Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Lakshman Dass Ganotra vs M/O Urban Development on 28 April, 2022
1 O.A. No.4591/2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,, New Delhi
O.A. No.4591
4591 of 2015
Orders reserved on : 12.04.2022
Orders pronounced on : 28.4.2022
.2022
Hon'ble Shri A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Lakshman
kshman Dass Ganotra
(Retd.) Engineer Officer
Age-About
About 73 years
S/o Late Shri Dharam Chand Ganotra
R/o D--32,
32, Roop Villa, CGHS Ltd,
Plot No.2, Sector 19-B,
19
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
Delhi
...Applicant
(through Advocate Shri Puneet Sharma
Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
Delhi-110011.
2. Land & Development Officer,
Land & Development Office,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
Delhi-110011.
3. Ministry of Finance,
South Block,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
(through Advocate Shri R.K. Sharma
Sharma)
2 O.A. No.4591/2015
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) :
By way of the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the applicant, who is a retired Engineer Officer of Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation, Land and Development Office, has challenged the order dated 16.3.2015 (Annexure A-1) vide which the respondents have rejected the request of the applicant for grant of pay scale of Rs.12000-16500 Non-Functional in Junior Administrative Grade (JAG') at par with Executive Engineer working in CPWD on the ground that though the request of the applicant was recommended by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, however, the same was turned down by the respondent No.3 on the ground that Engineer Officer in Land & Development Office (L&D)), i.e, respondent No.2 does not belong to any organized Group 'A' Engineering Cadre.
2. In the present OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i) to allow the O.A. and set aside the impugned order thereby, direct the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.12,000-16,500 w.e.f. 01.01.2001 with all consequential benefits;
ii) to pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."3 O.A. No.4591/2015
3. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed counter reply and the applicant has filed rejoinder.
4. In the counter reply, the respondents have stated that a proposal was sent on 27.05.2002 to the Ministry of Finance (Respondent No.3) for grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade to the applicant in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-16,500/-. However, the respondent No.3 did not approve the said proposal on the ground that the post of Engineer Officer in L&DO does not belong to any organised Group 'A' Engineering Cadre and the applicant was accordingly informed vide communication dated 16.3.2015, impugned in the present OA. The respondents have also stated that the present claim of the applicant is barred by limitation and delay. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated his contentions as made in the OA. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the applicant has filed reply thereto. The applicant has also 4 O.A. No.4591/2015 filed various documents like reply under RTI Act, extract of the Organisation & Establishment Manual MOUD etc.
6. Learned counsels for the parties have filed written submissions and have also placed on record various judgments in support of their arguments and respective claims.
7. The undisputed facts emerging from the pleadings on records are that the applicant joined Engineering Wing of respondent No.2 on 14.3.1963. He was promoted and appointed as Engineer Officer under the same respondent from the grade of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 16.7.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.1100-1600 per month. His pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/- per month in view of the recommendations of the 4th CPC w.e.f. 17.7.1986 and in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/- per month keeping in view the recommendation of 5th CPC from 1.1.1996, in both the cases identical/same as applicable to Executive Engineer of CPWD under the same respondent No.1. As per the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 (Annexure A-2 Colly.), the pay of Superintendent Engineer and Executive Engineer has been provided under 5 O.A. No.4591/2015 Group 'A' Engineering Services and the same reads as under:-
VIII GR. 'A' ENGINEERING SERVICES
a) Suptdg. 3700-125-4700- 14300-400-18300 50.45
Engineer 150-5000
b) Executive 300-100-3500-125- 10000-325-15200 50.45
Engineer 4500 12000-375-16500
(Non-Functional
JAG)
On upgrading the status of respondent no.2 from the subordinate office to that of an attached office of respondent No.1, vide Notification dated 4.4.2000, the respondent No.1 vide Office Order dated 10/16.04.2000 has decided to encadre the technical post under the respondent No.2 and decided to grant comparable cadres/ grades/ post under the Directorate General of Works, CPWD. The office order dated 10/16.04.2000 reads as under:-
"No-A-22017/1/2000-Adm.I Government of India Ministry of Urban Development Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi Dated the 10th/16th April' 2000 OFFICE ORDER In pursuance of this Ministry's Notification No.A- 22017/1/2000-Adm.I dated 04.04.2000 upgrading the status of Land & Development Office from a Subordinate Office to that of an Attached office of this Ministry, it has been decided to encadre the 6 O.A. No.4591/2015 following technical posts in the L&DO with those of comparable cadres/grades/posts under the Directorate General of Works, CPWD.
S. Name of No. of Scale of pay Remarks
No. posts posts
1. Engineer 1 Rs.10,000- Comparable in
Officer 15,200/- status and duties to
that of Executive
Engineer (Civil) in
CPWD.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
2. Accordingly, the aforesaid posts stands encadred in the comparable grade/posts in the DG(W), CPWD with effect from the date Officers of comparable status of CPWD are posted against these posts.
3. The above mentioned posts will, however, continue to remain on the strength of the Land & Development Office under the administrative control of that office."
The applicant had completed the eligibility for grant of NFSG in JAG in the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500/-. Accordingly, he made a representation and after examining the same, the respondent nos.1 and 2 have sent a proposal dated 27.5.2002 (Annexure A-4), i.e., well before the retirement of the applicant on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2002. The said proposal/recommendations reads as under:-
"File No.A-26014/1/02-Adm.(L&DO) 7 O.A. No.4591/2015 Government of India Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation Land and Development Office Sub:- Grant of Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) pay scale of Rs.12,000-16,500_ -
Representation of Sh. L.D. Ganotra Engineer Officer for.
Sh. L.D. Ganotra, Engineer Officer, has represented for grant of Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) pay scale of Rs.12,000-16,500 in implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission.
