Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Har Prasad vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through Its on 23 September, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 1313/2007 New Delhi, this the 23rd day of September, 2009 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MR. L.K.JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Har Prasad, Lab Assistant, Animal Husbandry Department, Veterinary Hospital, Ghazipur, Delhi Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 2. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 3. Department of Health & Family Welfare, Through Its Secretary (Health), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 9th Level, A-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, N. Delhi 4. The Department of Animal Husbandry, Through its Director, Room No.98-101, Old Secretariat, Government of Delhi, Delhi-54 5. The Development Commissioner, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Smt. Jyoti Singh) ORDER
Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) The Applicant, working as Laboratory Assistant (Lab Assistant) in the Department of Animal Husbandry (DAH), the fourth Respondent, is seeking parity in pay scales from 1982 onwards with the Lab Assistants of other departments of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), the first Respondent. The contention of the Applicant is that his case is squarely covered by order of this Tribunal dated 23.10.2000 in OAs number 572/1999 and 2082/1999, Deepika Sharma and others/Mrs. Baby Kutty and others vs. Delhi Administration and others. The Applicant has been working as Lab Assistant under the fourth Respondent since 1975, without the benefit of any promotion in this cadre.
2. The Applicant has passed Intermediate examination with science subjects. He was initially appointed in the scale of Rs.260-430. His scale of pay was upgraded to Rs.975-1540 post - fourth Central Pay Commission and Rs.3200-4900 post-fifth Central Pay Commission (V CPC). It is not in dispute that the scales of the Lab Assistants of the Department of Education under the first Respondent were revised to Rs.290-500 on 3.03.1981, Rs.330-530 with effect from 23.08.1983. This was revised to Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 1.01.1986 after the acceptance of the recommendations of IV CPC and further revised with effect from 1.01.1996 to Rs.4000-6000 on V CPCs recommendations.
3. Seventy-Eight Lab Assistants in OA number 572/1999 and eighteen Lab Assistants in OA number 2082/1999 under the Department of Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD, the third Respondent herein, approached this Tribunal through the aforesaid Original Applications, seeking parity in scales of pay with Lab Assistants of Department of Education, which had been revised as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The learned co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal took note of an earlier decision dated 6.07.1992 of the Tribunal in OA number 444/1986, in which the Applicant Pawan Kumar Tyagi, Lab Assistant in the Department of Health & Family Welfare had sought revision of scale of pay to Rs.290-500 with effect from 3.03.1981 and Rs.330-530 with effect from 23.08.1983 onwards with all consequential benefits. By order dated 6.07.1992, direction was given to the concerned Department to grant the scale of Rs.290-500 to Pawan Kumar Tyagi from 1.11.1982 and allow consequential benefits. Further direction was given to take a decision, within six months, about granting of the scale of Rs.330-530, in view of the fact that the respondents had accepted the anomaly. The directions given by the Tribunal were implemented by the Department of Health and Family Welfare by order dated 10.01.1994. Following this, the OAs number 572/1999 and 2082/1999 were allowed thus:
7. We are fully aware that in the matters of pay scales, their revision and connected matters, the Tribunal ought not to normally interfere, as the same has to be considered by an expert body like the pay commission. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents we are unable to come to the conclusion that Shri P.K. Tyagi and the applicants are not similarly situated persons. The contention of the respondents that without getting the consent of the Govt. of India to revise the pay scale the benefit of the revised pay scale given to Sh. P.K. Tyagi in pursuance of the Tribunals order dated 6.7.1992, should be confined only to him cannot be accepted. In other words, since it is not denied that the applicants in the present applications are similarly situated persons like Sh. P.K. Tyagi, we see no good grounds to deny the revised pay scale of Rs.290-500 to the applicants w.e.f. 1.11.1982. With regard to this date, it is evident that the Tribunal had also taken into account the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in giving the benefits to the applicant in that case only from 1.11.1982, which is the date from which the present reliefs have also been sought. The judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and Ors. (1995 (5) Scale 29) is also relevant to the facts of the present case as the applicants are claiming proper fixation of pay in accordance with the revision of pay scales. However, para 8 of the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in M.R. Guptas case (supra) is also relevant which reads as follows:-
For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal has to be allowed. We make it clear that the merits of the appellants claim have to be examined and the only point concluded by this decision is the one decided above. The question of limitation with regard to the consequential and other reliefs including the arrears, if any, has to be considered and decided in accordance with law in due course by the Tribunal. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the application and its decision afresh on merits in accordance with law.
8. The respondents have revised the pay scale of the applicant Sh. P.K. Tyagi from 1.11.1982 with all arrears from that date. These OAs have been filed on 10.3.1999 and 15.9.1999, respectively, whereas the order of the Tribunal in OA-444/1986, on which the applicants have relied upon has been pronounced as far back as 6.7.1992, and thereafter implemented by the respondents by their order dated 10.1.1994.
9. It is also relevant to note that in Paragraph 7 of the Tribunals order dated 6.7.1992, the claim of the applicant Sh. P.K. Tyagi for further revision of pay scale of Rs.330-530 was left open to the respondents to take proper decision in the matter. Shri B. Lall, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in furtherance to the recommendations of the IVth Central Pay Commission, applicants were granted the revised pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In the circumstances nothing further survives on this claim.
10. In the result, taking into account the facts mentioned above, the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, and in particular the observations made in M.R.Guptas case (supra) quoted above, the claim of the applicants in OA 572/1999 and OA 2082/1999 are allowed subject to what is stated below:-
(i) They shall be entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.290-500 w.e.f. 1.11.1982 only on a notional basis for fixation of pay but they shall not be entitled to any consequential arrears of pay arising from the pay revisions except from two months from the date of filing of these two applications, namely, 10.5.99 and 15.11.99, respectively.
