Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Parandamane vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 13 February, 2025
1 OA No.310/00697 of 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00697/2013
Dated this the 13th day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
1. Parandamane,
S/o Palanisamy,
Assistant, Block Development Office,
No.5, II Cross Street, Kamaraj Nagar,
Villianur Manavely,Puducherry.
2. M. Vengadapathy,
S/o Munusamy,
Assistant, Employment Exchange,
No.1, III Cross Street,
Ramanapuram, Puducherry.
3. R. Koumaravel,
S/o Ramasamy,
Assistant, Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries,
Plot No.2, Lake Road,
Velrampet, Puducherry.
4. N. Vijayakumar,
S/o S. Natarajan,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,
No.19/1, Kirambuthottam,
South Street, Karaikal.
5. J. Sundar,
S/o K.Jayaraman,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,
No.15, Agraharam Street,
Kovilpathu, Karaikal.
2 OA No.310/00697 of 2013
6. G. Varalakshmi,
W/o V. Govindaraj,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,
No.23, Seniar Kulam Street,
Pattammal Nagar, Karaikal.
7. R. Vijayalakshmi,
W/o Uma Shankar Patnaik,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,
No.100/1, Lemaire Street, Karaikal.
8. P. Savithiri,
W/o R. Pathamanaban,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,
No.16, Sri Lakshmi Illam,
Sri Ram Nagar, P.K. Salai,
Karaikal.
9. J. Malligeswari,
W/o P. Jayaraman,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,
No.33, Malligia Bhavanam, III Cross,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, P.K. Salai,
Karaikal.
10. M. Yasmin,
W/o A. Mohamed Jahabar Maraicar,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,
No.5, second Cross, Prabu Nagar,
Kamaraj Salai, Karaikal.
11. K. Indhirani,
W/o K. Kannan,
Assistant , DAT Branch Office,
No.46, Subbiah Pillai Nagar,
IV Cross, Ambal Chattiram,
Karaikal .
12. R. Anname,
W/o S. Ganesan,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,
No.10/1, Thiagaraja Street,
Karaikal.
3 OA No.310/00697 of 2013
13. B. Soumady,
W/o R. Bagvan Doss,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,Karaikal
No.19, III Cross, Thiruvalluvar Nagar,
Karaikal.
14. K. Vijaya,
W/o Pannerselvam,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,Karaikal
No.23, 1st Cross, Assiriyar Nagar,
Karaikal.
15. M. Nirmala,
W/o V.G. Veerapillai,
Assistant, DAT Branch Office,
No.16, Old Tranqubar Street,
Keezakasakudy, Karaikal.
16. M. Damodaran,
S/o Muthu Natarajan,
Assistant, Govt. High School, Sethur,
No.78/1, Perumal Koil Street,
Varichikudy, Kottucherry,
Karaikal.
17. M. Caliany @ Thenmozhy,
W/o Rahaman Basha,
Assistant, Arignar Anna Govt. Arts College,
No.28, Perumal Koil Street,
Varichukudy, Kottucherry, Karaikal.
18. M. Nehru,
S/o K. Manickam,
Assistant, Chief Educational Office,
No.44, Sengamuthu Street,
Mayiladuthurai.
19. P. Sivakumar,
S/o Pannerselvam,
Assistant, Deputy Inspector of Schools-Zone-II,
No.31, Matha Koil Street,
Thiruvettaikudy, Kottucherry
Karaikal.
4 OA No.310/00697 of 2013
20. V. Kandasamy,
S/o Veerappan,
Assistant, Deputy Inspector of Schools-Zone-II,
Kaliamman Koil Street,
Thalatheru, Karaikal.
21. G. Venkatesan,
S/o Govindasamy,
Assistant, NSC Bose Govt. Higher Secondary School,
Thalatheru Karaikal,
No.9 Old Tranqubar Street,
Keezakasakudy, Kottucherry,
Karaikal. .. Applicants
By Advocate M/s. Giridhar & Sai
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. Secretary to Government (Finance)