2. As per the recommendations contained in Para 50.45 of volume-I of the Report of the 5th Central Pay Commission, the Commission had recommended that the scale of Rs.3700-5000 (Revised to Rs.12,000- 16,500) should be the non-functional JAG for Executive Engineers on completion of 13 years service in group 'A'. The Executive Engineers in CPWD filed an application in that CAT for implementation of the above recommendation. The CAT vide its judgement dated 13.03.2001, has directed the Government to consider grant of non functional JAG to the Executive Engineers who have completed 9 years' service in group 'A' as on 01.01.1996. The ruling is effective from 01.01.1996 for fixation of pay on notional basis and the benefit of arrears in this regard is admissible only from August' 1998. Further, in extension of the above dispensation to all organized Group 'A' engineering services in the Government, DOPT accepted the recommendations of the FCPC vide its OM dated 22.01.2000-CRD dated 06.06.2000 as amended by OM dated 20.12.2000. As per these instructions, the Executive Engineer and equivalent will get NFSG of Rs.12,000-16,500 on completion of 5 years' regular service in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200. This shall be subject to suitability to be adjudged by internal Screening Committee which shall be the same as prescribed in the existing recruitment rules in the post of Executive Engineer.
8 O.A. No.4591/2015
3. There is one post of Engineer Officer in Land and Development Office in the scale of Rs.10,000- 15,200 and is equivalent to the post of Executive Engineer in CPWD/any Group A ............................... comparable grades (including that of the post of EO held by Sh. Ganotra) in CPWD (alongwith incumbents) is already under active consideration of CPWD. The proposed encadrement will automatically make Sh Ganotra a member of the organized Group A engineering service controlled by the CPWD entailing grant of the NFSG requested for by him in terms of DOPT's OM dated 06.06.2000. However, Sh. L.D. Ganotra is stated to retire on 31.12.02 and as such, he may lose the benefit of NFSG to become available to him through encadrement.
4. In the light of the above facts, we may request the Ministry of Finance to agree to the proposal to grant Non-Functional Selection Grade (NSFG) in the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) pay scale of Rs.12,000-16,500 to Sh. L.D. Sharma, EO in L&D."
8. However, the aforesaid proposal of the respondent nos.1 and 2 was turned down by the respondent no.3 and, therefore, the applicant has made further detailed representation (Annexure A-5 (Colly)) to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration of his claim. However, the respondents have rejected the same vide impugned order dated 16.3.2015 (Annexure A-1).
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, following issues arise for adjudication:-
9 O.A. No.4591/2015
(i) Whether for want of Cabinet approval, stated to be an established procedure for grant of status of an organized Group 'A' service, the benefit of NFSG as applicable/comparable to Executive Engineer in another attached office of respondent No.1 can be denied to the applicant?
(ii) Whether the claim of the applicant is barred by limitation and delay?
10. We have perused the pleadings on record and have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the relevant chart of the organisation and administration of the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation' shows that the Ministry discharges its function through CPWD and L&DO and in this regard, he has invited our attention to an extract of Organisation and Establishment Manual of Ministry of Urban Development. He has also submitted that CPWD and L&DO both are attached offices of the respondent No.1 and respondent 10 O.A. No.4591/2015 No.2 is not a subordinate office of respondent No.1. He has further referred to the aforesaid Office Order dated 10/16.4.2000 (Annexure A-3) to submit that the respondent No.2 has been upgraded from subordinate office to attached office of the respondent No.1 and post of Engineer Officer was encadred in comparable cadre in CPWD and in the present case, the status of the Engineer Officer under respondent No.2 is comparable with Executive Engineer in CPWD. By referring to the letter dated 16.7.1986, the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant was appointed to the post of Engineer Officer, a Group 'A' post. Further by referring to the same order dated 16.7.1986 and office order No.32/2001 and 19.6.2001, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Executive Engineers were transferable and were transferred under the respondent no.2 as well. By referring to the aforesaid documents, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the respondents cannot deny and dispute that the applicant was appointed in a Group 'A' post in the year 1986 in an attached office of the respondent No.1. The status and duties of Engineer Officer has always been comparable with that of the Executive Engineer in CPWD 11 O.A. No.4591/2015 and further that the post of Engineer Officer was encadred with comparable cadre in CPWD. He has further argued that only explanation given by the respondents in their additional affidavit filed in November 2016 for denying the benefits to the applicant is that for grant of status of an organized Group 'A' service, established procedure is that the approval of Cabinet is required and such grounds taken by the respondent to deny the claim of the applicant is not tenable in the eyes of law. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant has argued as under:-
(i) That proposal for approval of the cabinet and framing of the Recruitment Rules is the responsibility of the respondents and the applicant could not be made to suffer on this count for the reason that the applicant had admittedly been discharging similar duties and was holding the comparable status. In support of his such argument, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to and relied upon the following judgments:-
(a) State of Mizoram vs. Mizoram Engineering Service, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2004 (6) SCC 218, para 6 thereof reads as under:12 O.A. No.4591/2015
"6. Great stress was laid on the fact that Engineering Service in the State was not an organized service and therefore, it did not have categorisation by way of entrance level and senior level posts and for that reason the higher scale of Rs.5900-6700 which was admissible for senior level posts could not be given in the Engineering Service. The main reason for dubbing Engineering Service as an unorganized service in the State is absence of recruitment rules for the service. Who is responsible for not framing the recruitment rules? Are the members of the Engineering Service responsible for it? The answer is clearly 'No'. For failure of the State Government to frame recruitment rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organized service, the engineers cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the reason of absence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service, we see hardly any difference in organized and unorganized service so far as Government service is concerned In Government service such a distinction does not appear to have any relevance. Civil Service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what is sought to be conveyed by use of the words 'organised service' and 'unorganised service'. Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf. The argument is wholly misconceived."
