Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Deshmukh S.M. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)SLJ76(CAT)
ORDER Smt. Shanta Shastry, Member (A)
1. The issues and facts in all these 3 O.As. are identical and the Advocates for both the applicants and respondents are also same, so by mutual consent we have heard them together and have proceeded to pass a common order.
2. The applicants have approached this Tribunal against the orders dated 27.12.2000 and 8.11.2001 of the Controller of Defence Accounts (Officers) Pune i. e. Respondent No. 3, whereby claim of the applicants for extending the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from either from the date of their initial appointment or from 1.1.1986 whichever is later has been rejected. All the applicants No. 1 to 14 are working as Data Entry Operators, Grade 'B' (in shortDEO Gr. B) in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. The applicants No. 15 to 26 are working as Data Entry Operators Grade. 'C' (in short DEO Gr. 'C') in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and applicant No. 27 is working as Sr. Auditor in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 in the office of Controller of Defence Accounts (Officers) at Pune. The names of applicants No. 15 to 27 have been deleted by order of this Tribunal and, therefore, now the application is confined only to applicants No. 1 to 14. These applicants were initially appointed as Jr. Key Punch Operator (in short Jr. K.P.O.). The scale of Jr. Key Punch Operators was Rs. 260-400 in 1973 and it was revised to Rs. 950-1500 with effect from 1.1.1986 and the posts were redesignated as DEO Gr. A in the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500 with effect from 11.9.1989, further revised by the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from 1.1.1996. The pay of Sr. Key Punch Operators was in the scale of Rs. 330-560 in 1973 and it was revised to Rs. 1200-2040 with effect from 1.1.1986 and redesignated as DEO Gr. B with effect from 11.9.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. The same was replaced by the scale of Rs. 4500-7000 with effect from 1.1.1996. The applicants submit that they were promoted to the post of DEO Gr. B in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from the dates shown against each of them in Exhibit A-6 at page 34 of the O. A. The relief sought by the applicants is to grant them pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 either with effect from 1.1.1986 or from respective dates of their initial appointment to the post of Jr. Key Punch Operator whichever is later with all consequential benefits plus arrears arising alongwith interest of 18% per annum.
3. The applicants contend that employees working as Data Entry Operators, Grade 'B' under Controller General of Defence Accounts had filed O.A. 142/95 before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal seeking similar relief as similarly situated employees who were granted aforesaid pay scale pursuant to the judgment dated 9.7.1992, Y. Jagmohan Reddy and Ors. v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and Ors., (1993) Vol. 23 A.T.C. 424 of the Hyderabad Bench. The O.A. was allowed by the judgment and order delivered on 28.9.1999 and the same was implemented by the respondents. Similarly some other employees who were working in the office of Principal Controller of Defence Command, Lucknow had also filed O.A. 150/2001 before the Lucknow Bench, keeping in view the decisions of the Hyderabad Bench and Jabalpur Bench. The Lucknow Bench allowed the O.A. and directed respondents to give effect to the pay scale with effectfrom 1.1.1986 with consequential reliefs. Prior to the O.A. being allowed by the Lucknow Bench the claim of the applicants there in had been rejected on the ground that the decision of the Jabalpur Bench and Hyderabad Bench were applicable to only those who were the applicants before those Benches. The applicants in the present case having come to know the judgments of the Jabalpur Bench and Lucknow Bench, made representations on 10.7.2000 to the respondents. The same was disposed of on 27.12.2000 indicating that the pay fixation in the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 cannot be extended to the applicants. The applicant made one more representation on 6.8.2001 seeking the extension of the aforesaid pay scale to them. The representation dated 6.8.2001 submitted by the applicants was rejected by the impugned order dated 8.11.2001 and, therefore, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking the benefit to be extended to the applicants. In view of the O.As. decided by Lucknow Bench, Jabalpur Bench and other Benches. According to the applicants since the issue had already been decided by the various Benches of this Tribunal including by Guwahati Bench and the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, the applicants are entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200.
4. The respondents have opposed the same and have taken preliminary objections that a policy decision was taken by the respondents for revision of designation of the Jr. Key Punch Operators vide Ministry of Defence (Finance) letter dated 19.9.1990. According to the respondents the policy decision cannot be given with retrospective effect, as the same would entail very heavy financial expenditure to the Government. Further, there has been inordinate delay and laches on the part of the applicants in approaching this Court in that though the posted were redesignated vide letter dated 11.9.1989, they have approached this Court now in 2002. The respondents relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1414=1992(2) SLJ 103 (SC), wherein law has been laid down that an applicant who does not approach within time cannot get the benefit of judgment of the Court in another case. Similarly the respondents have also cited the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya and Ors., 1996 SCC (L&S) 1477, wherein it has been held that mere fact that the applicants filed the belated application immediately after coming to know that in similar claims relief had been granted by the Tribunal it can be a proper explanation to justify the condonation of delay. The explanation must be related to failure to avail of the remedy within the limitation period. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicants have not filed application for condonation of delay either, in this matter. The application is totally barred by the limitation. The respondents further submit that the applicants were recruited as Jr. Key Punch Operators with minimum qualification laid down i.e. Matriculation and so they cannot claim the higher pay scale of DEO Grade 'B" which is applicable to Graduates. Therefore, the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500 was correctly given to the applicants as per the Recruitment Rules and the Recruitment Rules were not challenged by the applicants, this was further amended vide Government letter dated 19.9.1990.
5. Further the respondents have also drawn our attention to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 2639/1999 wherein Full Bench allowed the O.A. by granting the benefit of O.M. dated 11.9.1989 to applicants with effect from 1.1.1986 with consequential benefits. According to O.M. dated 11.9.1989 the Jr. Key Punch Operators were designated as Data Entry Operators Grade 'A' in the scale of Rs. 1150-1500 and Sr. Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 had been designated as Data Entry Operators Grade 'B'. Thus the applicants should get the benefit only of the scale of Rs. 1150-1500 as they were appointed as Jr. Punch Operators and were promoted as Data Entry Operators Grade 'B" only after 1995 as can be seen from the particulars given by the applicants at Exhibit A-6.
6. The Learned Counsel for the respondents also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Narayani Hegde v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 2000 SCC (L&S) 879, wherein it has been observed that Government to make rules by way of subordinate legislation with retrospective effect by judicial direction.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants as well as the respondents and have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced. We have also perused the various judgments. We find that the case of the applicants is squarely covered by the judgment in the Lucknow Bench in O.A. 150/2001. The applicants in that O.A. were also working under the Controller General of Defence Accounts. The relief sought in that O.A. was also that both the Data Entry Operators Grade 'A' and 'B' should have been granted the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from 1.1.1986 or from their respective dates of appointments and this point was duly taken into consideration while rendering the judgment in the aforesaid O.A. and relying upon the judgment of the Hyderabad Bench and Jabalpur Bench.
8. Learned Counsel for respondents at this stage has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Principal Bench in O.A. 2639/1999 wherein the operative portion reads as follows:-
"Respondents will grant the benefit of the aforesaid O.M. dated 11.9.1989 to applicants with effect from 1.1.1986. We will accordingly grant the consequential benefits....".
Thus what the Full Bench granted what the benefit of the pay scale from 1.1.1986 instead of 11.9.1989, but the O.M. dated 11.9.1989 has clearly provided for different pay scales for the Jr. Key Punch Operators who were redesignated as Data Entry Operators in the scale of Rs. 1150-1500 and Sr. Key Punch Operators redesignated as Data Entry Operators Grade 'B' in the scale of Rs. 1350-2200. A clear distinction has been made and, therefore, the present applicants can also be entitled to only those scales provided vide O.M. of 11.9.1989 and therefore, the Jr. Key Punch Operators who have been redesignated as Data Entry Operators Grade 'A' cannot be granted the scale of Rs. 1350-2200. Further, the Learned Counsel pointed out that the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 is meant for those who possessed the Graduate qualification whereas the scale of Rs. 1150-1500 is for those who possessed Matriculation qualification. However, the Recruitment Rules have been amended in 1992, whereas this distinction has been maintained for Data Entry Operator Grade 'A'. According to the respondents not all the applicants are Graduates and, therefore, their claim for the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 is not justified. The learned Counsel also pleads that the duties and responsibilities of the Data Entry Operators Grade 'A' and Data Entry Operators Grade 'B' are also different. The Learned Counsel also produced the judgment in the case of Sita Devi and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors., JT 1996(7) SC 438= 1996(3) SLJ 102 (SC), to justify the classification on the basis of educational qualification of the employees. It was held in this Judgment that there was no unlawful discrimination in refusing to extend to non matriculate instructors the pay scale given to matriculate instructors. According to Learned Counsel for the respondents, therefore, there is no case for the applicants to get the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. The Learned Counsel also could not throw much light as to how different Benches of the Tribunal granted the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 to the applicants in the respective O. As. when the distinction existed as per the O.M. dated 11.9.1989. The only submission is that even though the different Benches of the Tribunal had granted the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 to the applicants who had approached the Tribunal still once the factual position has been placed before the Court, the Court can overrule on the doctrine of perspective overruling, Learned Counsel has cited the judgment in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. v. K.P. Singh and Anr., 2000 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 845.
8A. In order to satisfy ourselves about the actual recommendation of Sheshagiri Committee we had directed to produce the copy of the report. Accordingly the respondents have produced the relevant portion from the report of the 4th Pay Commission, where in is para 55.65 the recommendation of Sheshagiri Committee has been reproduced as follows:-
"(a) There is need for uniformity and standardisation of grades for all organisations by rationalizing large number of pay scales.
(b) Flexible Complementing Schemes (FCS) or other review promotion methods may be considered to remove stagnation, taking into account the total service span of nearly 33 years.
(c) All Key Punch Operators (KPOs)/Data Entry Operators (DEos) should be classified as Data Entry Operators with following 5 pay scales on the pattern of those in the Ministry of Railways:- DEO-A Rs. 1350-2200 55% DEO-B Rs. 1400-2300 30% DEO-C Rs. 1600-2660 10% DEO-D Rs. 2000-3200 5% DEO-E Rs. 2375-3500 Selection Grade.
The suggested qualifications are graduation for entry at the level of DEO-A. Non-graduates to be placed in the grade Rs. 1150-1500 or Rs. 1320-2040 called DEO-AA. Review Promotion from DEO-AA to DEO-A after 6 years Review Promotion from DEO-A to DEO-B after 6 years Review Promotion from DEO-B to DEO-C after 5 years Review Promotion from DEO-C to DEO-D after 5 years Review Promotion from DEO-D to DEO-E after 5 years It is seen from this that according to the recommendations of Committee all Key Punch Operators/Data Entry Operators should be classified as Data Entry Operators with 5 pay scales on the pattern of those in the Ministry of Railways and that the entry should be at the level of DEO-A in the scales of Rs. 1350-2200. Later on Committee suggested the classification that Graduates at entry level of DEO-A and the non-Graduates be placed in the grades of Rs. 1150-1500 or Rs. 1320-2040 called DEO-AA. Apparently the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Sheshagiri Committee issued the O.M. dated 11.9.1989, providing 2 different pay scales for DEO-A and DEO-B. Thus we also find that there were several other organisations in different Ministries of Government of India, like Directorate of Science and National Sample Survey Organisation etc. who have granted the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 for all entry level grade of DEO inspiteof the O.M. dated 11.9.1989, they have modified the scale, these were also tested in the various Benches of the Tribunal like Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the respondents had also stated that since even the Full Bench in O.A. 2639/1999 had only granted limited relief in terms of O.M dated 11.9.1989 and the Full Bench would prevail other several judgments of the other Benches, the applicant cannot be given the scale of Rs. 1350-2200. We have seen the judgment of the Full Bench. The reference before the Full Bench was not about the granting of different pay scales to the DEO-A and DEO-B, the reference was about "whether EDP staff working in different departments are entitled to parity in the pay scales with other EDP staff who have been granted pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 or with effect from 11.9.1989, as has been granted to them by the office memorandum dated 11,10.1989". The limited question was of giving retrospective effect from 1.1.1986 uniformly for the EDP staff in different organisations, therefore, the Full Bench had not addressed the issue regarding the disparity in the pay scales in the DEO-A and B. Therefore, this cannot apply in the present case.
9. Even though the learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously justified the action of the respondents is not giving the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 to the applicants, we find that the various judgments relied upon by the applicants have been duly implemented by the concerned Ministry of Home Affairs in which the applicants are working. When the first judgment of Hyderabad Bench was delivered in 1992 and thereafter subsequent judgments of Lucknow and Jabalpur Benches were pronounced the respondents did not go in appeal against these various judgments, instead they have duly implemented those judgments. Although, the learned Counsel made a point about the perspective overruling, we find that the impugned order dated 3.1.2001, is the reply given to the applicants on their demand for extending the benefit of the judgments of the Lucknow Bench and Jabalpur Bench. It has been stated that the proposal has been considered and it has been found possible to extend the benefit to the non applicants. Thus the Ministry of Defence i.e., Respondents in the present case have not rejected the case of the applicants on merit but only on the ground that the applicants were not a party to the judgments of the Lucknow Bench and Jabalpur Bench. These judgments are of recent dates while the O.M. is of 11.9.1989. Yet inspite of the O.M. the respondents have implemented the various judgments. They did not go in appeal. There is, therefore, no reason why the applicants should be left out for extending the benefit only because they were not a party to earlier judgments.
10. Also as has been pointed out by us, the applicants are identically placed, to the applicants in the cases decided by the Lucknow and Jabalpur Bench as well as Guwahati Bench. We would not deprive the applicants who are otherwise identically placed, by denying them the benefit when their own colleagues got the same so many years back. We, therefore, have to hold that the applicants are also entitled to the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 and accordingly we quash and set aside the letter dated 3.1.2001 and direct the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 to the applicants from 1.1.1986 or from the date of their actual appointment to the post of Jr. Key Punch Operators with all consequential benefits.
11. However, we find that the applicants have not approached this Tribunal within the stipulated period of limitation as has already been pointed out by the respondents. We find that there is no application for condonation of delay by the applicants and the application is time barred, and, therefore, we restrict the arrears due to difference in pay to be given only for the period from the date of representation i.e. 10.7.2000. The same shall be paid within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicants have prayed for interest, we are not inclined to grant any interest. Accordingly the O.As.
are allowed, with no order as to costs.