Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjana Gupta vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 19 December, 2024
1
(C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 697/2016
with
O.A. No. 520/2016
Reserved on: 25.11.2024
Pronounced on: 19.12.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. OA No. 697/2016
Sanjana Gupta @ Sanjana Verma, Aged 28 Years,
Do Sh Ashok Chandra Verma,
Posted As Lab-Assistant In Lady Hardinge Hospital,
New Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. U. Srivastava)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family
Welfare Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Director General Health Service (Dghs) Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. Secretary Department Of Expenditure, Ministry Of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
4. Medical Superintendent,
Lady Hardinge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Hospital,
New Delhi-110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
2
(C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016
2. OA No. 520/2016
1. Bhuwan Chandra, Age 32, S/o Sh. Nathu Ram.
2. Gayatri Sharma, Age32, D/o Sh. Anand Prakash
Sharma.
3. Vandana Dixit, Age 32, D/o Sh. Rameshwar Pd. Dixit.
4. Preeti, Age 29, D/o Sh. Munnu Kumar.
5. Pushpa Taank, Age 28, D/o Sh. Om Parkash.
6 Suman Sharma, Age 28, D/o Sh. Ramphool Sharma.
7. Rakesh Kumar, Age 28, S/o Sh. Rishi Pal.
8. Laxmi, Age 35, D/o Sh. Jagdev Prasad.
9. Swati Aggarwal, Age 31, D/o Sh. Sudhir Kumar
Aggarwal.
(All are working as Lab-Assistants in Lady Hardinge
Medical College & Smt. S.K. Hospital Saheed Bhagat Singh
Marg, New Delhi-110001)
(By Advocate: Mr. U. Srivastava)
Versus
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Director General Health Services (DGHS) Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
3.Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.
4. Medical Superintendent Lady Hardinge Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Marg, Hospital, New Delhi 110001.
(By Advocate: Mr. Sona Kumar)
3
(C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
Since a common question of facts and law is involved in the present O.A.s, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted primarily from OA No. 697/2016.
1. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted this Tribunal granted pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- to some similarly situated Lab-Assistants of the Lady Hardinge Hospital vide order dated 03.12.2013 in O.A. No.2170/2012 titled Mahesh Chand Paliwal and Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors.
1.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that it is the case of the applicant that she was appointed as a Lab-Assistant in the Lady Hardinge Hospital in the year 2009, i.e., the time when the Sixth Pay Commission was in force, and her pay scale has been fixed on the basis of previous pay scale, i.e., Rs. 3200-4900 and the pay scale of her counterpart Lab-Assistants has been fixed on the basis of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000.
4(C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016 1.2. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that being aggrieved by her wrong fixation of pay scale in Sixth pay Commission on the basis of previous pay scale of Rs.3200- 4900 and not on the basis of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, which is granted to her counterparts Lab-Assistants, the applicant made a representations dated 29.10.2015, 06.11.2015 and 10.11.2015 agitating the fact that she is getting less pay every month due to such wrong fixation. However, the respondents vide impugned order dated 19.12.2015 rejected her representations as under:
"With reference to representation dated 29 10.2015,6.11.2015 and 10.11.2015, received from Junior Medical lab. Technologist, appointed in the year 2009 reg. revision of Grade Pay from 2000/- to 2400/- In PB-I, It is informed that DGHS has given the approval to implement the CAT order dated 3.12.2013 by granting grade pay of Rs. 2400/- to Sh. Mahesh Chand Paliwal & three other Lab. Assistants (Ms. Priyanka, Ms. Neeru, & Ms. Pooja Aggarwal) only from the date of their appointment. Hence, LHMC & SSKH is unable to consider the request reg, revision of grade pay."
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of filing the present O.A. and praying for the following reliefs:
"(a) to fix as recommended by the sixth pay Commission scale to the applicant on the basis of pay scale Rs.4000- 6000 as fixed of the similarly situated Lab-Assistants in the same Hospital.5
(C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016
(b) to grant the revised sixth pay Commission scale PB-I i.e. Rs.5200-20, 200+2400 to the applicant as similarly being given to the other employees of the same Hospital alongwith all consequential benefits.