(b) Kuldip Singh vs. CAT, Order/Judgment of Co-
ordinate Bench, Principal Bench, New Delhi, reported in MANU/CA/0231/2010 wherein this Tribunal in paras 1, 20 and 21 observed as under:
"In the matter of revision of pay scale on invoking the doctrine of principles of equal pay for equal work, which had partaken the character of a fundamental right, the following observations have been made by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar and 13 O.A. No.4591/2015 others, MANU/sc/2603/2008 : 2009(1) SLJ 187 (SC) : 2009(1) SCC (L&S) (sic):
The principle of "equal pay for equal work"
has been considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of this Court. The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" was originally propounded as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution. Thus, having regard to the Constitutional mandate of equality and inhabitation against discrimination in Articles 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" has assumed the status of fundamental right."
20. Assuming that the decision as to organized cadre is genesis for rejecting the request of the applicant for grant of higher pay scale, irrespective of whether the accounts service in the Tribunal is an organized one or not, observations of the Supreme Court in State of Mizorams case (supra) that failure of the government to frame the rules and bring the Engineering service as an organized service cannot be attributable as a fault to the applicants, are relevant to the present case. Since the applicant has been discharging duties with all functional requirements and all pre- conditions satisfied at par with their counterparts, there would be hardly any difference in organized and unorganized service. Insofar as the Government service is concerned, this distinction is irrelevant. What is to be tested in grant of higher pay scale is the doctrine of principles of equal pay for equal work, which is well explained in B. Renjith Kumar and Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra) and as there has been no case established by the respondents that the applicant is not discharging functions and duties attached to the post at par with their counterparts, the principle of equal pay for equal work would mutatis mutandis apply for 14 O.A. No.4591/2015 grant of higher pay scale on notional and actual basis based on the O.M. dated 28.02.2003.
21. Moreover, State of Mizoram's case (supra) which has been upheld upto the Apex Court level has applicability and the distinguishability shown by the respondentscounsel is misconceived. As such, when in all Ministries and Departments, organized accounts cadre gets the higher pay scales while performing identical duties which are being performed by the applicant, we do not find any intelligible differentia which has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved and such a distinction is not logical but hostile, invidious, and in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, R.K. Sharmas case, which decided the aforesaid plea was affirmed by the High Court, which in all fours covers the present issue."
(c) K. Babu Janardhan vs. UOI, OA No.227/2013 decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal on 3.1.2014, paras 3 to 6 thereof read as under:
3. Learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ashish Nischal, has submitted that these cases are squarely covered by the decision of the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Noorul Hoda vs. Union of India and others in OA No.1127/2012 decided on 30.8.2013. The operative part of the said Order reads as under:-
"11. It is seen that the Superintending Engineer (Electrical) belonging to the Construction Wing of AIR had earlier been given the pay scale in Pay Band 4 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700 and it was only recently that the view had been taken that the Superintending Engineers were to be fixed in Pay Band 3 with Grade Pay of Rs.7600 on the plea that as per the Recruitment Rules 15 O.A. No.4591/2015 for the post of Superintending Engineers in AIR the functional scale of JAG is not applicable to them as they are not an organized Group A Engineering Service, as per advice of DOPT & Ministry of Law. However, from all the communications issued by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting from time to time, it is clear that after an Executive Engineer puts in 9 years service he is entitled to pay in the scale of Rs.14,300 18,300 (5th CPC) and the corresponding grade in the 6th CPC is Pay Band 4with Grade Pay of Rs.8700. Further it is seen that as per para 3.5.5 Chapter 3 Section 5 relating to Civil Construction Wing it has been stated that the CCW is working generally on the pattern of CPWD and the rules contained in the CPWD Manual are applied to the Civil Construction Wing. Although this para does not indicate that the service conditions of the Engineers of CPWD and the Civil Construction Wing of AIR will be similar but the distinction made by the DOPT and Ministry of Law regarding the Construction Wing being an organized Group A service to which the functional scale of JAG is not applicable does not appear to be a realistic and fair one specially keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Mazoram & Anr. vs.- Mazoram State Engineering Service Association & Anr. Also members of the same organization and service in the same rank cannot be treated differently regarding applicability of pay scales to them. Since in the past the Superintending Engineers of CCW, AIR have been fixed in Pay Band 4 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700, denial of the same to the present applicant may be fixed correctly in Pay Band 4 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700 w.e.f. the date when the applicant was promoted as Superintending Engineer (Electrical) on ad hoc basis. This order may be complied within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to the respondents and the arrears due to the applicant on this account may be released 16 O.A. No.4591/2015 within a period of one month thereafter. No order as to costs."
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri D.S. Mehandru has, however, submitted that aforesaid Order has been passed on the ground that higher pay scale of Pay Scale of Rs.37,400 67,000 with Grade Pay of Rs.8700 in Pay Band-4 was given to some of the Superintendent Engineers whereas they are not entitled for the said pay scale and the respondents are taking appropriate corrective measures. He has also submitted that the aforesaid Order passed by the Calcutta Bench is being challenged by the respondents by filing Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and therefore the same has not been implemented so far.
5. In our considered view, when a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has passed an Order in an identical case, we are duty bound to follow it.
6. In view of the above position, we allow these OAs with the same directions as given by the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Noorul Hoda (supra). The respondents shall, therefore, implement the aforesaid directions in the case of the applicants herein also as and when they would implement in the case of the applicant in the said OA. No costs."
