Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Amrick Kaur vs Dda on 9 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 1143/2010
New Delhi this the 9th day of January, 2012
Honble Mr.G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A)
Sh. Inderjeet Singh through legal heirs
Ms. Amrick Kaur, wife
Sh. Kuljeet Singh, son
Sh. Kulpreet Singh, son
Mrs. Harpreet Kaur, daughter married
49, Swan Park Ext. Ashok Vihar, Ph-3,
New Delhi-52.
. Applicants
(Applicant No.2 in person)
Versus
DDA
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan,
INA, Delhi.
The Commissioner (Personal)
Vikas Sadan,
INA, Delhi.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Alka Sharma)
O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
The Applicant is working as an Assistant Operator (S&M). He seeks same pay which is being paid to Pump Operator Grade-II on the principle of equal pay for equal work. He had earlier approached this Tribunal for the same relief vide OA-2712/2009 but it was disposed of vide order dated 24.9.2009 with the direction to the respondents to consider his representation in that regard and to dispose of it by a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, they have passed the impugned order dated 2.12.2009 stating as under:
1. As per E.O. No.4551 dt. 10.11.87 issued by Dy. Director (P)-II with the approval of V.C., DDA, certain posts i.e. Asstt. Wireman, Asstt. Pump Operator etc. were re-designated. Your category Asstt. Operator (S&M) is not included in the under mentioned orders.
2. On introduction of ACP in 1999, Commissioner (P) vide E.O.No.1142 dt. 11.8.06 issued orders that the employees in the work charged (Regular) establishment holding such posts do not have any corresponding post in the regular establishment may be given the next scale as per grade chart as stipulated under ACP Scheme guidelines. On the basis of the orders, we have fixed your pay from the scale of Rs.3050-4590(8-5) to Rs.3200-4590 (8-6) under Ist ACP vide this office E.O. No.622 dt. 3.5.07. As per department policy, Pay drawn by you at present, is correct.
2. The brief background of the case is that the applicant joined as an Assistant Operator (E&M) on work charged basis on 6.1.1983 in the scale of pay of Rs.210-4-226-EB-4-250-EB-5-290/-. He was later appointed as Pump Operator (E&M) on regular work charge basis and his pay scale was revised to Rs.225-350 w.e.f. 17.7.1984 vide order dated 18.12.1995. His pay was revised to Rs.950-1400/- vide order dated 9.11.1995 at par with his similarly situated persons. Presently, he is in the scale of Rs.3200-4900 while the others are getting the salary of Rs.4000-6000. He has specifically given the case of Sh. Om Prakash, who joined the respondent department in 1984 much after him and was given the scale of Rs.4000-6000. However, the applicant was later on gave the benefit under the ACP Scheme granting him the scale of Rs.3200-4900. His contention is that before granting him the aforesaid ACP scale, he was in the scale of Rs.950-1400 and the other similarly situated persons in the same category also used to get the equal pay scale, i.e. Rs.950-1400. When the applicant was granted the ACP, his salary was fixed in the scale of Rs.3200-4900 and the others were given the scale of Rs.4000-6000 without any rhyme or reason.
3. Applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand, 2008 (13) SCALE 558 and Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648, in support of his submission and he has submitted that he has the legitimate expectation that he would also be given the same pay scale as other similarly placed persons.
4. He has also relied upon information given to him under the Right to Information Act on 2.2.2010. The questions raised by him and the reply given by the respondents are as under:
Question 1: Whether DDA has its own Recruitment rules or is adopting the Recruitment Rules of C.P.W.D. in case of Technical Staff?
Answer 1: It pertains to Personnel Branch/Director (Work-Charged) Estt.
Question 2: The Employee namely Sh. Omprakash (Asst. Pump Operator), Sh. Ramasis Gupta (Asst. Wireman) who were also having the Asstt. Category used to get the same scale to that of the applicant, on what basis they were given higher scale, but I was denied?
Question 3: As per High Court Direction it was order to abolish the asst. Category from the Department. Thus the Asst. category were removed from the employee namely Sh. Omprakash (Asst. Pump Operator) Sh. Ramasis Gupta (Asst. Wireman), but why the same was not implemented in my case?