(c) to award the costs of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is similarly situated in all respect and working in the same Hospital, i.e., Dr. LHMC Hospital as Lab- Assistants and accordingly, the non-extension of the benefit of the judgment dated 03.12.2013 in O.A. No.2170/2012 is totally arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice.
3.1. Placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S D. Navin Chandra and Co. Bombay Vs. UOI & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 66, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that time and again Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the benefits of a judgment shall be extended to all the concerned persons whether made parties or not.
3.2. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is directly affected by non- 6 (C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016 grant of the grade pay of Rs.2400/- on the basis of pay scale Rs.4000-6000 as she is getting less pay every month. 3.3. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the decision dated 22.08.2024 rendered by this Tribunal in OA No. 2574/2019 titled Inder Jeet Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation.
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Fifth Pay Commission has considered the issues of Pay Scales for Laboratory Staff in Section II Chapter 55 considering them as "common categories Staff in para 55.142 to 55.1512. Laboratory Assistants have been dealt in para 55.149 and the entry grade pay scales recommended for Laboratory Assistants having minimum qualification as Metric (with Science) plus certificate/Diploma in Laboratory Technology (including DMLT) or 10+2 with science was Rs. 95-1500. Vide Government Resolution notified in gazette notification no. G.L.M.F., No. 50(1) / IC/97 dated 30.09.97, the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission have been 7 (C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016 accepted and the Laboratory Assistants have been granted the pay scales of Rs. 3200-85-4900.
4.1. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that Chapter 3.8 of recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission stipulates that the posts of Laboratory Assistants in different scales shall be extended the corresponding replacement pay band and grade pay which in case of applicant is pay band I [Rs.5200-20,200] plus grade pay of Rs.2000. Adding further, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the pay scale of Laboratory Assistant has never been upgraded.
4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per the recruitment rules of Laboratory Assistants the qualification is Matric (with Science) plus certificate/Diploma in Laboratory Technology (including DMLT) or 10+2 with science and being the lower most direct entry grade in the Laboratory cadre the scale of Rs.3200-85-4900 was in conformity with the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission and the replacement scale recommended by Sixth Pay Commission 8 (C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016 and accepted by Government is Pay Band 1 [Rs. 5200- 20,200] plus grade pay of Rs.2000.
4.3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 2574/2019, which has been relied by the learned counsel for the applicant, cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the rules of Employees State Insurance Corporation cannot be applied to the Hospital, where the applicant is working. He further argued that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Laboratory Assistant and OT Assistant are entirely different and no comparison can be drawn between them as educational qualifications are different for both the posts.
4.4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the subject of the present O.A.s is pending adjudication in a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. 9 (C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. In O.A. 697/2016, the applicant has approached this Tribunal praying for a direction to the respondents to fix her pay scale as recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission on the basis of Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-6000 as fixed of the similarly situated Lab-Assistants in the same Hospital. Further a direction has also been sought by the applicant to the respondents for grant of revised Sixth Pay Commission Scale of PB-I, i.e., Rs. 5200-20,200 + Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- with all consequential benefits as has been granted to other similarly situated employees of the same Hospital. As already highlighted above, the facts and the relief sought in the other O.A., i.e., OA No. 520/2016 is identical.
6.2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicants that this Tribunal had granted pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- to the Lab-Assistant of Lady Hardinge Hospital in O.A. No.2170 of 2012 (supra). Further, reliance has also been placed upon OA No. 2574 of 2019 (supra).10
(C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016 6.3. In terms of the order dated 22.08.2024, the respondents were directed to prepare a chart comparing the present case with that of O.A. No. 2574 of 2019 (supra). As per the directions of this Tribunal, the respondents have filed an additional affidavit drawing comparison between the recruitment rules, duties and responsibilities between the present applicants and the case of Inder Jeet (supra). The said comparison is in tabular form and reads as under:
OA No. 2574/2019 (Inder Jeet) supra OA Nos. 697/2016 and 520/2016 (present O.A.s) 1 That the applicant in OA are That the applicants in this employees of ESIC an original application are autonomous body with own set employees of Central of rules and regulations. Government.
2 That the applicants are O.T. That the applicants are Assistant, CSR Assistant and Laboratory Assistant CSSD Assistant 3 Educational Qualification: OT Educational Qualification:
Asstt.) i. Matriculation or its i. Senior Secondary (10+2) with equivalent qualification from science or equivalent a recognized Board; qualification from a recognized board with one year experience ii. Diploma in Medical in O.T. of a recognized hospital; Laboratory Technology.
CSR Assistant Senior Secondary (10+2) or equivalent qualification from a recognized Board with one year experience in the relevant field from recognized/ registered hospital.
4 That the applicants are OT That the applicants in Assistants. CSD Assistant and instant OA are also CSSD assistant as per notified appointed in Pay Band -1 Recruitment Rules drawn pay Rs. 5200-20200/- with scale of in Pay Band 1 Rs.5200- Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-
20200/- with Grade pay
Rs.2000/-
6 That the duties and responsibilities of OT Assistants CSD
11
(C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016
Assistant & CSSD assistant and Laboratory Assistants are distinct from each other and no parity between two different sets of employees.
7 That the applicants of this OA are relied upon the extended benefit flowing out in the OA No.4644/2019 challenged before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and pending for adjudication.
8 That the Order passed in
the OA No.4644/2019 is
relied upon the benefits
flowing out in OA
No.2995/2014 &
2996/2014, the same
are challenged before
Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi vide WP
No.8261/2016 &
8264/2016 and
scheduled for hearing on
01.10.2024.
6.4. After perusing the afore-quoted table, we are of the view that the decision rendered by this Tribunal in OA No. 2574/2019 (supra) cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present O.A.s as the said O.A. was filed by the applicants, who were employees of Employees State Insurance Corporation, which is an autonomous body with its own set of rules and regulations. 6.5. A perusal of the pleadings reveals that it is also a fact that similarly situated persons have been granted identical 12 (C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016 relief by the respondents in pursuance of the directions passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.2170 of 2012 (supra). 6.6. The applicants herein in both the O.A.s are similarly placed to the applicants in O.A. No.2170 of 2012 (supra) and are working in the same hospital/administration, i.e., Lady Hardinge Hospital, New Delhi.
6.7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.12.2015, which has been quoted above, discloses that "DGHS has given the approval to implement the CAT order dated 03.12.2013 by granting grade pay of Rs. 2400/- to Sh. Mahesh Chand Paliwal & three other Lab. Assistants (Ms. Priyanka, Ms. Neeru, & Ms. Pooja Aggarwal) only from the date of their appointment". The same makes it very clear that the respondents have implemented the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 2170/2012 (supra) in respect of the applicants therein. Thus, we are of the view that the present applicants being similarly situated are entitled for identical relief as denying them the similar pay scale would be discriminatory and violative of their fundamental rights. Their duties and functions being the same, they cannot be 13 (C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016 differentiated from their counterparts, who are getting a higher pay.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we allow the present O.A.s and direct the respondents to grant the revised Sixth Pay Commission Pay Scale, i.e., PB-I Rs. 5200-20,200 + Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 along with consequential benefits to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7.2. However, being conscious of the fact, as also highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the subject of the present O.A.s is pending adjudication in a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, we make it clear that this order shall be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition filed by the respondents on the subject. In case, the Writ Petition meets success, the applicants shall be obliged to refund the financial benefits they may have obtained in pursuance of the directions given by us in the present O.A.s.14
(C-5, item -57) O.A. No. 697/2016 with O.A. No. 520/2016 7.3. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/