(d) Rajiv Dixit vs. UOI, a common Order/Judgment dated 26.7.2016 of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA 1977/2011 and other connected cases, paras 8, 11, 23 and 24 thereof read as under:-
"8. In response to the above said Tribunal's order, the Department issued the impugned Office Memorandum dated 18.06.2009 by which they have rejected the claim of the Senior Architects of CCW, AIR (the applicant herein) to grant the upgraded scale 17 O.A. No.4591/2015 of Rs.14300- 18300, primarily on the following grounds:
(i) The benefit of the upgraded scale cannot be granted as it is applicable only to Organised Group 'A' Engineering Services and Senior Architects in CCW do not belong to any Organised Group 'A' Service;
(ii) The benefit can only be given to Organised Group 'A' Engineering Services, recruitment to which is made through Combined Engineering Services Examination through UPSC, and recruitment to the post of Senior Architects in CCW, AIR is not made on the basis of Combined Engineering Services Examination through UPSC;
(iii) Senior Architects of CCW, AIR do not have the same hierarchical pattern as Engineering Officers and Senior Architects of the CPWD; and
(iv) Senior Architects were neither in receipt of scale of Rs.4500- 5700 nor their promotional scale was of Rs. 18400-22400. They were being promoted in the pay scale of Rs.16400-20000. In contrast SEs of CCW were drawing Rs.4500-5700 (Revised Rs.14300- 18300) and their promotional grade was Rs.18400-
22400, which is on par with SEs of CPWD. The hierarchical pattern of Senior Architects of CCW and their pay scales were not comparable to Senior Architects of CPWD.
11. Further, the applicant relied on the following judgments:
(1) Union of India & Others Vs. Noorul Hooda, WPCT No. 70/2014 The Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of the C.A.T., Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.1127/2012 vide order dated 30.08.2013 that the same pay band which was made applicable to Architects who are employed in CPWD must be extended to Senior Architects working in Civil Construction Wing of All India Radio. The matter was challenged right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed.18 O.A. No.4591/2015
(2) OA Nos. 227/2013 and 228/2013 of C.A.T., Principal Bench, which were disposed of in the light of the order of the Calcutta Bench dated 30.08.2013 in O.A. No.1127/2012, and the OAs were allowed vide order dated 03.01.2014.
(3) State of Mizoram & Another Vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Association & Anr., Civil Appeal No.793/1998 dated 06.05.2004. In this matter the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"Great stress was laid on the fact that Engineering Service in the State was not an organized service and therefore, it did not have categorisation by way of entrance level and senior level posts and for that reason the higher scale of Rs.5900-6700 which was admissible for senior level posts could not be given in the Engineering Service. The main reason for dubbing Engineering Service as an unorganized service in the State is absence of recruitment rules for the service. Who is responsible for not framing the recruitment rules? Are the members of the Engineering Service responsible for it? The answer is clearly 'No'. For failure of the State Government to frame recruitment rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organized service, the engineers cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the reason of absence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service, we see hardly any difference in organized and unorganized service so far as Government service is concerned In Government service such a distinction does not appear to have any relevance. Civil Service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what is sought to be conveyed by use of the words 'organised service' and 'unorganised service'. Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf. The argument is wholly misconceived."
(4) UOI Through its Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Vs. Rajiv Dixit, WP(C) No. 7209/2007 dated 09.07.2008, in which the Hon'ble High Court held as follows: 19 O.A. No.4591/2015
"We do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal. The mere fact that the Respondent did not belong to an organized service was not an adequate ground for denial of the benefit given by the Fifth Pay Commission to similarly placed persons who were working with the Civil Construction Wing of All India Radio. In any event, the Tribunal has merely given a direction to the Petitioner to consider the case of the applicant and if it is found that the Respondent is eligible for the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission Report, the Respondent should be extended that benefit.""
"23. As would be clear from the impugned order dated 18.06.2009, the claim of the applicant has been rejected on the three grounds:
(i) They do not belong to Organised Group 'A' service.
(ii) They do not come through Combined Engineering Services Examination.
(iii) The pay scale and promotional scale of Senior Architects of CCW and Superintending Engineers of CCW were not the same. The scale of SEs of CCW was on par with SEs of CPWD, which was not the case for Senior Architects of CCW.
24. The applicant has been able to demonstrate, by citing judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the distinction between Organised Group 'A' Service and Group 'A' Service cannot be relied upon by the respondents. Therefore, that could not be a valid ground for rejecting the claim of the applicants. Similarly, they have demonstrated that the requirement of Combined Engineering Services Examination has also been done away in the DoPT's O.M. dated 20.12.2000."
20 O.A. No.4591/2015
(e) Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma & others, W.P. (C) No.7231/2007, decided on 29.5.2009 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, paras 4 to 6 thereof read as under:-
"4. In State of Mizoram and Anr vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Associations and Ors. 2004 6 SCC 218, the Govt of India accepted the 4th Central Pay Commission Report regarding revision of pay scales in Central Civil Services w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and made the recommendations applicable also to the Civil Services in Mizoram. The CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 were also made applicable to the employees forming part of Civil Services in Mizoram. On the recommendations made by the Employees Anomalies Committees were set up by Govt of Mizoram. Ultimately, Notification dated 19.1.1989 was then issued accepting recommendations of the Second Anomalies Committee. Soon thereafter, the State Govt issued another Notification dated 3.2.1989 whereby the scales of Rs.5900-6700 and Rs.4500-5700 were denied to the Chief Engineers and Additional Chief Engineers, respectively though it was being allowed to the incumbents holding equivalent posts in CPWD. The writ petition filed by the Association of Employees assailing the decision of the State Govt having been allowed by the High Court, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the State of Mizoram. It was contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that since Engineering Service in the State was not an organized service, the higher scale of Rs.5900-6700 which was admissible for Senior Level Posts, could not be given in Engineering Service. The main reason given for treating Engineering Service as an organised service was absence of Recruitment Rules for this service.
5. The contention raised by the State Govt was repelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following observations:
"Who is responsible for not framing the recruitment rules? Are the members of the 21 O.A. No.4591/2015 engineering Service responsible for it? The answer is clearly "No". For failure of the State Government to frame recruitment rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organised service, the engineers cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the reasons of absence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service, we see hardly any difference in organised and unorganised service so far as government service is concerned. In government service such a distinction does not appear to have any relevance. Civil service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what is sought to be conveyed by use of the words "organised service" and "unorganised service". Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf. The argument is wholly misconceived."
6. In the present case, the petition does not disclose on what basis the respondents are being treated as members of an unorganised service while those holding cadre posts in Civil Accounts Service are being treated as belonging to Organised Accounts Service. This is not the case of the petitioner that they are performing different functions or that their qualifications for entry in service or promotion etc are different. The very fact that the petitioner has accorded the higher scale to the respondents, albeit from a later date, indicates that the petitioner accepts that there is no such distinction between the respondents and those holding cadre posts, as would disentitle them from the same pay which is being drawn by the holders of cadre posts."
(f) Net Ram vs. Union of India and another, OA No.04/2011, decided on 17.7.2015 by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, paras 2 & 4.3 thereof read as under:-
"The applicant has submitted that the main reason given by the respondents for rejecting his representation was that the upgraded pay scales were given to persons belonging to Organized Accounts Cadre only. Since the applicant was 22 O.A. No.4591/2015 working on an isolated post and not in organized Accounts Cadre, the same could not be made applicable to him. According to the applicant the stand taken by the respondents was totally illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and contrary to the principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Mizoram and Another Vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Associations and Another. (2004) 6 SCC 218, in para-6 of which the following has been held:-
Great stress was laid on the fact that Engineering Service in the State was not an organized service and therefore, it did not have categorisation by way of entrance level and senior level posts and for that reason the higher scale of Rs.5900-6700 which was admissible for senior level posts could not be given in the Engineering Service. The main reason for dubbing Engineering Service as an unorganized service in the State is absence of recruitment rules for the service. Who is responsible for not framing the recruitment rules? Are the members of the Engineering Service responsible for it? The answer is clearly 'No'. For failure of the State Government to frame recruitment rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organized service, the engineers cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the reason of absence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service, we see hardly any difference in organized and unorganized service so far as Government service is concerned In Government service such a distinction does not appear to have any relevance. Civil Service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what is sought to be conveyed by use of the words 'organised service' and 'unorganised service'. Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf. The argument is wholly misconceived."
(ii) It is a settled law that if two categories of employees performed similar work and worked under the same Government, the said employees are entitled to equal pay. 23 O.A. No.4591/2015 In support of this contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipal and others vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1988 (3) SCC 354, para 8 thereof read as under:-
"The respondents' contention that the mode of recruitment of petitioners is different from the mode of recruitment of squad teachers inasmuch as the petitioners are appointed locally while squad teachers were selected by the subordinate Service Selection Board after competing with candidates from any part of the country. Emphasis was laid during argument that if a regular selection was held many of the petitioners may not have been appointed they got the employment because outsiders did not compete. In our opinion, this submission has no merit. Admittedly the petitioners were appointed on the recommendation of a Selection Committee appointed by the Adult Education Department. It is true that the petitioners belong to the locality where they have been posted, but they were appointed only after selection, true that they have not been appointed after selection made by the Subordinate Service Selection Board but that is hardly relevant for the purposes of application of doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". The difference in mode of selection will not affect the application of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" if both the class of persons perform similar functions and duties under the same employer. Similar plea raised by the State of Haryana in opposing the case of supervisors in the case of Bhagwan Dass (supra) was rejected, where it was observed that if the State deliberately chose to limit the selection of candidates from a cluster of a few villages it will not absolve the State for treating such candidates in a discriminatory manner to the disadvantage of the selectees once they are appointed provided the work done by the candidates so selected is similar in nature. The recruitment was confined to 24 O.A. No.4591/2015 the locality as it was considered advantageous to make recruitment from the cluster of villages for the purposes of implementing the Adult Education Scheme because the instructors appointed from that area would know the people of that area more intimately and would be in a better position to persuade them to take advantage of the Adult Education Scheme in order to make it a success."
(iii) In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, equal pay for equal work be granted to the employees belong to the different departments and not to do so will tantamount to unreasonable classification. To buttress to such argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
A. Randhir Singh vs. Union of India, reported in 1982 (1) SCC 618, para 9 thereof reads as under:-
"9. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of The Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the 'powers, functions and privileges of a police officer', their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. In answer to the allegation in the petition that the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. What then is the reason for giving them a lower, scale of pay than others ? There is none. The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of 25 O.A. No.4591/2015 the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not a principle which the Courts may recognise and act upon. We have shown that the answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the drivers-constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from 1st Jan., 1973 the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect."
B. National Museum Non-Gazetted Emp. Asso. Vs. Union of India, reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 673, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"1. Petitioners are Gallery-attendants of the National Museum located at New Delhi. In this application under Article 32 of the Constitution they have alleged discrimination so far as their service conditions are concerned by contending that they are equal in every respect with record-attendants in the National Archives also located at New Delhi in the close proximity of National Museum; yet in regard to pay and allied conditions of service, discrimination has been made in the report of the Fourth Pay Commission and they are prejudiced on that account.
2. Rule was issued and the respondents were called upon to file their return. Several adjournments have been given to enable the Union of India to file its counter affidavit. Inspite of repeated adjournments no reply has been filed. In the circumstances we are left with no option but accept the factual allegations of the petitioners. The qualification for the job, nature and conditions of work prescribed for Gallery- attendants and Record-attendants in the two institutions are the same. The Fourth Pay 26 O.A. No.4591/2015 Commission has given benefits confined to the Record-attendants while the claim of the Gallery- attendants has not been taken into account.
3. In addition to the pleading of the petitioners, this fact has been specifically stated in the letter of the Director of the National Museum sent to the Administrative Department and the petitioners have produced two communications of the Director as annexure to the writ petition. These letters do support the claim of the petitioners. Petitioners are justified to claim equal pay for equal work. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioners are entitled to the same scale of pay and other service benefits as of the Record-attendants in the National Archives.
