Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P Venkatarathnamchetty vs M/O Home Affairs on 23 February, 2024
1of8
{ }
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
O,A.No.310/00522 of 2019
DATED THIS "DAY THE) BAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR
CORAM :
HON'BLE SHRI. MANISH GARG; MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A)
P, Venkatarathnam Chetty (Force No.841560123),
Son of Late. P. Veeraswamy Chetty, aged 61 years,
Residing at Door No. 27-57/20-3,
Gokul Street, Punganur,
Punganur Town, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh-517 247,
retired as Pharmacist Grade-II, Composite Hospital,
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Avadi,Chennai- 600065. tent Applicant
(By Advocate: M/s. 1. Lakshmi Narayanan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India represented by the
Under Secretary to Government,
Police Finance-Hi Desk, Police-II Division,
Department of Internal Security,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi-110001;
2. The Inspector General/Director (Medical),
Directorate General (Medical Branch),
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Opp. CGHS Dispensary,
Sector,4, Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi-110017.
3. The Deputy Inspector General (Medical),
Composite Hospital,
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Avadi, Chennai-600065. was. Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. K. Rajendran)
CAV on :07.02.2024
ALvVs
\
2 of &
ORDER
(Hon'ble Shri. Manish Garg, Member(J)
2. In the instant Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:-
"To call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in No.J.0.1/2018-DA-3 dated 11/07/2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant the Applicant with pay scales of 1400-40-1800-50- 2300 with effect from 17.10.1989 to 31.12.1995 and the pay scale of 5000-9000 with effect from 01.01.1996 to 09.10.1997 and 5500-9000 with effect from 10.10.1997 to 28.03.2004 with all consequential monetary benefits including revision of retirement benefits in the light of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 15552- 15553/2016 dated 16.01.2018 confirming the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in LPA SW No.228/2002 dated 12.08.2015 & SWP No.186/1998 dated 19.04.2001 and the orders issued by the Second Respondent in No.J-I-1/2018- Med-3 dated the 19° April, 2018 and Render Justice."
3. When the matter is taken up for consideration on 07.02.2024, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the issue involved in the present O.A. is similar to that in O.A.1456 of 2018 and batch, which is reserved for orders and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents, We 3o0f8 pronounced the order in O.A. Nos. 1436/2018 & batch on 20.02.2024. For the sake of brevity, the contents of the said decision are reproduced as under:-
"5. ANALYSIS
5. The only question involved in all the aforesaid original applications is whether non-combatised staff, when posted in static area or not, that is to say non- operational area, are entitled to the same benefits of pay scale and allowances as that of the combatised staff, on the principle of "equal pay for equal work"?
D2 We find that the issues pertaining to grant of Ration allowance /Ration Money/Risk allowance and other allowances, which are admissible to the combatised staff are no longer res integra, in the light of the decision rendered in CA No.148/98, decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Union Of India & Ors vs Shri Ram Gopal Agarwal & Ors decided on 15 January, 1998, AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 783, 1998 (2) SCC 389, wherein it has been held as under :--
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that there is clear distinction in the terms and conditions of service, the nature of work and even tenure of service inter se between combatised and non- combatised personnels. The combatised personnel retire at the age of 53 while the non-combatised personnel retire at the age of 55. The nature of work, so far as combdtised personnel are concerned, are arduous in nature in the operational and sensitive areas. In fact even the non-combatised personnel while working in that operational areas and such sensitive, places are granted the ration allowances. It is only when they are working in 'static areas there is no provision for this allowance. Even terms and conditions, service conditions are totally different. The 4of8 combatised personnels are governed by Central Reserve Police Force Act and Rules which is an army rule more stringent in nature while non- combatised staff is governed by the civilian law, namely, C.C.S. Rules made by the Government of India under Article 309 of the Constitution. The question of discrimination in the matter of allowances has to be listed differently even inter se between those falling under classes of "equal pay for equal work". In cases where some performing overtime duties, night duties, duties in hazardous places viz, mountain, terrain at heights or at sensitive border areas an additional allowance is made applicable for the nature of work they perform. Similarly, when option is given it is with clear intention of there being plus and minus points in the two categories. That by itself differentiates inter se between the two. Once not option to enjoy the benefit as in the present case, to continue in service of one category up to larger length of service (55 years) and not to involve in the hazardous nature of duties with stringent service conditions cannot come forward to claim and benefit of the other category also on the ground of discrimination. In fact, treating unequal to be equal itself would be discriminatory, Thus, we conclude it is neither a case of "equal pay for equal work" nor a case of discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
5.3 Hence, allowances which are given to the combatised staff cannot be granted to the applicants on the principle of "equal pay for equal work".
5.4 Now, the point for determination is whether the applicants can be discriminated qua pay scales which are being granted to the combatised staff.
