.12.2016. They shall also not be entitled to payment of any interest upon the arrears so calculated. The respondents are directed to comply with the directions within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We add that this order shall be subject to the outcome of Writ Petition 9 O.A. No.4644/2015 Item No.03 filed by the respondents challenging the earlier orders of this Tribunal on this issue.
.
9. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( Tarun Shridhar ) ( R N Singh )
Member (A) Member (J)
/rk/