4. A direction shall issue to the respondents to equate the service conditions of the petitioners with those of the Record-attendants of the National Archives within three months hence, with effect from 1st April,1988. The petitioners are entitled to the costs of the petition. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 2,500/-."
C. MCD vs. Rajpal, reported in 253 (2018) DLT 497, paras 8.1, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6 & 8.7 thereof read as under:-
"8.1 Between the judgments of the learned Single Judge, and of the Division Bench in Ram Kishen (supra), it may justifiably be said that all the dynamics of the "equal pay for equal work" concept stand exhaustively thrashed out, in circumstances which clearly parallel those in the present case. The workmen-petitioners, in Ram Kishen (supra), too, were designated as Chowkidars/Gunmen, and were appointed consequent to the requisitioning, by the MCD, of names, from the Employment Exchange, for the post of Security Guards/Gunmen. They were deployed in the health wing of the MCD. There was, admittedly, interchangeability of postings. The security personnel and the Chowkidars were doing the same work. As in the present case, the contention, of the MCD, before this Court, was that 27 O.A. No.4591/2015 the two categories of employees were posted at different places, i.e. in different departments. This Court based its decision, to direct parity of pay, on the fact that (i) both categories of employees were under the same employer, (ii) they performed similar duties, (iii) they were recruited through a constitutionally sanctioned process and (iv) their duties were interchangeable. It was noted that no attempt was made to demonstrate how the duties performed by the two categories of employees were different, or to establish that security personnel had superior training, or achievements, as compared to Chowkidars. This Court noted that the essential function, of both kinds of employees, was to protect and secure the assets of the MCD. The legal position was tellingly summed up, in para 20 of Roop Chand Adlakha v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1989 SC 307, which as reproduced and relied upon by the learned Single Judge in Ram Kishen (supra). The said para merits reproduction, once again, thus:
"20. "To overdo classification is to undo equality." The idea of similarity or dissimilarity of situations of persons, to justify classification, cannot rest on merely differentia which may, by themselves the rational or logical, but depends on whether the differences are relevant to the goals sought to be reached by the law which seeks to classify. The justification of the classification must needs, therefore, to be sought beyond the classification. All marks of distinction do not necessarily justify classification irrespective of the relevance or nexus to objects sought to be achieved by the law imposing the classification."
Following this, the learned Single Judge held in para 11 of Ram Kishen (supra), as under:
"11. The attempts of MCD to justify the differential treatment, and the classification, exemplify precisely the over-classification which renders the guarantee of equality into a chimera, a "mere rope of sand". Besides the classification itself, there is no rationale offered.28 O.A. No.4591/2015
I am of the view therefore, that the petitioners are entitled to the doctrine of equal pay for equal work.""
"8.4 The distinction, which was sought to be drawn, by learned Counsel for the petitioner, between the workmen who were subject matter of Ram Kishen (supra), and the present respondents, on the ground that the former happened to be ex-servicemen, has, in my view, no legs to stand on. It is trite and well-
settled, in law, that, once persons from different streams of different modes of recruitment, are recruited to a post, their birthmarks stand effaced, and they are entitled to equal treatment before the law, for all purposes, be it pay or further career advancement. In the context of persons recruited to a post by direct recruitment and promotion, dealing with the question of whether disparity in pay, based on the mode of recruitment, was permissible, the Supreme Court held thus, in Kamlakar v. U.O.I., (1999) 4 SCC 756:
"We have considered the limited issue. We are of the view that all these appellants should get the same relief as the appellants in the civil appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995. Once they were all in one cadre, the distinction between direct recruits and promotees disappears at any rate so far as equal treatment in the same cadre for payment of the pay scale given is concerned. The birthmarks have no relevance in this connection. If any distinction is made on the question of their right to the post of Data Processing Assistants they were holding and to its scale
-- which were matters common to all of them before the impugned order of the Government of India was passed on 2- 7-1990, -- then any distinction between Data Processing Assistants who were direct recruits and those who were promotees, is not permissible. We, therefore, reject the respondents' contention."29 O.A. No.4591/2015
(Emphasis supplied) 8.5 In Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Rajesh Mohan Shukla, (2007) 6 SCC 9, the Supreme Court, analogously, held thus:
"We find that the nature of duties being discharged by the Youth Coordinators who have come on deputation and have been absorbed as such and those who were directly recruited on fixed terms are discharging the same duties. The only difference is their source of recruitment. Once the deputationists are discharging the same duties and are being paid salary and other allowances then there is no reason to deny the same benefits (sic to those) who are discharging the same duties and functions. Those deputationists now absorbed obtained the order from this Court but the direct recruits did not approach this Court, they were treated as a class apart because of their source of recruitment. Once these persons are already working for more than two decades discharging the same functions and duties then we see no reason why the same benefit should not be given to the respondents. Looking to the nature and duties of these respondents we are of opinion that there is no reason to treat them differently."
(Emphasis supplied) 8.6 Many of the cobwebs, in which the "equal pay for equal work"
doctrine was enmeshed, were cleared by the judgment of Khehar, J. (as the Hon'ble Chief Justice then was) in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 which is, by now, widely regarded as an authority on the principle. Paras 42.1 to 42.17 of the judgment of set out the "deductions", arrived at, by the Supreme Court, one of which is the following (in para 42.2 of the report):30 O.A. No.4591/2015
"The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant is in a "different department" vis-à- vis the reference post does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim under the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government."
8.7 The principle that persons discharging identical duties in the same organization cannot be discriminated, in the matter of pay, merely because they happen to be posted in different departments thereof may, therefore be treated as no longer res integra. This objection, of the petitioner, to the extension, to the respondents, of the benefit of Ram Kishen (supra) cannot, therefore, sustain, and is accordingly rejected."