3.5 Interestingly, in the case of W.P(C) 1358/2014, Sunil Kumar vs. UOI & Ors. and batch matters, decided by the Hon'be High Court, vide decision, dated 21.9.2015, the situation was otherwise reverse, wherein the petitioners (therein) who were combatised Staff Sof Nurses were asking for parity of pay with common category Staffnurses, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under :-
"17. It is astonishing that the CRPF rationalizes the disparity in pay structure within the organization, between nursing staff. The essence of discrimination is where the state of its agency treats two individuals or groups unequally, where there is no justification to do so, To sustain the differentia CRPF highlights certain points, viz that Non-Combatised staff get less leave and are not recipients of certain privileges which Combatised staff secure. However, these differences have no bearing on the salient aspect of identity of work between the two categories. It is obvious that Combatised nursing staff have to be given the same leave allowances and facilities which other Combatised staff are granted: that is the mandate of Article 14, as between those two groups, because both are Combatised and discharge onerous duties, in forward and "non-static" areas. In the same breath, given that Combatised nursing staff discharge onerous duties under difficult circumstances cannot be a valid justification to deny parity in the general pay structure- to wit, grade pay with Non-Combatised nursing staff, because both perform identical duties in hospitals, clinics and dispensaries. "
soe eke ook ak ook Eres s ako akek ok
24. The Central Government -- and the CRPF as well as ITBP do not dispute that in regard to the replacement scales and increments, allowances recommended, etc by the Sixth PC, there is unreserved acceptance. However in regard to Grade Pay (and fixation in scale) there is resistance. This Court has already expressed why the CRPF'"'s justification for denial of parity to Combatised nursing staff with its Non-Combatised nursing staff is discriminatory. The same logic prevails in respect of the claim of ITBP personnel, They may not be Combatised; yet, they do perform "arduous" duties. The pay scales recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission have been (9 60f8 given them. The rationale for specifically denying grade pay (as claimed by them) is that they receive '3200/- per month as nursing allowance. However, that logie is a self defeating one; the allowance was recommended for all- evident from the above extract of the Sixth CPC. Like in the CRPF, that the nursing staff secure some allowance cannot be a counter to denial of what was recommended as their grade pay.
25, For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions have to succeed. In W.P(C) 1358/2014 the respondents are directed to accord parity to Combatised Sub-Inspector Nurses with Non- Combatised Staff Nurses (holding the rank of Sub- Inspector [SI]) and fix their grade pay at "4600/- per month, as claimed by them, Similarly, in W.P.(C) 3829/2014, the petitioners shall be granted parity with Nursing Sister, in the grade pay of "4600/- (PB-2) in the pay scale of "9300/-34800/~ of the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) in the case of all petitioners, except Petitioner Nos. 10,12,18,19 and 20- in the case of the latter, the grade pay shall be 4800/-. In both these petitions, the grade pay shall be in Category S-10 under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, (2008 Rules). The fixation shall be effective from the date the said rules came into force; consequential orders releasing differential amounts shall be issued within 12 weeks from today. W.P(C) 1358/2014 and W.P(C) 3829/2014 are allowed in the above terms; there shall be no order as to costs."
3.6 Needless to say, facis narrated in the present OA(s), as set out in detail herein-above, are the same, The applicants are also from same organization. Without dwelling any further on the basis of the analogy in W.P.(C) 1358/2014 SUNIL KUMAR versus UOI AND ORS, we cannot deviate from the same.
7of8
6. CONCLUSION:-
We partly allow the OA (s), thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 11/07/2018, of the second respondent, in so far as fixation of pay scale is concerned.
6.2 We direct the respondents to accord parity to the Non-Combatised Staff with the Combatised cadre of Pharmacist and fix their grade pay, accordingly, as claimed by them. We refrain from granting any arrears of pay till the date of filing of the present OA(s), ie., OA No.1435/2018. However, the respondents shall re-fix the pay, as per the Rule position, of each individual Pharmacist notionally and grant arrears from date of filing of the OA No. 1435/2018. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months 'from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6.3 All the three OA (s) are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications are also disposed of. No Costs."
4, In view of the above, we find that since we have already taken the view in the aforesaid OAs, we cannot take a contrary view. The O.A. Is accordingly disposed of with the following direction:-
£ "1, We partly allow the OA , thereby, quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 11/07/2018, of the second respondent, in so far as fixation of pay scale is concerned, 8 of 8
2. We direct the respondents to accord parity to the Non-Combatised Staff with the Combatised cadre of Pharmacist and fix their grade pay, accordingly, as claimed by him. We refrain from granting any arrears of pay till the date of filing of the present OA. However, the respondents shall re-fix the pay, as per the Rule position, of individual Pharmacist notionally and grant arrears from date of filing of the OA. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, 3, The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, All pending applications are also disposed of No Casts." ; -