Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Vimal Chawla vs Union Of India Through on 20 August, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 3662/2013
Order Reserved on: 04.08.2015
Pronounced on: 20.08.2015
Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Honble Mr. V. N. Gaur, Member (A)
1. Sh. Vimal Chawla
Son of Shri S.S.Chawla
2. Sh. Kiran Kumar Ekka
Son of Shri Bipsen Benjamin Ekka
3. Sh. Aswani Kumar Singhal
Son of Shri Jai Prakash Singhal
4. Sh. Rajender Kumar Kapoor
Son of Shri H L Kapoor
5. Sh. Rajender Kumar
Son of Late Shri C L Azad
6. Sh. Satya Dev Gupta
Son of Late Shri S K L Gupta
7. Sh. Som Nath
Son of Late Shri Harbans Lal
8. Sh. Ashwani Kumar Gupta
Son of Late Shri Hari Chand Gupta
9. Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta
Son of Late Shri D P Gupta
10. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Kanchoo
Son of Late Sh. R.N.Kanchoo
11. Sh. Anil Kumar Jain
Son of Late Shri S L Jain
All are C/o National Sample Survey Office
Ministry of Statistic & P I,
Govt. of India, D P D Division,
Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi.
12. Shri Kusumkali Biswas
Wife of Late Dr Bikash C Biswas
13. Sri Dhujati Gupta
Son of Late Shri Asoke Kr. Gupta
14. Sh. Dipak Kumar Das
Son of Late Nagendra Nath Das
15. Sh. Tapan Kumar Dey
Son of Late Shri Dulal Ch Dey
16. Sh. Soumen Goswami
Son of Late Shri Nani Gopal Goswami
17. Sh. Aloke Kumar Chakraborty
Son of Late Shri Ajit Kumar Chakraborty
18. Shri Ashis Kumar Das
Sonn of Late Shri Sadananda Das
19. Sh. Gautam Mitra
Son of Late Shri Arun Chandra Mitra
20. Sh. Samar Chakraborty
Son of Late Shri Sudhir Chakraborty
21. Sh. Samir Ganguly
Son of Late Shri Dhirendranath Ganguly
22. Sh. Ankul Majumder
Son of Shri Gour Chand Majumdar
23. Sh. Sandip Mukherjee
Son of Late Shri Kanailal Mukherjee
24. Sh. Bhagabat Ghosh Hazra
Son of Late Shri Sukhamoy Ghosh Hazra
25. Sh. Kamaresh Das
Son of Late Shri Dinesh Chandra Das
26. Sh. Pradip Kumar Deb
Son of Late shri Nepal Chandra Deb
27. Sh. Mihir Kumar Sarkar
Son of Late Shri Krishna Prasanna Sarkar
28. Sh. Bandana Hazra
Wife of Shri Mathura Nanda Hazra
29. Sh. Panchkari Das
Son of Late Shri Nandalal Das
30. Sh. Shyamalish Chandra Biswas
Son of Late Shri Bimalesh Chandra Biswas
31. Sh. Ashis Kumar Paul
Son of Late Shri Bhupati Paul
32. Sh. Swapan Kumar Deb Roy
Son of Late Shri Khagendra Kumar Deb Roy
33. Sh. Bikash Banerjee
Son of Late Shri N.N.Banerjee
34. Sh. Aniruddha Pal
Son of Late Arun Pal
35. Sh. Shomenath Chatterjee
Son of Shri Sourendra Nath Chatterjee
36. Sh. Ashoke Santra
Son of Late Shri Siddheswar Santra
37. Sh. Subrata Kumar Ghosh
Son of Late Shri B.D.Ghosh
38. Sh. Prdipta Ray
Son of Late Shri Kamal Kumar Ray
39. Sh. Asit Kishore Majumder
Son of Late Shri Shyama Kishore Majumder
40. Sh. Anindya Sengupta
Son of Late Shri Himangshu Sengupta
41. Sh. Sujoy Kumar Halder
Son of Late Shri Saroj Kumar Halder
42. Sh. Swapan Kumar Gupta
Son of Late Shri Purna Chandra Gupta
43. Sh. Anukul Majumder
Son of Shri Gour Chand Majumder
44. Sh. Patiram Mandal
Son of Late Shri Hazari Lal Mandal
45. Sh. Tapan Kumar Nag
Son of Late Shri Surendra Nath Nag
46. Sh. Kabindra Nath Das
Son of Shri Haripada Das
47. Sh. Subhas Ch. Roy
Son of Late Shri Bijoy Krishna Roy
48. Smt. Manju Das
Wife of Shri Dipak Das
49. Smt. Puspa Biswas
Son of Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas
50. Smt. Aparna Bhaumik
Wife of Shri Anadi Bhaumik
51. Smt. Snigdha Basu
Wife of Shri Sujit Basu
52. Smt. Subha Chattopadhyay
Wife of Shri Dr. Asok Chattopadhyay
53. Smt. Suchismita Biswas
Wife of Shri Dr. Kuntal Biswas
54. Smt. Uma Chattopadhyay
Wife of Shri Amitabha Chattopadhyay
55. Sh. Shyamal Kumar Mitra
Son of Lt. Shakti Pada Mitra
All C/o
National Sample Survey Organization
Ministry of Statistic & PI,
Govt. of India, D P Division (HQ),
Mahalanobis Bhawan,
164, G LT Road,
Kolkata-700108.
- Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. P.K.Sharma)
Vs.
Union of India through
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation,
Govt. of India,
Sardar Patel Bhavan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Additional Director General,
Data Processing Division,
National Sample Survey Organization
Mahalanobis Bhawan,
164, G LT Road, Kolkata-700108.
3. The Additional Director General,
Survey Design and Research Division,
Mahalanobis Bhawan,
164, G LT Road, Kolkata-700108.
4. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
- Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Anupama Bansal)
ORDER
Honble Shri V.N.Gaur, Member (A) The applicants in the present OA, 55 in number, are Data Processing Assistants (DPA) Grade I, II and III placed in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800, Rs.4600 and Rs.4200 respectively, working under National Sample Survey Office, New Delhi (respondent no. 2) and National Sample Survey Organisation, Kolkata (respondent no. 3). The prayer of the applicants is to direct the respondents to grant the Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 with effect from the date of their completion of 4 years regular service in grade pay of Rs.4800 in PB-2 with monetary and consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that according to the Ministry of Finance Resolution no. 1/1/2008-IC dated 29.08.2008 the Section Officer/Private Secretary/Equivalent Grade of Rs.4800 grade pay in PB-2 of Central Secretariat Service (CSS), Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) and other similarly placed HQ service would be granted non-functional selection grade of Rs.5400 in PB-3 after 4 years of regular service in that grade. The applicants are also in the equivalent category working in the grade pay of Rs.4800, either on promotion or by application of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP. The aforementioned Resolution does not make any distinction as to the manner in which an employee has been promoted to the grade pay of Rs.4800. The bottom line is that once an employee has completed 4 years service in the grade pay of Rs.4800 he will be granted non-functional selection grade of Rs.5400 in PB-3. He further submitted that the Data Processing Division HQ (respondent no.2) had taken up the matter with respondent no.1 way back on 24.09.2008 (Annexure A-4) recommending extension of the benefit of non-functional selection grade to Group-B officers in Data Processing Division. However, the respondent no.1 vide office memorandum dated 13.08.2013 has rejected the proposal. Citing the judgments mentioned below, the learned counsel submitted that this issue was no more res integra and the respondents have wrongly denied the benefit of the aforementioned resolution to the applicants in the present OA:
(i) Project Personal Secretary vs. Union of India and another, OA No.759/2010 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.
(ii) Manoj Kumar and ors. vs. High Court of Delhi represented by its Registrar General and ors., WP (C) no.6522/2012 of Honble High Court of Delhi.
(iii) M.Subramaniam vs. Union of India, WP No.13225/2010 of Honble High Court of Madras
(iv) R.K.Jain and others vs. Union of India and another, OA No.2662/2009 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the matter relating to the grant of pay scales is outside the purview of judicial scrutiny as the same is the job of specialized groups like Pay Commission. The learned counsel relied on State of W.B. vs. W.B. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn., (2010) 5 SCC 225, and Union of India vs. Hiranmoy Sen, (2008) 1 SCC 630 wherein it was held that the determination that two posts are equal or not, is a job of the Expert Committee and the court should not interfere with it unless the decision of the Committee is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary or made on extraneous considerations.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the proposal initiated vide the letter of respondent no.2 dated 24.09.2008 was only for the consideration of respondent no.1 and it was not to seek permission to implement the Resolution dated 29.08.2008. The representation submitted by the applicants has been examined in consultation with the concerned departments and the final decision has been conveyed as a speaking order (impugned) to the applicants. Referring to the facts of the case learned counsel stated that the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 was applicable to the Section Officer/Private Secretary/Equivalent Grade of Rs.4800 grade pay in PB-2 belonging to CSS, CSSS and other similarly placed Hq. services. The applicants do not get covered under the services specified in the Resolution. The applicants cannot be treated either a Headquarter service or the CSS/ CSSS. Further, VI Pay Commission had made certain recommendations in respect of Group-B officers of these services which were modified by the Resolution dated 29.08.2008. The applicants are a separate category covered under para 3.8.11 of the report of the Pay Commission where the scales to be given to the Data Entry Operators have been specified. Modification of the pay scales of one group of employees is a policy decision of the Government and any other group cannot claim parity as matter of right. Fixing of pay scales is a function within the exclusive domain of the rule making authority. Learned counsel relied on Saurabh Arya and others vs. Union of India and another, OA No.166/2014 and a number of other judgments to support the contentions.
5. We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and perused the record. The Resolution dated 29.08.2008 issued by respondent no.4 modified the scale given by the Pay Commission to the Section Officer/Private Secretary/Equivalent Grade of Rs.4800 grade pay in PB-2 in the CSS/CSSS and other similarly placed HQ service for their benefit. During the argument, in response to a specific query, the counsel for applicants stated that the applicants are covered under the category of HQ service. However, he could not place any supporting document to substantiate his claim. On the other hand, counsel for respondents has placed on record, along with the counter reply, the extracts from the report of the 6th Pay Commission wherein para 3.8.11 lays down the revised pay structure recommended for the various categories of EDP staff. It is thus clear that the EDP staff and the CSS/CSSS and other HQ services have been treated as two distinct groups by the Pay Commission. The modification by the Government in the pay structure of one group would not become applicable to other groups unless the same is consciously extended by a specific order. The parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the courts cannot get into the question of determining the inter se parity between two groups of employees. In State of W.B. vs. W.B. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
15. The principles relating to granting higher scale of pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work are well settled. The evaluation of duties and responsibilities of different posts and determination of the Pay scales applicable to such posts and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities are complex executive functions, to be carried out by expert bodies. Granting parity in pay scale depends upon comparative job evaluation and equation of posts. The principle "equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It is dependent on various factors such as educational qualifications, nature of the jobs, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment etc. Comparison merely based on designation of posts is misconceived. Courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only if they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees.
6. We have considered the judgments/orders cited by the learned counsel for the applicants. In the case of Project Personal Secretary (supra) the applicant was working as Project Personal Secretary in ISRO, Department of Space. On completing regular service of 24 years she was granted the 2nd financial upgradation to the grade pay of Rs.4800 w.e.f. 06.05.2006. She was formally promoted to the post of Project Personal Secretary in the grade pay of Rs.4800 in PB-2 with effect from 05.10.2009. Following the Government of India Resolution dated 29.08.2008 the applicant claimed grade pay of Rs.5400 on completion of 4 years from the date of assigning the grade pay of Rs.4800 i.e. 06.05.2006. The respondents countered by taking the plea that she would be completing 4 years of service in the post of Project Personal Secretary on 04.10.2013 only. The Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal had allowed the OA. It can be seen that the question before the Tribunal was not the applicability of the Resolution dated 29.08.2008, i.e., grant of Rs.5400 grade pay after completion of 4 years service in the grade pay of Rs.4800. The issue was whether the period of 4 years can be counted from the date the applicants got the scale of Rs.4800 under the ACP scheme. The aforesaid order of Ernakulam bench, therefore, is not relevant in the present case where the applicability of clause (x)(b) of Resolution dated 29.08.2008 to the applicants itself has been disputed by the respondents.
7. In Manoj Kumar (supra) the issue before the Honble Delhi High Court was that the Personal Assistant, Judicial Assistant, Hindi Translator and Assistant Librarian, and Senior Judicial Assistants, Senior personal Assistants, etc of the High Court had with effect from 01.01.1986 enjoyed parity with their counterparts in the Central Secretariat following the judgments in WP (C) no.1174/1994, K.K.Sharma & ors. vs. UOI & ors and WP (C) no. 7231/2003. However, when by OM dated 25.09.2006 the Government of India placed Assistant/Stenographers of CSS/CSSS in the upgraded scale of Rs.6500-10,500 equivalent to grade pay of Rs.4600, their counter parts in Delhi High Court, were granted grade pay of Rs.4200. The Honble High Court took a view that considering the traditional parity, the petitioners in that case would be entitled to grade pay of Rs.4600 instead of Rs.4200. Similarly, Senior Judicial Assistants, Senior personal Assistants, etc would be entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 4800 instead of Rs. 4600 as granted earlier. After rendering 4 years of service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800, the incumbents will be granted non-functional selection grade of Rs.5400 at par with their counterparts working in CSS/CSSS etc.
8. In the present case there is no claim by the applicants of traditional parity with the Group-B officers in CSS/CSSS.
9. In M. Subramaniam (supra) it was not disputed that the provision of non-functional selection grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 in the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 was applicable to the Group-B officers of Department of Revenue (the category to which petitioner belonged). The dispute was that the respondents in that case had taken a stand that those who were placed in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 corresponding to the grade pay of Rs.4800 by virtue of financial upgradation under ACP would not be entitled to benefit of further non-functional selection grade of Rs.5400 on completion of 4 years in pre-revised scale of Rs.7500-12000. The Honble High Court did not accept this stand of the respondents and allowed the writ petition.
10. Thus, we do not find any support to the case of the applicants from the cases cited by learned counsel for the applicants.
11. Taking into account the preceding discussion, we find that the applicants have not been able to establish either any traditional parity with the Group-B officers of CSS/CSSS or that they can be treated as a part of the HQ service mentioned in the Resolution dated 29.08.2008. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the OA and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(V.N. Gaur) (A.K. Bhardwaj) Member (A) Member (J) sd