(iv) Once encadred, all employees from different sources are entitled to get the same scale of pay/service benefits as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. v. Subal Chandra Das, reported in 1996 (7) SCC 191, paras 10 and 11 thereof read as under:-
"10. The question is whether the High Court was justified to create any intermediate scale of pay between LDC and UDC to the erstwhile direct recruit Lower Division Clerks. The contention of Shri Verma is that Moharrirs, who were holding lower scale of pay prior to their being fused into the category as LDC, are now getting higher scale of pay as LDCs, while the direct recruit LDCs are stagnated at the same scale of pay. Therefore, the High Court was justified in directing to create intermediate scale of pay. We find no force in the contention. It is seen 31 O.A. No.4591/2015 that once Moharrirs have been redesignated as LDCs and fused into the category of LDCs all become a class. It would appear that in an earlier litigation filed by the parties, inter se promotion between the Moharrirs and LDCs as UDC was considered and the High Court in a writ petition had directed the Government to prescribe 1:1 ratio between Moharrirs and L.D.Cs. for promotion to the posts of U.D.Cs. The State Government had acted upon and issued rules in that behalf. Therefore, each source, until exhausted, has channel of promotion to the UDC within their respective 50% quota.
11. On the Moharrirs being integrated as L.D.Cs., no further distinction or discrimination in the scale of pay or promotion chances between Moharrirs and the direct recruit LDCs. is maintainable. All are now entitled to get the same scale of pay and other service benefits. It would appear that in some instances some of the Moharrirs, due to length of service, are getting higher pay. In fixing their scale of pay as LDCs, their previous higher pay due to increments was needed to be protected as special pay and seems to be subject matter of litigation pending before the High Court. Therefore, we need not go into that question. It is also further contended that the direct recruit LDCs are stagnated on account of the entry by the Moharrirs which caused hardships to the promotees. As noted earlier, prescription of the ratio of 1:1 has taken care of the hardship, if any. We do not, therefore, think that the High Court was right in giving the impugned directions."
(v) In absence of any functional distinction between the two posts, any order granting parity in pay cannot be faulted as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond, reported in 2014 (13) SCC 588, paras 10 and 11 thereof read as under:-
32 O.A. No.4591/2015
"10. The respondents herein were working as Senior Translators/Assistant Directors in the offices under the Ministry of Defence. They also sought parity with the translators in the Central Secretariat which has been granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh by its judgment dated 18.5.2009. That judgment is left undisturbed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.23126 of 2010 by its order dated 23.3.2011.
11. Mr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that their source of recruitment was different. However, having noted that no functional difference was shown in their work, we cannot find any fault with the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court for the reasons stated in the earlier special leave petition. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs."
(vi) Once, the post of Engineer Officer was treated similar with the post of Executive Engineer under Central Pay Commissions, including 3rd and 4th Pay Commissions, then the same post cannot be treated differently under the 5th CPC. In this regard, he has invited our attention to paras 6 and 8 of the note dated 23.12.2014 of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Annexure A-5 Colly) while recommending the claim of the applicant to the respondent No.3. Paras 6 and 8 read as under:-
"6. The Officer has further stated that the post of Engineer Officer in the Land & Development Office was traditionally manned by an Executive Engineer from CPWD till 1986. Thereafter, he was promoted and appointed on 16th July, 1986 as Engineer Officer with the same pay scale of Rs.1100-1600 as 33 O.A. No.4591/2015 applicable to the grade of Executive Engineer, CPWD in 1986. On the basis of 5th Pay Commission Recommendations revising the pay scales of Executive Engineer, CPWD (CPWD is the major engineering organization in the same Ministry of Urban Development as L&DO). Govt. of India revised the pay scales of Executive Engineer, CPWD to Rs.10000-15200 and Rs.12000-16500 (Non functional JAG) and his pay was also refixed in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 in the same manner as was done for Executive Engineer, CPWD. Therefore, he is also entitled to the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500 (Non functional JAG) that has been granted to Ex. Engineer, CPWD in terms of acceptance orders dt. 30.9.1997 of Ministry of Finance, mentioned in para- 2 above, and judgment of 13.3.2001 by CAT in the case of Executive Engineers, CPWD."
"8. As stated in Para 3 & 4 above, the earlier representation of Shri Ganotra for refixation of his pay in non-functional JAG of Rs.12000-16500 was although recommended by the Ministry but the same was not accepted by the Ministry of Finance on the grounds that the post if Engineering Officer in L&DO doesn't belong to any organized Group A Engineering Cadre. However, in view of the special attention drawn by Shri Ganotra towards grounds contained in Para 168.3 of the 5th Pay Commission recommendations accepted by the Government of India and also to the fact that Shri Ganotra had put in more than 16 years of regular service as Engineering Officer in the grade of Executive Engineer at the time of his retirement on 31.12.2002 whereas the Non-functional JAG of Rs.12000-16500 was due after completion of 9 years of regular service as Engineering Officer, we may, if approved refer the file to the Finance Division of the Ministry for consideration and comments in the matter."
12. With regard to the objection raised by the respondents on the ground that OA is barred by 34 O.A. No.4591/2015 limitation, delay and laches, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that from the very detailed noting dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure A-5 Colly) of respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is evident that claim of the applicant was under active consideration and the same was finally rejected only by the impugned communication dated 16.2.2015 (Annexure A-1) and the applicant has filed the present OA admittedly on 9.12.2015 and therefore, the objection raised by the respondents is misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law. He has further added that it is a settled law that in case of continuing or successive wrongs, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart the claim since the denial of benefits occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. He has submitted that the applicant became entitled for the reliefs sought well before he retired on attaining the age of superannuation and the same was not only considered by the respondents but also recommended by them vide their recommendations dated 27.5.2002 (Annexure A-4) and the same is also evident from the detailed noting dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure A-5 Colly). He has further argued that any relief, if allowed, does not have any adverse 35 O.A. No.4591/2015 repercussion on the settled third-party rights, limitation will not apply and therefore as well the objection that OA is barred by limitation is misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law. In support of such argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
A. State of M.P. vs. Yogendra Shrivastava, reported in 2010 (12) SCC 538, para 18 thereof reads as under:-
"18. We cannot agree. Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any allowance, the challenge is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Though the lesser payment may be a consequence of the error that was committed at the time of appointment, the claim for a higher allowance in accordance with the Rules (prospectively from the date of application) cannot be rejected merely because it arises from a wrong fixation made several years prior to the claim for correct payment. But in respect of grant of consequential relief of recovery of arrears for the past period, the principle relating to recurring and successive wrongs would apply. Therefore the consequential relief of payment of arrears will have to be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of the original application. [See: M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India - 1995 (5) SCC 628, and Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh 2008 (8) SCC 648]"
B. Asger Ibrahim vs. LIC of India, reported in 2016 (13) SCC 797, paras 4 and 21 thereof read as under:- 36 O.A. No.4591/2015
4. As regards the issue of delay in matters pertaining to claims of pension, it has already been opined by this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 that in cases of continuing or successive wrongs, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim, if allowed, does not have any adverse repercussions on the settled third-party rights. This Court held:
"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
(emphasis supplied) 37 O.A. No.4591/2015 We respectfully concur with these observations which if extrapolated or applied to the factual matrix of the present case would have the effect of restricting the claim for pension, if otherwise sustainable in law, to three years previous to when it was raised in a judicial forum. Such claims recur month to month and would not stand extinguished on the application of the laws of prescription, merely because the legal remedy pertaining to the time barred part of it has become unavailable. This is too well entrenched in our jurisprudence, foreclosing any fresh consideration."
"21. We thus hold that the termination of services of the Appellant, in essence, was voluntary retirement within the ambit of Rule 31 of the Pension Rules of 1995. The Appellant is entitled for pension, provided he fulfils the condition of refunding of the entire amount of the Corporation's contribution to the Provident Fund along with interest accrued thereon as provided in the Pension Rules of 1995. Considering the huge delay, not explained by proper reasons, on part of the Appellant in approaching the Court, we limit the benefits of arrears of pension payable to the Appellant to three years preceding the date of the petition filed before the High Court. These arrears of pension should be paid to the Appellant in one instalment within four weeks from the date of refund of the entire amount payable by the Appellant in accordance of the Pension Rules of 1995. In the alternative, the Appellant may opt to get the amount of refund adjusted against the arrears of pension. In the latter case, if the amount of arrear is more than the amount of refund required, then the remaining amount shall be paid within two weeks from the date of such request made by the Appellant. However, if the amount of arrears is less than the amount of refund required, then the pension shall be payable on monthly basis after the date on which the amount of refund is entirely adjusted."
C. SBI State Residents Welfare Society vs. DDA, W.P. (C) No.1509/2011 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of 38 O.A. No.4591/2015 Delhi vide Order/Judgment dated 18.2.2015, para 24 thereof reads as under:-
"24. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. M.P. Mohla reported at (2007) 1 SCC 457, the present writ petition is maintainable on account of subsequent cause of action which has arisen vide the said letter dated 09.02.2007. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below:
"23. It is also trite that if a subsequent cause of action has arisen in the matter of implementation of a judgment a fresh writ petition may be filed, as a fresh cause of action has arisen."
13. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel with the assistance of assertions made by the respondents in their reply, additional affidavit and written arguments, has reiterated that the post of Engineer Officer under the respondent No.2 does not belong to any Group 'A' Engineering Cadre and the claim of the applicant is only on the ground that his post is marked with similar status and duties of Executive Engineer in the CPWD, OM relating to NFSG to the Executive Engineer issued by the DOP&T dated 6.6.2000 and revised on 20.12.2000 and 29.12.2010. He has reiterated that as per established procedure for grant of status of organized Group 'A' service, the approval of Cabinet is required. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has 39 O.A. No.4591/2015 referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.H. Baig vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2018 (10) SCC 621. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 592, to contend that repeated representations will not extend the period of limitation.
14. We have gone through the aforesaid judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the claim of the applicant involves only grant of the benefits of NFSG in JAG to the applicant and denial thereof by the respondents has caused recurring loss to the applicant. Besides, the applicant has only been recommended by the respondents afresh on his representation to the respondent no.3 afresh by the respondent nos.1 and 2 but the same has also been considered and rejected afresh vide the impugned order. No third-party interest is also likely to be disturbed on grant of the claim to the applicant. Accordingly, in view of such facts and 40 O.A. No.4591/2015 circumstances, and the judgments referred and relied by the applicant and noted in para 11 (A) to (C) hereinabove, we find that the present case is not barred by limitation, delay and laches. Our such view is further strengthen by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, para 7 whereof reads as under:-
"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will 41 O.A. No.4591/2015 apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
16. On merit, we find that the claim of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Mizoram vs. Mizoram Engineering Service (supra) and other judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and this Tribunal, referred to in para 11 (i) hereinabove.
17. In view of the above, the answers to the aforesaid issues as framed in paragraph 9 (i) & (ii) are in negative.
18. In view of the aforesaid, the OA is allowed with the following orders:-
(i) the impugned order dated 16.3.2015 is set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to consider and grant the benefits of NFSG in JAG as applicable to the post of Executive Engineer working in CPWD to the applicant with all consequential benefits, including arrears of difference of pay and allowances, revision of his pension and revised pensionary benefits within 42 O.A. No.4591/2015 a period of twelve weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order.
19. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.N. Singh) (A.K. Bishnoi) Member (J) Member (A) /ravi/