Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
A.B.Mohammed Rafeek vs The Administrator on 15 February, 2016
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Applicaton No.181/00061/2014
Monday this the 15th day of February 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
A.B.Mohammed Rafeek,
S/o.Moulana P.K.Thangal,
Phototype Setting Operator,
Lakshadweep Government Press, Androth.
Residing at Aliyathammada Beethathabiyyapura House,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep. . . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.Joby Cyriac)
Versus
1. The Administrator,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti - 682 555.
2. Union of India represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment,
Department of Urban Development, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
New Delhi - 110 001 rep. by its Secretary. . . . . Respondents
(By Advocates Mr.S.Radhakrishnan [R1]
& Ms.Deepthi Mary Varghese,ACGSC [R2-3])
This application having been heard on 27th January 2016 this Tribunal
on 15th February 2016 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Mrs.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant is working as a Phototype Setting Operator in the Lakshadweep Government Press (LGP) and has now completed 19 years of service in the same grade. The LGP is the sole printing agency of the Lakshadweep Administration. Though the LGP started its functioning with Letter Press Technology in the year 1964, it switched over to Offset Technology in the year 1986. Since then, the applicant is working as DTP Operator. It is submitted that the responsbility and nature of duties of DTP operators in the Government of India Presses (GIP) and the applicant are one and same. But the pay scale attached to Prototype Setting Operator in the LGP is only Rs.1320-2040 while the scale of pay of DTP operator at GIP is Rs.1400-2300 (pre-revised). In order to bring parity among printing staff, the 3rd respondent had introduced new classifications of posts and pay scales for printing staff working under the various ministries/departments of Government of India vide Annexure A-1 O.M dated 31.10.1989. It is submitted that ever since the implementation of the O.M at the GIP, all the printing staff of LGP including the applicant were persuading to upgrade their pay scales on the basis of the provisions contained in the O.M. While so, on receiving an information under the Right to Information Act that the O.M is also applicable to the printing staff of all Union Territories including LGP, some of its printing staff of various designations such as Foreman, Machineman Gr.III, Machineman Gr.II, Block Maker, Dark Room Attendant, Machine Attendant and Bindery Assistant submitted their individual representations before the 1 st respondent (through proper channel) requesting to revise their pay scale in accordance with the provisions of the O.M and accordingly the 2 nd respondent passed favorable orders by revising their pay scales in tune with the similarly situated employees of GIP with effect from 31.10.1989 as per the direction of this Tribunal. It is submitted that the applicant is also entitled to get revised pay scale Rs.1400-2300 with effect from 31.10.1989 in tune with the DTP operators at GIP. Accordingly the applicant submitted a statutory representation dated 30.10.2012 before the 1 st respondent through proper channel. Considering the similarity and comparability in the nature of duties and responsibilities of the DTP operator at GIP and the applicant, 1st respondent administration, forwarded a proposal to the 2nd respondent recommending revision of pay scale as Rs.1400-2300/- from Rs.1200-2040 to the Prototype Setting Operator at LGP after classifying the post as 'Master Craftsman' and re-designating the post as DTP operator. The pay scale fixed to the post classified as Master Craftsman is Rs.1400-2300/-. Acting upon Annexure A-1, the 2nd respondent has revised the pay scales including the post of DTP Operators in the Government of India Press with effect from 31.10.1989 after classifying the post as 'Master Craftsman'. Whereas the request of the applicant for pay revision, whose post (Prototype Setting Operator) was classified as Master Craftsman and re-designated as DTP Operator, was denied by the 3rd respondent stating that the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 is only applicable to supervisory post vide Annexure A-7 order. This is challenged by applicants as the pay scale is also applicable to the posts classified as 'Master Craftsman' as evident from para 2 of Annexure A-1 O.M. Furthermore, the post of the applicant has been re- designated as DTP Operator after classifying the post as 'Master Craftsman'. In similar cases, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have revised the pay scales of the applicants therein in accordance with the O.M with effect from 31.10.1989 as could be seen from Annexure A-2 order.
2. Being aggrieved with the non consideration of Annexure A-3 representation, the applicant had approached this Tribunal and obtained a favourable order dated 19.7.2013 by which the 1 st respondent was directed to refer the representation of the applicant to the 2nd respondent, who in turn will consider the matter, if necessary with 3rd respondent, on the same lines as action taken in the past identical matter and arrive at just conclusion. The time limit calendered to complete the above exercise was four months. The 2nd respondent did not pass any order in time and simply ignored the specific direction of this Tribunal. Consequently, the applicant was forced to approach this Tribunal again vide Contempt Petition No.181/00004/2014. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the claim made by the applicant for upgradation of his scale of pay has been accepted in principle subject to the approval of ministry concerned ie., the 3rd respondent herein. In the light of submission, the Contempt Petition was closed granting further time of three months from the date of order in Contempt Petition. Subsequent to above applicant was served with an order dated 7.7.2014 of the 2 nd respondent denying the revision of pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/- stating that said pay scale is applicable only to supervisory post. The reason for rejecting the request of the applicant for revision of pay scale to Rs.1400-2300/- is that the said pay scale is applicable only to supervisory post as per paragraph 7(3) of the Ministry of Finance O.M dated 31.10.1989, is denied. This pay scale is also applicable to the posts classified as 'master craftsman' as evident from para 2 of Annexure A-1 O.M. Furthermore, the post of the applicant has been re-designated as DTP Operator. It is also pertinent to note that the classification and re-designation of post has been made by the Lakshadweep Administration, the 1st respondent herein who is the competent authority for doing so. In short, apart from the nature of duties and responsibilities, the classification and the designation of post of the applicant is also one and same with the similarly situated employees working in the Government of India Press. It is submitted that once the post is classified as Master Craftsman by the competent authority, the 3rd respondent has to give concurrence or approval for the revision of pay scale suggested by the 1st and 2nd respondents. Relief prayed for is to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to revise the scale of pay of the applicant as Rs.1400-2300/- (pre-revised) from Rs.1320-2040 with effect from 31.10.1989 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Annexure A- 1 O.M and to disburse the arrears thereon within a time frame.
3. It is submitted by respondents that the applicant is working as Photo type Setting Operator and not as DTP Operator. The post is deployed in the DTP Section for typing and page setting in the Computer. It is submitted that Annexure A-4 is not an authoritative document and it is a document prepared by some vested interest in the department and has no official validity. It is not an approved or authorized document issued by a competent authority.
4. In compliance with the directions in Annexure A-5 order in O.A.No.664/2013 the department forwarded the representations of the applicants to the Ministry of Urban Development by F.No.01/08/2013-LGP dated 24.8.2013. The Ministry had considered the representations of the applicants in consultation with Directorate of Printing. The Directorate had made a comparative study of the post of Phototype Setting Operator in the Government Press, Lakshadweep Administration viz-a-viz higher post of DTP Operator in Government of India Presses. Consequent to this exercise, by Annexure A-7 impugned order dated 7.7.2014, the Ministry of Urban Development informed that the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/- is applicable only to supervisory posts and since the post of Phototype Setting Operator in LGP is not a supervisory post, the benefit of higher scale of pay cannot be extended to the applicants.
5. In compliance of the order of Tribunal in O.A.317/2011, the Ministry made a comparative study of technical posts of LGP with similar posts of Government of India Press and upgraded the posts of Machineman III/II, Block Maker, Dark Room Attendant, Machine Attendant, Bindery Assistant, Foreman and Section Holder and bought them at par with Government of India Press with suitable amendment in the Recruitment Rules.