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
3. Director of Accounts and treasuries,
Puducherry,
4. The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Room No.76, New Delhi.
5. The Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa for R.1 to 3
5 OA No.310/00697 of 2013
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following relief:
(i) To direct the respondents to execute the pay already fixed at Rs.12,090/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- for the 1st Applicant in the Pay Band PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200/- with effect from the date of promotion to the post of Assistant with reference to the pre-revised upgraded scale of Rs.6500-10500, with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears and allowances to the said posts;
(ii) To direct the respondents to re-fix the pay of rest of the Applicants at Rs.12090/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- with effect from the respective dates of their promotion to the post of Assistant, with reference to the pre-revised upgraded scale of Rs.6500-10500, with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears and allowances to the said post;
(iii) Pass such further and other orders as may be deemed fit and proper including cost of this application and thus render justice"
2. Facts as culled out from the OA are as follows:
The 1st Applicant joined as a Lower Division Clerk on 26.12.1988 and was promoted to Assistant on 07.06.2006 in the scale of Rs.5000-8000, which was later upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 (V Pay Commission scale) by the Government of Puducherry through G.O. Ms.No.23/DPAR/SS-II dated 27.02.2009. All applicants were promoted to Assistant between 01.01.2006 and 30.08.2006, and the recommendations of the VI Central Pay 6 OA No.310/00697 of 2013 Commission were accepted by the Government in Resolution dated 29.08.2008, with CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 coming into effect on 01.01.2006. Following this, the pay scale for the Assistant position was upgraded from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.6500-10500, corresponding to Pay Band PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200) by the Government of Puducherry. The Applicants submitted their options for pay re-fixation, but these were not acted upon, despite repeated representations. The 1st Applicant's pay was re-fixed at Rs.12090 + GP 4200, effective from the promotion date, but the proposal was returned by the 3rd respondent for clarification from the Finance Department of Puducherry. Subsequent representations to the 2nd respondent have gone unanswered. The Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, issued a clarification note vide U.O.No.10/1/2009/IC, dated 14.12.2009, in conjunction with O.M.No.7/7/08-CS.1(A), dated 22.12.2010, from the Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi. This note addressed the pay fixation for Assistants/Personal Assistants (PAs) in Central Government Offices whose pay scales were upgraded from Rs.5000-9000 to Rs.7480-11500, effective from 01.01.2006. For Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service promoted between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008, their pay was fixed under the Revised Pay Structure at Rs.13,860 (minimum stage) from the date of promotion, based on the fitment table for the pre-
revised upgraded scale of Rs.7450-11500. On the same analogy, the pay of 7 OA No.310/00697 of 2013 the 1st Applicant was re-fixed at Rs.12090/- (minimum stage) as of 07.06.2006. Pursuant to the G.O.,the pay of Assistants in the Puducherry Slum Clearance Board was also re-fixed at Rs.12,090/- from 01.01.2006, and pay arrears were paid, as confirmed by the Board's letter dated 22.12.2011. Despite multiple representations and legal notice, dated 06.08.2012, no response has been received from the respondents, prompting the present OA.
3. The applicant's counsel stated that following the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations, the Central Civil Servant (Revised Pay) Rules were implemented with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. The Commission specifically recommended revised pay scales for certain posts, including the Assistant position, which was updated to Rs. 6500- 10500, as reflected in the First Schedule - Part B - Section II - II(1) of the rules.
4. She further submitted that as per the decision of Government of India, GO. Ms.No.23, dated 27.02.2099 was issued by the Government of Puducherry and the same reads as follows:
"2. The implementation Cell in its report dated 09.02.2009 has recommended grant of the revised pay band Rs.9300 - 34800 and Grade Pay Rs.4200/- to the Assistants as per the decision of the GOI on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and notified under Section II of Part-B of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008".8 OA No.310/00697 of 2013
Thus, it is evident that the revision of pay scale is as per the decision of the Government of India.
5. The counsel further stated that the Government of Puducherry has yet to implement the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 27.02.2009 and the office order dated 05.03.2009. Additionally, these orders have not been cancelled by the government. Therefore, it is necessary and just to implement G.O.Ms.No.23 and grant pay fixation as per the order dated 05.03.2009.
6. She also argued that the applicants are entitled to pay fixation under Rules 5 & 6 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. According to these rules, if a government servant is placed in a higher pay scale between 01.01.2006 and the notification date of the rules due to promotion, upgradation, etc., he may choose to switch to the revised pay structure from the date of such promotion or upgradation. The applicants have exercised their option to switch to the revised pay structure from the date of their promotion.
7. The counsel further argued that the respondents' reliance on the judgment,dated 29.04.2015 in OA No.710/2012, is not applicable to the 9 OA No.310/00697 of 2013 current case. In OA No.710/2012, the applicant sought pay parity in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, effective from 01.01.1986, in other departments under the Government of India. In contrast, the present applicant is seeking the implementation of a pay fixation already determined at Rs.12,900/-with a Grade Pay of Rs.4200, which has not been cancelled by the Government of Puducherry. The applicant clarified that they are not seeking pay parity or equal pay for equal work with the Central Secretariat, New Delhi, as this is a separate issue irrelevant to the current case. Therefore, she requested the relief sought in the present OA.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents (1 to 3) argued that the Government of Puducherry is considered outside the Secretariat, as all its branches, departments, and organizations operate outside the Central Secretariat, including the Ministries. In the Ministry of Home Affairs' order, dated 03.09.2009, it is stated in the third line of Para 3 (ii) that "the Government of Puducherry does not participate in the CSS." Additionally, the sixth line of Para 3 (i) of the same order notes that "Assistants and Stenographers in other organizations, such as the Ministry of External Affairs, which do not participate in CSS/CSSS but where posts are in comparable grades, with the same classification, pay scales, and recruitment methods through open competitive examination," further emphasizing the distinction. Therefore, the post of Assistant, as outlined in 10 OA No.310/00697 of 2013 Column 2 of Section II of Part B of the First Schedule to the CSS (RP) Rules, 2008, under the caption "Office Staff working in organizations outside the Secretariat," applies to Assistants working in the U.T. Administration, as Puducherry is classified as outside the Secretariat.
9. The counsel further referenced an O.M. issued by the Ministry of Finance on 16.11.2009, which extended the pay structure with a grade pay of Rs.4600/- in the Pay Band (PB-2) to Assistants in the Central Secretariat Services, Armed Forces HQ Services, Indian Foreign Services "B," Railway Board Secretariat Services, and Personal Assistants (PAs) in their counterparts, including Stenographer services, effective from 01.01.2006. The pay would be fixed according to Illustration 4-A of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. However, the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, clarified in their O.M. ,dated 22.12.2010, that Assistants/PAs promoted between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008 could opt to have their pay fixed from the date of promotion, based on the fitment table of the upgraded pay scale (pre-revised scale of Rs.7450- 11500), but they would not be entitled to arrears from 01.01.2006 to the date of option.
10. The counsel further submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in its letter, dated 18.05.2016, clarified that the 11 OA No.310/00697 of 2013 matter had been examined in consultation with the Integrated Finance Division (MHA) and the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). The U.O. Note No.10/1/2009-IC, dated 14.12.2009, pertains to Assistants/PAs in the Central Secretariat Services, Armed Forces HQ Services, Indian Foreign Services (Group), and Railway Board Secretariat Services, who were granted a Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-. However, this Grade Pay is not extended to Assistants in the UT of Puducherry. Therefore, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) clarified that the pay fixation provisions outlined in the note do not apply to Assistants in the UT of Puducherry. In light of this, the counsel requested the dismissal of the present OA.
11. The applicant has filed a rejoinder to which the respondents have filed a reply, reiterating their respective contentions made in the OA and the reply statement.
12. We have heard both the parties at length, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. We have also gone through the case laws referred to by the respective parties.
13. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the determination of post and salary equivalence is a complex matter best left 12 OA No.310/00697 of 2013 to the Executive, particularly expert bodies such as the Pay Commission. These bodies are best suited to evaluate the nature, duties, and responsibilities of posts. When a determination is made by such a Commission or Committee, the court should generally accept it, and interference should only occur if it is shown that the decision was made with extraneous considerations. Granting pay parity by the court could lead to a cascading effect with potentially adverse consequences. The judgment of administrative authorities regarding the responsibilities and reliability expected of a post is a value judgment, and if made bona fide, reasonably, and rationally, it should not be subject to court interference. The concept of "equal pay for equal work" requires complete and wholesale identity between the groups of employees claiming identical pay scales and those already receiving them. The issue of equal pay cannot always be reduced to a simple mathematical formula.
14. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court law. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organization or even in the same organization. The decision of the administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, 13 OA No.310/00697 of 2013 if arrived at bona fide, reasonable and rationally was not open to inference by the Court. We may refer to the judgment, dated 08.01.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Rajesh Kumar Jindal ( AIRONLINE 2019 SC
395) wherein it was held as follows:
"14. Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. The aggrieved employees claiming parity must establish that they are unjustly treated by arbitrary action or discriminated. In Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Others (2001) 1 SCC 353, this Court held as under:-
"7. The next question that arises for consideration is, as to what extent the High Court would be justified in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the findings of an expert body like the Equation Committee. In State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) 1 SCC 121, this Court unequivocally held that in the matter of equation of posts or equation of pay, the same should be left to the Executive Government, who can get it determined by expert bodies like the Pay Commission, and such expert body would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts and when such determination by a commission or committee is made, the court should normally accept it and should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration...."
15.In S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2007) 8 SCC 279, this Court held as under:-
"33. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the court should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive function vide Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(2007) 1 SCC 408.14 OA No.310/00697 of 2013
..........
35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay).
36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy and Others (2004) 1 SCC 347." The same view was reiterated in Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and Others v. Manju Mathur and Another (2011) 2 SCC 452;State of Haryana and Others v. Charanjit Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 321 and in Hukum Chand Gupta v.
Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Others (2012) 12 SCC 666.
16. Observing that granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts, in Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya (2011) 11 SCC 122, this Court held as under:-
"30. ........... the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The functions may be the same but the skills and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. The other post may not require any higher qualification, seniority or other like factors. Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity, must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal between the posts 15 OA No.310/00697 of 2013 concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties."
15 Given the legal position outlined above, this Tribunal is unable to intervene, particularly at this stage when the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission have already been implemented. As such, we are unable to issue any directions to the respondents regarding this matter. The applicant's request for pay parity with retrospective effect cannot be granted in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 16 In the result, the OA is dismissed of devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMNBER(J)
13 .02.2025
mas