Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Satpal S/O Sh. Narayan Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors. Through on 9 September, 2008
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-205/2008
MA-163/2008
New Delhi this the 9th day of September, 2008.
Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member(J)
Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(J)
1. Sh. Satpal S/o Sh. Narayan Dutt
2. Sh. D.K. Sharma S/o Sh. D.S. Mishra
3. Sh. Babu Lal S/o late Sh. Daya Das
4. Sh. Ashok Khandpur S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
5. Sh. Alok Sharma S/o late Sh. J.P. Sharma
6. Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Hem Raj
7. Sh. M.K. Pandey S/o Sh. R. Pandey
8. Sh. Mohinder Girdhar S/o late Sh. B.D. Girdhar
9. Sh. Trilok Chand S/o sh. Charan Das
10. Sh. D.K. Panda S/o Sh. B.K. Panda
11. Sh. Manish Chauksey S/o Sh. Sukhlal Chauksey
12. Sh. Satija Prakash S/o Sh. Jaggannath Prasad
13. Sh. J.S. Chawla S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh Chawla
14. Sh. Yogesh Kush S/o Sh. H.K. Sharma
15. Sh. Susheel Kumar S/o Sh. Balraj Singh Tyagi . Applicants
(All the applicants are working as Junior Scientific Assistant in Central Indian Pharmacopoeia Laboratory, Ghaziabad)
(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. through
1. The Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
DGHS, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. The Drug Controller General(I),
DGHS, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
4. The Director,
Central Indian Pharmacopoeia Lab.,
Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad.
5. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(through Sh. D.S. Mahendru, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A) All the 15 applicants are working as Junior Scientific Assistants (JSA) in Central Indian Pharmacopoeia Laboratory (CIPL), Ghaziabad and they have assailed the Office Order dated 28.09.2007 (Annexure A-1) by which it is claimed that the respondents have arbitrarily rejected their case for grant of pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- ignoring the recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) on the analogy on which similarly placed employees holding equivalent posts in National Institute of Communicable Disease (NICD) have been granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- from 01.01.1996 in terms of the 5th CPC recommendations. They are aggrieved that there were recommendations by Respondent No.4, who is the Director, CIPL, Ghaziabad in their favour for grant of the higher pay scale but not found to have been accepted. It seems that by letter of 18.06.2001 (Annexure A-3) Respondent No.3 was advised by the Director who appears to be Respondent No.4 that on basis of comparative statement in respect of qualification and experience of the JSAs of CIPL, Ghaziabad and Research Assistants of NICD, the applicants have a strong case which needs to be favorably considered. Another earlier communication of 15.01.2003 (Annexure A-4) between the same authorities is also on similar lines showing that an anomalous situation has arisen leading to resentment amongst the JSAs. Therefore keeping in view the duties and responsibilities as well as educational qualifications and experience it was recommended that their pay scale should be upgraded to Rs.5500-9000/- at par with Research Assistants of NICD. A copy of the comparative statement has also been annexed by the applicant at page-38 of the paperbook and another comparative statement of pay scales and qualification etc. of NICD and NMEP is also annexed.
2. It is stated that like the Institution where the applicants are working there are other Drug Laboratories such as NICD and NMEP where the nature of duties are almost similar but the pay scale of the Technical Wing in all the Laboratories except the CIPL have been revised and even though there was no specific recommendation of the 5th CPC yet the said Institutions on their own revised the pay scale in NICD on the analogy of NMEP in respect of the Research Assistants whose Recruitment Rules were similar to those of the posts in respect of which 5th CPC had actually made recommendations. It is, therefore, submitted that if the duties are similar and pay scales have been revised by the other Institutions which are also autonomous on the analogy of other posts for which there were recommendations by the 5th CPC, the applicants case should also have been considered in terms of their representation first made in 1997. Even Laboratories such as CDL, Calcutta, Medical Stores Organization and All India Institute of Hygiene & Public Health, Calcutta had revised the pay scales.
3. It is noticed from the impugned order issued by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) that the representation of the applicants was considered by them in consultation with Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and Ministry of Finance. The latter recommended the grant of pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- instead whereupon the applicants had approached the Tribunal in OA-602/2004 decided on 16.03.2004, and the DGHS was asked to examine their representation and pass a speaking order. As such the impugned order dated 28.09.2007 came to be passed. It is seen that the matter was once again examined in consultation with other Ministries as was done earlier. It was noted that the 5th CPC did not make any specific recommendation with regard to the pay scale of the JSA in CIPL, Ghaziabad and it was pre-mature to consider the upgradation of the pay scale at present as the case for grant of higher pay scale may be taken up with the 6th CPC. For this reason it was decided not to grant the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- to them.
4. The applicants, therefore, allege discrimination with refeence to other sister Institutions, even though CIPL, Ghaziabad plays a vital role for testing the samples of medical stores and they have specific expertise in similar matters. The applicants have sought the following reliefs:-
8(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order No. A.32022/2/04-D dated 28-9-2007.
8(ii) To Direct the respondents to place the applicants in the revised pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with actual arrears.
5. In their counter-reply, respondents have stated that the case brought out by the applicants does not show that they are similarly situated with those in other Institutions besides the CIPL has been merged into Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission as per the press release of Press of India Bureau, GOI dated 07.03.2008. Therefore, the O.A. is not maintainable with regard to Respondent No.4. Further, it is clarified that the recommendations of 5th CPC have been followed and since there was no specific decision therein mentioning the CIPL they have been given the replacement pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 as agreed to by the Ministry of Finance and they are not entitled to the higher pay scale. Further, the recommendations of 6th CPC have already been notified and once the same are implemented, the applicants will have a fresh cause of action if they are still aggrieved. The impugned order is a detailed and reasoned one, which is legal and valid.
6. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicants despite opportunity.
7. We have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings.
8. Although the material on record is not sufficient to question the recommendations of the 5th CPC nor would it be feasible in view of the settled law, it is noticed that when there was no specific recommendation in the way of the Government taking a view on the representation of the applicants by analyzing the duties and responsibilities of the applicants vis-`-vis others stated to be doing similar work in sister Institutions who have admittedly been granted the higher pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-, we do not find that there has been adequate application of mind to the same keeping in view the various factors that are relevant for consideration of grant of pay scale even in comparison with other Institutions and the basis upon which they had extended the higher pay scale purportedly keeping in view the similarity in Recruitment rules and qualifications with others in respect of whom there were specific recommendations in the report of the 5th CPC. It is also not made clear that how horizontal and vertical relativities would be disturbed if the applicants were to be granted the higher pay scale. In so far as the relevance of the recommendations of the 6th CPC are concerned, we find force in the submission of the applicants that the 6th CPC is not likely to have within its terms of reference the reconsideration of the pay scales in question for the period during which the recommendation of the 5th CPC was applicable. However, the terms of reference of the 6th CPC are not before us.
9. It has been submitted that Anomaly Committees were formed at the departmental as well as national levels but the material on record does not show whether any such committee had considered the applicants case and what was the result thereof. Even though the applicants representation was considered by the DGHS in consultation with other Ministries but evidently not by the Anomaly Committee specifically formed for such purpose, which it is expected would have had the data and information as well as experience of anomalies in Government in general, which could be brought to bear upon the applicants case. The applicants have placed a copy of the decision passed in OA-2371/2007 dated 26.05.2008 on which one of us Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member(J) was a Member. This was a matter relating to Survey Assistant, Senior Reprographer and Store Assistant who had been recommended the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- but the same had not been given and the Anomaly Committee recommended the higher pay scale to various categories including the categories involved in that OA. However, it appears that no decision was taken in view of reference to the 6th CPC. Keeping in view the point of facts and law the respondents were asked to consider grant of higher pay scale from 01.01.1996 and removal of anomaly within a stipulated period of time.
10. It is no doubt a settled position that it is for the Government to accept and implement the recommendations of the C.P.C. Moreover, since in more than one Institution, the higher pay scale had been given to employees in the categories which are stated to be doing similar work with similar duties and responsibilities as the applicants, and there is no detailed analysis or comparison thereof nor does the matter appear to have been considered by the Anomaly Committee either at the National or Departmental level, it is felt that it would be only fair if the respondents, particularly Respondents No. 1 and 2 are asked to reconsider the case of the applicants for grant of higher pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- by treating this O.A. as an additional representation by the applicants keeping in view the various criteria relevant for consideration in such matters of equal pay for equal work as well as the recommendations, if any, in the report of the 6th CPC for the higher pay scales sought by the applicants from 01.01.1996 by analyzing the comparative position of the applicants vis-`-vis the action taken in the sister Institutions, in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. The applicants be informed of the decision taken by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The O.A. is disposed of. No costs.
(N.D. Dayal) (Shanker Raju) Member(A) Member(J) /vv/