6. In compliance of directions of the Tribunal in O.A.No.664/2013 and others, the respondent forwarded the representations of applicants to the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Development on 24.8.2013. The respondent here makes a contradictory statement. It is stated that the representations were examined in consultation with Directorate of Printing who made a comparative study of the post of Phototype Setting Operator in Lakshadweep Government Press and similar post in Government of India Press. It is also stated that Government of India made a comparison of Phototype Setting Operator in LGP with higher post of DTP Operator in GOI Press. Hence, the post referred in O.A.No.664/2013 was compared with two posts - a similar post in GOI Press and a higher post of DTP Operator in GOI Press. Respondent in his arguments does not substantiate what necessitated this dual comparison which included comparison with a higher post and arrive at a conclusion that Phototype Setting Operator in LGP is not a supervisory category post. It is obvious that if LGP post is compared with a Government of India higher post, the comparison is likely to lead to a negative result. The comparison and its outcome should have been made only with a similarly placed post.
7. The respondents cite (2002) 6 SCC 72 State of Haryana vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personnel Staff Association on the ground that generally in view of complex nature of issues involved and for reaching consequence of decisions, Courts generally should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions. However, the issue here is neither complex nor will have far reaching consequence, as applicants working in LGP are merely praying for being treated at par with their colleagues in LGP whose posts were upgraded and with similarly placed person in GOI Press who had been given the scale of Rs.1400-2300/-.
8. The respondents also cite (2009) 6 SCC 514 State of Punjab vs. Surjith Singh wherein they bring out that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is dependent on a number of factors including equal work, equal value, source and manner of appointment, equal identity group and wholesale or complete identity. Let us examine these issues. The LGP is a press under the Directorate of Printing like all GOI Press working for bringing out publications on behalf of Government of India and hence provides equal value as any GOI Press. Hence the identity group can be assessed to be equal. Despite the backwardness of the island, the counsel for applicant informs us that the LGP is operating on DTP since 1986 and applicants have been given necessary training for the new system. As regards the source and manner of appointment, we note that the 2nd respondent while upgrading the posts in O.A.No.664/2013 and others did it with a rider that the upgradation in pay scales should be made with suitable amendment in Recruitment Rules. The respondent in his written arguments does not explain why this lone post cannot be upgraded with a similar rider of suitable amendment in Recruitment Rules. The Ministry of Finance, following the IVth CPC recommendations, examined the recommendations of the inter-departmental committee of Ministry of Urban Development and introduced the revised pay structure for printing staff in various Government Presses. It is observed that the scale of Rs.1400-2300 is given to two posts :
(1) Master Craftsman Rs.1400-2300
(2) Technical Supervisor Rs.1400-2300
9. Hence the contention of respondents that Rs.1400-2300 is a scale of pay given to a supervisory post does not appear to be supported by above order of Ministry of Finance which has given the same scale to Master Craftsman, a non supervisory post. Despite the introduction of DTP technology in 1986 in LGP, no post of DTP Operator was created and the work of DTP Operator was managed by Compositors with appropriate training. The post of DTP Operators, which work the applicant was doing, was reclassified as Master Craftsman with scale Rs.1400-2300 by respondent administration. The island administration had also redesignated the post of Compositors as Assistant DTP Operator. While closing C.P.No.4/2014 and C.P.No.6/2014 in O.A.No.664/2013 and O.A.No.665/2013, the Tribunal had noted that the claim made by petitioners for upgradation of their scale of pay has been accepted in principle subject to the approval of the Ministry concerned. The Contempt Petition was closed on the above submission recorded. Hence the respondents were convinced about the case for upgradation of pay scale and cannot back off after making submission in the above Contempt Petition. The respondents in their reply statement refer to wrong judicial pronouncements and the solemn duty of Courts to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate the same without citing what mistake was made. The respondents on the other hand does not give sound arguments on backing out of the assurance made before the Tribunal in the Contempt Petition cited above. Other posts in the LGP have been upgraded but the post of Phototype Setting Operator who are actually doing the work of DTP printing and have been redesignated as Master Craftsman have been left out of the upgradation loop.
10. Hence it is ordered that the pay scale of the applicant be upgraded to Rs.1400-2300 with effect from the date of issue of Annexure A-1 order and all consequential arrears arising therefrom be disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The O.A is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 15th day of February 2016)
P.GOPINATH N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp