Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jagbir Singh Yadav S/O Late Shri Minnu ... vs Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi Through ... on 14 May, 2008
ORDER Veena Chhotray, Member (A)
1. The applicant, a re-deployed LDC, seeks through this OA a direction for grant of the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 w.e.f. 14.07.1989 and the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with all consequential benefits.
2. Briefly, the applicant was appointed in the year 1989 as a Master Craftsman in the pay scale of Rs. 900-1500 in the Delhi Energy Development Agency (in short DEDA), an autonomous body under the Government of NCT of Delhi. Initially on ad-hoc basis, he was later on regularized w.e.f. 15.07.1989. In the year 2000, the applicant, along with several other employees, was declared surplus by the DEDA on account of reduced work. Their cases for redeployment were brought under the purview of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990. After an intervening stint from 31.07.2001 to 31.03.2002, during which period his services were placed with the Delhi Financial Commission in a 'diverted capacity', orders of redeployment were issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi vide order No. 437 dated 06.06.2002 (A-11). The services of the applicant were shown as 'redeployed" w.e.f. 28.4.2000 (the date of issue of order regarding declaration as surplus employee) in the Grade IV (DASS) Rs. 3050-4590 in the Education Department. This was followed by DEDA"s Order dated 18.06.2002 relieving the applicant along with other similarly situated redeployed staff w.e.f. 18.06.2002.
3. In the meanwhile, DEDA had issued an order dated 11.06.2002 revising the pay scale of the applicant, along with three others, from Rs. 3050-4590 to Rs. 4000-6000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. This was, however, subsequently cancelled vide DEDA's Office Order dated 21.6.2002 (Annexures A-12 and A-13 respectively). No reason was assigned. On redeployment, the applicant was posted as LDC in the Directorate of Education. Subsequently he joined the Office of the Medical Superintendent, Chacha Nehru Bal Chkitsalaya under Maulana Azad Medical College (Respondent No. 3) vide Office Order dated 10.5.2005.
4. The applicant's contention is that as per the order of redeployment, they were to be treated as 'appointed by transfer in public interest' and the only exception to this was regarding counting of their past services for purposes of seniority. The subsequent order of the DEDA cancelling the revised pay scales is said to be unjustified. Further, on the analogy of the CAT Principal Bench's Order dated 5.5.2000 in OA No. 2529/1996 (Central Government Staff Car Drivers' Association through its General Secretary and Bikram Singh v. Union of India the grant of pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 w.e.f. 15.7.1989 and the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with consequential benefits has been claimed. In support, the subsequent DoP&T OM dated 15.2.2001 has also been referred. The applicant had made a representation dated 21.12.2005 on this ground, however, this was rejected by the Respondent No. 3 vide Office Order of 14.6.2006. The learned Counsel has argued that it is a settled law that to avoid unnecessary litigations, benefits of a judgment should be extended to all similarly placed persons even if they were not parties to the proceedings.
5. The Respondents' stand is that this redeployment had been done only on humanitarian grounds to ensure that the surplus employees of the DEDA are not rendered jobless. No discrimination is said to have been made against the applicant, as the pay scale of LDC/Grade IV had not been revised by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Their existing pay is said to have been protected as per rule 5, Sub-rule 2 of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990. The matter of revision of pay scale by DEDA is said to be sub-judice before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal in OA No. 2529/1996, relied upon by the applicant, is said to relate to the promotion scheme of Master Craftsmen/Head Staff Car Drivers of Railways, Govt. of India and thus not relevant in the instant case.
6. We have heard Shri Sushil Sharma and Shri Vijay Pandita, learned Counsels for the Applicant and Respondents respectively and also perused the pleadings on record.
7. In the Counter statement, Respondents have taken the stand that the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 are not applicable to the Organization. This, however, may not be acceptable in to to since the very order redeploying the applicant and others (A-11) shows that the exercise was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules. Therefore, we may proceed on the assumption that the DEDA was obliged to take note of the Rules in its entirety.
8. The relevant rules are extracted below:
5. Determination of placement - (1)(i) As far as possible, a surplus employee shall, subject to his suitability, be redeployed in a post carrying a pay-scale matching his current pay-scale.
xxxxxxx Where a suitable vacancy in a post carrying matching scale of pay is not available, the suirplus employee may be redeployed in ak post carrying a non-matching pay scale Provided, further, that xxxxxxxxx when redeployed in a post carrying a lower scale of pay, the surplus employee shall be permitted to carry his current pay-scale along with him to the next post xxxxxxx.
9. The moot point, therefore, is whether the existing pay scale of the applicant in the DEDA has been shown correctly or whether as claimed, the entitlement was for a higher scale. The DEDA by its Order dated 11.6.2002 had allowed the applicant higher pay scale. In view of the criticality, the relevant order is extracted below:
Director (E) is pleased to revise the pay scale of the following Master Craftsman from Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 to Rs. 4000-100-6000 with effect from 01.01.1996 in accordance with recommendation of Vth Pay Commission:
S. No. Name of the officials
1. Sh. Jagbir Singh Yadav
2. Sh. Anil Kumar Pachauri
3. Sh. M.S. Gautam
4. Sh. Anil Kumar Walia.
The pay will be fixed after adding notional increments w.e.f. 01.01.1996 but not past financial benefits on account of these increments would actually accrue to them.
The rationale, however, for its subsequent cancellation is not clear. The counter makes the following submission:
However, after the DEDA had issued the order declaring the applicant as Surplus and while the matter of redeployment of the Surplus staff of DEDA including the applicant, was under consideration with the authorities, the DEDA revised the pay scale of its employees even of those who had been declared surplus including that of the applicant vide order dated 11.6.2002 from Rs. 3050-4590/- to 4000-6000/- w.e.f. 1.1.96. The said order dated 11.6.2002 was subsequently cancelled by the DEDA vide order dated 21.6.2002. It is also submitted that the redeployment of the applicant was done on humanitarian grounds by applying the provisions of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, which otherwise are not applicable to the staff of autonomous bodies like DEDA.
10. As regards the submission in the Counter reply in respect of the matter for revision of pay-scale by the DEDA being sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, no supportive details like the Writ Petition No., the issue involved and the parties concerned, have been provided by the Respondents.
11. One thing, however, is clear that the Applicant did continue to be the employee of the DEDA till his formal relief w.e.f. 18.6.2002 (A-14). This is also borne out by the subsequent orders of the Dean, MAMC (A-16) counting of past service rendered in the DEDA w.e.f. 19.1.1988 to 18.6.2002. As the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission were to be given effect to w.e.f. 1.1.1996, appropriately its benefit should also have been extended to the applicant along with other employees of the DEDA. Following this argument, the pay scale of the applicant at the point of redeployment should have been Rs. 4000-6000 rather than Rs. 3050-4590. Even if the issue of being adjusted in a post with a matching pay scale is not insisted upon as per Sub-rule 2 of rule 5, in the minimum, the pay scale should have been protected while redeploying him as per the proviso (ii) Sub-rule 2 of rule 5 of the CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990.
12. The main plank of the relief sought in this O.A. rests on the order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 2529/1996. A perusal of the order dated 5.05.2000 in this OA reveals that it draws heavily on an earlier order of the Tribunal dated 4.1.1993 in OA No. 2957/1991. Vide these orders, the Tribunal had upheld that the Staff Car Drivers of the Central Government are entitled for the same graded structure as is available to the staff Car Drivers in the Railways. These four tier structures are Skilled category, skilled Grade-II category, skilled Grade-I category and Master Craftsman with the respective pay scales of Rs. 950-1500, Rs. 1200-1800, Rs. 1300-2040 and Rs. 1400-2300. The Tribunal had given the following directions:
14. The respondents are directed to grant the applicants the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 for the Master Craftsman/Head Staff Car Driver, presently existing in the Railways, from the date of filing of the OA and to grant arrears and to allow consequential benefits. Xxxxxx.
In compliance, DoP&T's OM dated 15.2.2001 (A-3) was issued incorporating the four graded structure for the Staff Car Drivers of the Central Government. The scale of Rs. 5000-8000 is shown as a special grade. The subject of the OM is stated as 'Promotion Scheme for Staff Car Drivers' and the orders were given effect to from 8.11.1996.
13. We are inclined to agree with the contention of the Respondents that this Scheme has nothing to do with the post of Master Craftsman in DEDA and the post of LDC in the Government of NCT of Delhi i.e. the post on which the applicant had been working before being declared surplus and the post on which he had been redeployed effectively. It is evident that the above order of the Tribunal is with regard to the Central Government Staff Car Drivers only. On the analogy of the graded structure for the Staff Car Drivers under the Railways, similar benefits had been extended to other Drivers in all the Departments of the Central Government. This is also the purport of the DoP&T's aforesaid O.M. It is equally evident that the case of the applicant is not covered by this category, on the other hand it comes under the provisions of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Services Rules, 1967. These Rules do contain clear provisions regarding the constitution of service and its classifications (Rule 3) and the Pay & Allowances (Rule 27). The post against which the applicant has been redeployed as Grade IV LDC included both these rules. In view of the specific provisions, there will not be any scope for applying the General Rules for the Central Civil Services Officers under Rule 29 concerning 'residuary matters.
14. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the prayer for grant of the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 (pre-revised) w.e.f. 14.07.1989 and the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits is not found to be tenable. On the other hand, there seems to be a clear justification for grant of the pay scale of Rs. 4000-8000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. Though no specific prayer for grant of this pay scale has been made in the OA, however, as we have had the opportunity of examining the matter at length and considering the prayer for grant of any other relief, we think it would be in the interest of justice to provide necessary relief on this account. The DEDA has been impleaded as Respondent No. 5 by amended Memo of Parties as per order of the Tribunal dated 2.7.2007 and on 11.10.2007 an official on behalf of Respondent No. 5 had appeared personally and stated that all the records had been given to the Services Department and, therefore, there will be no need to file any reply on behalf of Respondent No. 5.
15. To conclude, the OA is allowed partly. The DEDA order No. 9(79)02/DEDA/Admn./937 dated 21.6.2002 (Annexure A-13) is set aside. The Respondents are directed to take necessary steps in accordance with the DEDA's earlier Order dated 11.06.2002 (Annexure A-12) read with Rule 5, Sub-rule 2, proviso (ii). This has to be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. Accordingly the O.A. stands disposed off in the afforested terms. Notwithstanding our declaration as above, if the Respondents are able to secure orders from the Hon'ble High Court, which may interefere with our declaration as above, we may make it clear that the Respondents will have to take note of the impact that may be there on the subject.
No costs.