Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
T. Chellappan vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 3 July, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH TRANSFER APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2008 Friday, this the 3rd day of July, 2009 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER T. Chellappan, aged about 63 years, S/o. Thevan, Gestetner Operator (Retd.), Coconut Development Board, Cochin, Residing at Aranthalil House, Thazhakkavu P.O., Mavelikkara, Alappuzha District. ..... Applicant (By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy) V e r s u s 1. Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. 2. The Coconut Development Board, Cochin-16, through its Secretary. 3. The Chairman, Coconut Development Board, Cochin-16. 4. The Administrative Officer, Coconut Development Board, (Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India), Cochin-16. .... Respondents [By Advocate Mr. TPM Ibrahim Khan, SCGSC) This Transfer Application having come up for disposal on 1.7.2009, the Court on 3.7.2009 delivered the following: O R D E R
By Hon'ble Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member-
Equal pay for equal work is the issue involved in this case. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Watchman in June, 1968 in the Directorate of Coconut Development under the Ministry of Agriculture; was later on, promoted as Peon. While so, the Coconut Development Board was constituted in terms of Coconut Development Board Act, 1979 and all the employees of the erstwhile Directorate of Coconut Development including the applicant were transferred to Coconut Development Board as per the then existing terms and conditions of service. In the said Board the applicant got his promotion as Daftari in 1982 and was next in the queue for promotion to the next post of Gestetner Operator. The said post of Gestetner Operator was placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1400/- while that of Daftari was Rs. 7751025/-. By an order dated 10.9.1991 issued by the 3rd respondent pay scale of Gestetner Operator was upgraded to the scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-, vide Annexure P-1. Accordingly, the then incumbent to the said post, one Shri Cleatus was accorded the higher pay scale. The said individual unfortunately died while in service and the applicant was promoted on regular basis against the vacancy left by late Cleatus, Annexure P-2 refers. In the said promotion order, the pay of the applicant was fixed only in the scale of pay of Rs. 9501400/- with effect from 1.3.1993.
2. The applicant penned Annexure P-3 representation requesting the authorities that his pay scale be revised to Rs. 1200-1800/-. This request was renewed by Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6. It was by Annexure P-7 memo dated 12.6.1996 that the applicant was informed that his request for promotion to the higher post in the scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-cannot be considered "due to the absence of notified recruitment regulations on the basis of which only the departmental promotion committee can consider the matter". The applicant however, moved yet another representation dated 30.11.1998 reflecting therein the higher pay scale granted to his predecessor. In reply thereto respondents vide Annexure P-10 memo dated 25.1.1999 informed the applicant of the decision already taken and communicated vide memo dated 14.10.1996 and further stated that the applicant has however been paid Rs. 100/-as honorarium with effect from 6.7.1996. Not being satisfied with the aforesaid clarification and the rejection of his request, the applicant moved OP No. 30030 of 2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the same was disposed of by judgment dated 15.3.2006 (P-11) giving a direction to the second respondent for reconsideration of the applicant's representation. The applicant filed a comprehensive representation dated 4.7.2006 and requested for revision of his pay scale to Rs. 1200-1800/-. This was responded to by Annexure P-14 order dated nil. In this comprehensive order, the Secretary, Coconut Development Board had held that placement of Shri Cleatus in the higher pay scale was on a different footing as the individual was slogging without any promotion prospects for 23 years, whereas the applicant was earlier promoted as Daftari. Again it was communicated that earlier a decision was taken to upgrade the post of Gestetner Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-, subsequently in the 48th Board meeting held on 6.7.1996 the matter was elaborately considered and it was decided not to grant higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-to Gestetner Operator in the absence of such a provision in the recruitment rules. However, the Board has decided to grant Rs. 100/-per month as honorarium, which the applicant has been getting. Thus the claim of the applicant for placement in the higher pay scale of Rs. 12001800/-in the post of Gestetner Operator was rejected. The applicant retired in 2003.
3. The applicant has challenged Annexure P-14 order dated nil, Annexure P-10 memo dated 25.1.1999 and Annexure P-7 memo dated 12.6.1996 and claims pay in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1800/-.
4. Respondents have contested the TA. According to them, recruitment rules specifically provide for a particular pay scale which has not been amended, though as per Annexure R-3 the Board approved recommendations of the executive committee to upgrade the post of Gestetner Operator to the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-. In view of the fact that the same was not approved by the Government, it was decided vide Annexure R-15 to grant only honorarium to the Gestetner Operator. Accordingly from 6.7.1996 in the 48th meeting, the decision to grant Rs. 100/-per month to the incumbent to the post, i.e. applicant, was taken. The applicant has been enjoying the said honorarium. The respondents have also furnished a copy of the DPC proceedings wherein it was stated that the pay scale of the applicant is restricted to Rs. 950-1400/-only as otherwise, there will be a double jump from earlier Rs. 775-1025/- to Rs. 1200-1800/-. The DPC also took cognizance to the fact that the recruitment rules were not amended. As such while it recommended, promotion to the applicant with effect from 1.3.1993 on adhoc basis, in so far as pay scale is concerned it stuck to Rs. 950-1400/- and in case of amendment in the recruitment rules, the pay of the applicant shall be fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-.
5. Applicant has filed his rejoinder reiterating the contentions raised by him in the petition.
6. Counsel for the applicant argued that when the applicant's predecessor could be granted higher pay scale rejection of the applicant's representation is illegal. He has invited the reference to pay scale of Gestetner Operators in Coir Board vide Annexure P-15 and contended that there cannot be two different pay scales for the same skilled work by two offices under the same Department. Equal pay for equal work has been the main thrust of the counsel for the applicant and in this regard the applicant has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:
(a) AIR 1985 SC 1124
(b) AIR 1986 SC 584
(c) AIR 1987 SC 2045
7. Counsel for the respondents submitted that as long as there is no amendment to the recruitment rules, the question of revising the pay of the appliant does not arise. It has also been argued that grant of higher pay scale to Shri Cleatus cannot be cited by the applicant here as Shri Cleatus had put in 23 years of service without any promotion prospects while the applicant had got atleast one as Daftari.
8. Arguments were heard and documents perused. True, vide Annexure Exhibit P-1 the pay scale got revised and Shri Cleatus granted the benefits. DPC had while recommending promotion of the applicant to the post of Gestetner Operator specifically restricted the pay scale to Rs. 950-1400/-. It is not exactly known whether the DPC has got the power to recommend a pay scale though it may recommend advance increments in respect of certain special posts. Be that as it may, the applicant was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400/-with Rs. 100/- honorarium, with effect from 4.7.1996 the date of convening of 48th meeting.
9. Though the exact drill involved in revision of pay scales has not been duly reflected in the pleadings it appears that once a decision has been taken the same has to be got affirmed by the Ministry before the notification is gazetted. In the instant case the decision to revise the pay scale was taken in 1991 and the then incumbent to the post was placed in the said pay scale. However, due to the recommendations of the DPC to place the applicant in Rs. 950-1400/-the applicant was placed in the said scale. Also, in the 37th meeting, held on 6.9.1993, it was decided not to have the pay scale revised to Rs. 1200-1800/- Annexure R-9.
10. It was later on in July, 1996 that respondents, on the basis of the remarks of the Deputy Secretary in the Ministry, desired to have the pay scale of Gestetner Operator at Rs. 950-1400/- with Rs. 100/- as monthly honorarium. This honorarium has been enjoyed by the applicant from day one after 48th meeting has taken place. The grant of honorarium does not deviate from the provisions of recruitment rules.
11. In so far equal pay for equal work is concerned the applicant relying upon the decisions cited above may not be of much use in this case. In the instant case, the post of Gestetner Operator cannot be compared with the post of Senior Gestetner Operator of Coir Board. Again as long as recruitment rules were not amended a mere decision of the Board without concurrence of the Ministry would mean nothing. True Shri Cleatus was paid for a shortwhile till his demise but that was to be considered as irregular in the absence of concurrence by the Ministry/amendment to the recruitment rule, and in any event the applicant cannot claim the same as recruitment rules were not amended. Even if the applicant is justified in staking his claim on the basis of the fact that his predecessor Shri Cleatus has got it the applicant cannot claim it now as by a conscious decision with effect from July, 1996 the respondents have prescribed pay scale of Rs. 950-1400/- plus Rs. 100/- as honorarium for Gestetner Operator, which the applicant does enjoy. This downward revision would have been taken irrespective of the incumbent to the post. If at all there be some justification for higher pay scale, it may be only up to June, 1996, but the applicant cannot claim such arrears of pay and allowances now, as a claim beyond 3 years from the date of filing of the TA cannot be entertained. In a recent case (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh -2008 (8) SCC 648), the Apex Court has stated that the relief relating to the arrears should be restricted to only 3 years before the date of Writ Petition. As such the applicant cannot be gaining anything in his claim for arrears for the period from 1993-1996. And, beyond July, 1996 the decision was not to give any higher pay scale and for the additional work, it was only honorarium which the applicant had already enjoyed.
12. In view of the above, we find no merit in the Transfer Application and as such the TA has to be necessarily rejected which we order accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (K.B.S. RAJAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SA