(ii) Necessary action as above shall be taken by the respondents within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
4. Similar issue came up before the Tribunal in OA number 1401/2006, Sanjay Kaushik and others v. Union of India and others, in which the facts were summed up thus in the order dated 16.01.2007:
2. Nineteen applicants, out of which thirteen are working as Lab. Assistants while six as Lab. Technicians in Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, in present OA seek to extend the benefit of judgment dated 13.1.2004 passed by this Bench of Tribunal in OA No.1464/2003 [Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.] as well as of judgment dated 19.9.2003 of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1145/HP/2002 [Keshar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.] as well as to grant them pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- w.e.f. 01.1.1996 with all consequential benefits including costs. Post of Lab. Technician is a promotional post, and Lab. Assistant is a feeder post.
3. Admitted facts of case are that applicants as Lab. Assistants were allowed pay scale of Rs.260-430/- by Third Central Pay Commission, revised to Rs.975-1540/- vide Fourth Central Pay Commission and to Rs.3200-4900/- vide Fifth Central Pay Commission. Fifth Central Pay Commission recommended pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- to the grade of Lab. Asstt. Bringing them at par with other Technicians holding matriculation as qualification with some experience. Earlier they filed OA No.123/2003 seeking the said scale, which had been withdrawn vide order dated 12.11.2003. Simultaneously, another OA No.1464/2003 was filed by Lab. Assistants of Safdarjung Hospital seeking grant of pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-, which was allowed vide order & judgment dated 13.1.2004 and stands implemented vide order dated 24.4.2006. Another OA was filed before the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal by Lab. Assistants of CRI seeking said scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. Said OA was allowed vide order dated 19.9.2003 and has been implemented by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Health, New Delhi vide order dated 09.2.2005 subject to the final outcome of Writ Petition No.327/2004 filed before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh against aforesaid Tribunals judgment. Similarly placed officials of National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) and National Malaria Eradication Programme (NMEP), who were earlier in pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/-, were also allowed revised pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- w.e.f. 01.1.1996. In above backdrop, applicants sought extension of benefits of judgments rendered by this Tribunal & implemented by the respondents, for which they have made representations to concerned authorities, which remained pending, & unattended. The OA number 1401/2006 was allowed with the following observations:
9. On comparison of recruitment rules applicable to the persons holding same rank i.e. of Lab. Assistants in Dr. R.M.L. Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital, which were placed on record, we observe that educational & other qualifications prescribed are the same, besides the mode of recruitment. Further there is no denial to the contention raised that the officials holding the same rank perform functions & discharge similar duties & responsibilities. It is not in dispute that the judgment dated 13.1.2004 rendered by this Tribunal in OA No.1464/2003 has been duly implemented by the respondents vide communication dated 24.4.2006. On our pointed query raised, Shri Ranbir Yadav, learned counsel pointed out that no Writ Petition has been filed challenging afore-mentioned judgment dated 13.1.2004. On pointed query raised to the respondents, learned counsel could not point out the details & particulars of Writ Petition, if any, filed against the said judgment. Similarly, it is an admitted fact that Chandigarh Bench Judgment in OA No.1145/HP/2002 dated 19.9.2003 has also been implemented by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare vide communication dated 09.2.2005. Applicants therein were also laboratory assistants in CRI, Kausaul. Lab. Assistants of all these three institutions CRI, Kausaul, Safdarjung Hospital & Dr. R.M.L. Hospital had hitherto maintained parity in pay scale. In our considered view, in view of law noticed hereinabove, we do not find any justification to take any different view than the one arrived at by two different Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find substance & justification in the contentions raised by respondents that the judgments rendered earlier being distinguishable, should be ignored and a distinct & contrary view be taken. No material has been placed before us, which could compel us to take a contrary view than the one arrived at vide orders & judgments dated 19.9.2003 and 13.1.2004.
10. In view of discussion made hereinabove, we allow the present OA with direction to respondents to grant them the benefit of judgment dated 13.1.2004 in OA No.1464/2003 and dated 19.9.2003 of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1145/HP/2002 and fix applicants pay in pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- w.e.f. 01.1.1996. However, arrears of pay in said scale is restricted to one year prior to the date of filing of afore-mentioned OA. OA was preferred on 03.7.2006, & for the sake of convenience, arrears would be allowed only from 01.7.2005. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
5. It is not the Respondents case that the educational qualifications and nature of work of the Lab Assistant under the DAH, the fourth Respondent, is different from the educational qualifications and nature of work of the Lab Assistants under the Departments of Education or Health and Family Welfare. A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the Respondents by distinguishing OA number 1401/2006, Sanjay Kaushik and others v. Union of India and others by arguing that applicants in the aforesaid OA were working under the Union Government, whereas the Applicant in the instant OA is under GNCTD, the first Respondent. This is not relevant. The Applicants in OAs number 572/1999 and 2082/1999 were similarly situated as the Applicant herein. In fact the Directorate of Health Services of GNCTD has revised the pay scales, as per the direction of the Tribunal in OA number 572/1999 to all the Lab Assistants under its control (page 56 of the paper book). The aforesaid order squarely covers this case.
6. The OA succeeds, on the basis of the above discussion. The Respondents are directed to revise the scale of pay of the Applicant as follows:
(i) Rs.290-500 with effect from 1.11.1982.
(ii) Rs.330-530 with effect from 23.08.1983
(iii) Rs. 1200-2040 with effect from 1.01.1986
(iv) Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from 1.01.1996 The above revision will be on notional basis and arrears thereof will not be payable. The arrears will be payable with effect from 7.05.2007, which is the date of filing of this OA before this Tribunal. The Applicant will be eligible for all consequential benefits. The above direction should be complied with within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman `sd