Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anju Jain vs The Secretary on 17 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 3690/2011
New Delhi this the 17th day of March, 2012
HONBLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A)
1. Anju Jain
W/o Shri Deepak Kumar
D-649, Mandir Marg, Gole Market
New Delhi.
2. Shri S.C. Dawar
S/o Late Sh. K.B. Dawar
B 57 Puru Apts. Sector 13,
Rohini, Delhi
Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Deepak Verma)
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Dept. of Commerce
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.
2. Director General of Supplies & Disposal
(DGS&D)
Dept. of Commerce (Supply Division)
5 Jeevan Tara Bldg. Parliament Street
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary
Dept. of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi 110001.
..Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh.Gyaneshwar)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G. George Paracken:
The applicants have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
Re-fix the pay of the Applicant 1, 2 in the scale of Rs.1150-1500 (DEO-A) w.e.f. 5.5.87 & 19.5.87 respectively i.e. the date they joined as Jr. Machine Operator (JMO).
Pay all the consequential monetary benefits on accounts of re-fixation as above.
Any other or further relief the Honble Court may deem fit and necessary with costs.
2. The facts in this case are that the applicants were initially appointed as Junior Machine Operators (`JMO for short) w.e.f. 05.05.1987 and 19.05.1987 on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 under Respondent No.2. Later on, their services were regularized w.e.f. 19.05.1989. Subsequently, on the recommendations of the Economic Reform Commission and the Staff Inspection Unit, the posts of JMO in the office of respondent No.2 have been abolished w.e.f. 27.07.1995. However, on the request of the applicants, their services were adjusted against the vacant posts of Computer which was a promotional post but with the condition that they will draw only the salary and pay and allowances as admissible to the posts of JMO which they were holding prior to 27.07.1995. Later on, consequent upon the introduction of the Scheme of rationalization of pay scales for posts having Electronic Data Processing (`EDP for short) function in the office of Respondent No.2, the said respondent, vide their letter No.A-11019/2/95/A.14 dated 11.07.2000, identified various posts including those of JMO and Computer as relevant to the Data Entry Operator (`DEO for short). Accordingly, the posts of JMO in the pre-revised scale of Rs.950-1500 have been re-designated as DEO, Grade `A and granted the scale of pay of Rs.1150-1500 effective from 01.01.1986. Similarly, the posts of Computer in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1200-2040 have been re-designated as DEO, Grade B in the scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200 effective from 01.01.1986. They have been granted the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.2008 raising their pay scale to Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants Shri Deepak Verma is that admittedly the applicants were initially appointed as JMO and on being declared surplus, they were adjusted against the posts of Computer but limiting their pay scale to that of JMO. Both those posts have been identified as EDP posts. Hence, their case is fully covered by the decision of the Full Bench dated 31.07.2000 in OA No. 2639/1999 - Babu Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. wherein it was held that the DEOs/DPAs covered under MOF (DOE) O.M. dated 11.09.1989 are entitled to re-fixation of their pay in the respective scales w.e.f. 01.01.1986, instead of 11.09.1989, along with consequential benefits. He has also submitted that this Tribunal in all the subsequent cases of similar nature held that the pay of the applicants in the respective OAs shall be re-fixed from 01.01.1986 instead of 11.09.1989 with all consequential benefits. In this regard, he has also relied upon the order of this Tribunal in OA No.1427/2006 Smt. Yashoda Advani and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 07.03.2007, OA No.395/2008 Smt. Chanchal Taneja & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 29.07.2008 and the recent order of the Honble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.5296/2000- Udai Pal & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., decided on 22.09.2011. The relevant part of the said judgment of the High Court is reproduced as under:-
11. In so far as EDP posts are concerned, they were already in existence. It is stated at the cost of repetition that IVth Pay Commission had also recommended streamlining the pay structure of the staff engaged in EDP work in different departments. Sheshagiri Committee was set up only for the purpose of removing anomalies. It is a matter of record that in various other departments/Ministries, the benefit of pay scale to such EDPs is directed to be given from 01.01.1986. In fact, there was conflict of opinion between various benches of the Tribunal itself. In some of the judgments referred by some benches, the cut off date of 11.09.1989 had been set aside and benefit given from 01.01.1986 while some other benches maintained the date of 11.09.1989. Matter was referred to the Full Bench in OA No. 2639/1989 entitled Babu Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. The Full Bench rendered its decision on 31.07.2000 holding that benefit was admissible from 01.01.1986. Distinguishing the judgment in case of Secretary, Madras Civil Audit and Accounts Association (supra), the Full Bench relied upon later decision of the Apex Court in Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dawda & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1998 (2) SCSLJ 390 construing the very same OM dated 11.9.1989 and giving benefit from 1.1.1986. The conclusion of the Supreme Court in the said judgment is as under:
61. For all the above reasons, the impugned orders dated 2.7.90, 16.3.98 and all other orders which have the effect of redesignating the applicants who were recruited as Data Processing Assistants as Data Entry Operators in the scale of 1350-2200 (or 1400-2300 by concession of counsel) are arbitrary and illegal, ultra-vires and are declared violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appellants are declared entitled to the designation of Data Processing Assistants grade II (also called earlier as gr B) in the scale of Rs.1600-2660 with effect from 1.1.1986, the date when the IV Pay Commission scales came into force. The appellants are also entitled to the scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.96 in view of the government orders passed in connection with the Vth Pay Commission recommendations.
Aforesaid decision has been followed by a later judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamalkar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1999 (3) SLJ 307 whereby the benefit which had been granted to the appellants in the earlier decision was extended also to others who had approached the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.
4. The respondents in their reply have submitted that the cases of the applicants are not exactly similar to those of the O.As relied upon by the applicants. According to them, even though the applicants have been initially appointed w.e.f. 05.05.1987 and 19.05.1987 as JMOs, the said posts have been abolished w.e.f. 27.07.1995 and they have been adjusted against the higher post of Computer on their request.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the averments made by them. We have also perused the various judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. In our considered view, the submission of the respondents does not have any merit. Admittedly, both the applicants were initially appointed to the post of JMO which has been identified as an EDP post and reclassified as Data Entry Operator, Grade `A. On having been declared surplus, they were adjusted against the post of Computer which is another identified EDP post which was reclassified as Data Entry Operator, Grade `B. Therefore, the submission of the respondents that there was difference between the posts occupied by the applicants and other Data Entry Operators is merely a technical one with no consequence and, therefore, it is rejected. Consequently, we hold that the applicants shall be treated as Data Entry Operators Grade `A in the scale of pay of Rs.1150-1500 (pre-revised) with all consequential benefits such as re-fixation of their pay, uptodate arrears of pay and allowances from the respective dates of their appointments i.e. 05.05.1987 and 19.05.1987. They shall also issue necessary orders in this regard, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
`SRD