Answer 2 & 3: It is true that Sh. Om Prakash, Asst. Operator (Regular) and Sh. Ram Ashish Gupta, Asstt. Wireman, W/C(R) were appointed as Asstt. Category. The Asstt. Category were removed from the Employee in compliance of E.O. No.4551 dt. 10.11.87 issued by Dy. Director (P)-II, DDA. Accordingly to this E.O. certain posts i.e. Asstt. W/Man, Asstt. P.O. etc. were re-designated but your category i.e. Asstt. Operator (E&M) is not included in the orders under reference.
Question 4: What is the difference between Work charge & Work Charge (Regular) employee in DDA?
Question 5: What was the basis, on which employee were categorized under Work Charge (Regular) employee in DDA.
Answer 4 & 5: pertain to Personnel Branch/Director (W/C) Estt.
Question 6: The undersigned/applicant was declined of his ACP benefit at par with others on the basis of a letter dated 2-12-09 issued from Ex. Eng. (EI.), where in a reference was made in para 2 that E.O. No. 1142 dated 11-08-06. Pl. supply a fair copy of the E.O. No. 1142 dated 11-08-06. Copy of letter dated 2-12-09 is enclosed herewith.
Answer 6: On introduction of ACP in 1999, Commissioner(P) Vide E.O. No.1142 dt. 11.8.06 issued orders that the employee in the work charged regular establishment holding such posts as do not have any corresponding post in the regular establishment may be given in the next scale as per grade chart as stipulated under ACP Scheme guidelines. On the basis of these orders we have fixed your pay from the scale of Rs.3050-4590/-(S-5) to Rs.3200-4900/-(S-6) under 1st ACP whereas Sh. Om Prakash, Asstt. Operator (R) and sh. Ram Ashish Gupta, Asstt. Wireman (now as pump operator and wireman) have been granted 1st ACP in the scale of Rs.4000-100-6000/-. A photocopy of E.O. No.1142 dt. 11.8.06 is also enclosed for reference.
5. He has further relied upon the order of the respondents dated 11.8.06 wherein it has been held as under:
The employees in the Work Charged (Regular) establishment holding such posts, as do not have any corresponding post in the regular establishment, as stipulated under ACP scheme guidelines.
6. The respondents in their reply has submitted that the applicant has filed this OA under a misconception seeking parity in pay scale of Pump Operators. Applicant has been working as Assistant Operator (E&M) on work charged basis w.e.f. 6.1.1983 in the scale of pay of Rs.210-290. From 6.1.1986 he was made a regular work charged employee and designated as Assistant Operator (E&M) with the revised scale of pay of Rs.225-350/- w.e.f. 17.7.84. His scale was again revised to Rs.950-1400 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Further, his pay scale was revised to Rs.3200-4900 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. W.e.f. 10.1.87 the following work charged were re-designated as under:
1. Asstt. Wireman Wireman Gr-II
2. Asstt. Pump Operator Pump Operator Gr-II
3. Asstt. Mason Mason Gr-II
4. Asstt. Fitter Fitter Gr-II
5. Asstt. Plumber Plumber Gr-II
6. Asstt. Mechanic Mechanic Gr-II
7. Asstt. Painter Painter Gr-II
8. Asstt. Carpenter Carptenter Gr-II
7. But the applicant continued to get the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900. In other words, while the Asstt. Workman, Asstt. Pump Operator etc. were re-designated as Workman Gr.II, Pump Operator Gr.-II etc. the category of Asstt. Operator (E&M) has not been re-designated. As a result, the applicants pay has been raised from Rs.30504590 (S-5) to Rs.3200-4900 (S-6) as the first ACP vide order dated 7.6.2007. Applicant has never challenged the EO No.1142 dated 11.8.2006 relied upon by the applicant himself. According to the said order as the employees in the work charge/regular establishment holding such post do not have any corresponding course in regular establishment they have to get the next scale as stipulated under ACP guidelines.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As stated by the respondents, the applicant is not holding the post comparable with Asstt. Wireman, Asstt. Workmen, Asstt. Pump Operator etc. who have been re-designated as Workman Gr-II etc. They were already having the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900 before the first ACP was introduced. Therefore, they have been placed in the scale of Rs.4000-6000 after granting him the first ACP benefits. But the applicant was holding the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590 in terms of the para 2 (iii) of E.O. No.1142 dated 11.8.2006. He has been given the next scale as per the grade chart as stipulated under the ACP guidelines.
9. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this case and the same is accordingly dismissed.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd