Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Rama Awtar Sharma vs Director General L W Ministry Of Labour & ... on 3 July, 2017

Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                                   W. P. (S) No. 2657 of 2016
                                    Rama Awtar Sharma                          ..... Petitioner
                                                                  vs.­
                                    1. Director General (LW)
                                    Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of 
                                    India, New Delhi
                                    2. Welfare Commissioner, 
                                    Labour Welfare Organization, Koderma       ......Respondents 
                                                                  ­­­­­
                                 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                                                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B.MANGALMURTI
                                                           ­­­
                                 For the Petitioner                 : None
                                 For the Respondent­U.O.I           : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, C.G.C
                                                     ­­­

        13/3.7

.2017       No one appears for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondent­ Union of India is present. 

Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed  by the respondents earlier.   It appears that the matter has been adjourned  twice for filing rejoinder, but no such affidavit has been filed. 

Petitioner approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in  O.A. No. 162 of 2013 (R) seeking revision in the pay scale of  Rs. 5,000­8000/­  from   Rs.   4500­7000/­   in   terms   of   the   recommendation   of   5th   Central   Pay  Commission, with consequential benefits including A.C.P.  He had retired on  31st October, 2005.  Learned Tribunal after considerable discussion of the case  of the rival parties and the documents relied upon by them was not inclined  to interfere in the matter.   Consequently, by the impugned order dated 10th  July, 2015 original application was rejected. 

As per the case of the applicant, he was appointed as X­Ray Technician  at   Central   Hospital,   Asansol   on   5th   December,   1968   in   the   scale   of   Rs.  130­300/­   under   second   Central   Pay   Commission.     According   to   him,   his  qualification at the time of joining was B.Sc. Part­1 along with Diploma in  Radiography.  Under 3rd Central Pay Commission, the scale was revised to Rs.  330­560/­.   Under 4th Central Pay Commission with effect from 1st January,  1986, it was revised to Rs. 1350­2200/­ from Rs. 330­560/­.  As per 4th Central  Pay Commission the Radiography Technician and X­Ray Staff were placed in  two cadres.  According to the applicant, Radiography Technician was merged  from Rs. 1350­2200/­ to Rs. 1640­2900/­.  X­Ray Staff  (Dark Room Technician)  2. was   revised   from   Rs.   825­1200   to   Rs.   1200­2040/­.     After   5th   Central   Pay  Commission, the pay scale of the applicant was revised from Rs. 1350­2200/­  to   Rs.   4500­7000/­   with   effect   from   1.1.1996.     The   pay   scale   of   X­Ray  Technician was revised to Rs. 5000­ 8000/­.  The applicant pleaded that he had  completed 14 years of education [B.Sc Part­1 + Diploma=14] and in terms of  the   two   categories   of   Para­medical   staff   envisaged   under   5th   Central   Pay  Commission, the scale should have been revised to Rs. 5000­8000/­. 

  Respondents   contested   the   case.     According   to   them,   as   per   Para­  52.107 of 5th Central Pay Commission report, future induction  in the post of  Radiography shall be in the proposed pay scale of Rs. 1600­2660/­ for which  the   corresponding   pay   scale   is   Rs.   5000­8000/­   It   was   however   clearly  indicated that the present incumbent in the post of Radiographers requiring a  minimum   of   2­years   Diploma/Certificate   after   10+2   may   be   placed   in   the  scale   of   Rs.   1320/2040/­.   The   entry   level   qualification   for   Assistant  Radiographer was 10+2 with Science besides a certificate in Radiography.  As  per   Recruitment   Rules   prevalent   in   1974   and   1977   for   the   post   of   X­Ray  Technician/Radiographer,   the   education   qualification   was   Matriculation   or  equivalent with training in hospital lab work, whereas, as per the Recruitment  Rules   prevalent   in   1990,   the     requisite   educational   qualification   was  matriculation or equivalent to Diploma in Radiography or equivalent from a  recognized Institute.  The X­Ray Technicians/Radiographers in various Labour  Welfare   Organizations   under   DG(LW)   did   not   possess   the   requisites  qualification   as   reflected   in   Para­52.107   of   5th   Central   Pay   Commission  Report.   The   respondents   also   contended   that   in   terms   thereof   the  Radiographers, who have minimum 2 years of diploma after 10+2 were to be  given the scale of Rs. 5000­8000/­. Since the applicant's Diploma is admittedly  only one year, therefore, he was denied the enhanced scale. 

The learned Tribunal considered this contention and also arrived at a  finding   that   5th   Central   Pay   Commission   Report   brought   clarity   in   the  qualification required for various Para Medicals and Technical Support Staff.  In terms of Para­52.107 of the report different scales were prescribed for  3. persons   having   designation   of   Radiographer   on   the   basis   of   different  technical qualifications.  The applicant's scale in the pre­revised 4th Central  Pay Commission was Rs. 1350­2200/­.  The applicant had qualification of 1  year Diploma compared to 2 years Diploma required in terms of Guidelines of  5th   Central   Pay   Commission   Report   for   incumbents   to   be   entitled   to  corresponding   scale   of   Rs.   5000­8000/­   from   the   pre­existing   scale   of   Rs.  1600­2660/­.  The   internal   communication   made   by   the   Welfare  Commissioner,   Koderma   to   Under   Secretary,   Ministry   of   Labour   and  Employment,   Govt.   of   Jharkhand   for   final   approval   relied   upon   by   the  applicant in respect of his claim for higher scale was never approved.   The  provisions   of   Para­52.107   were   neither   under   challenge   nor   the   Rules   of  CCS( Revision of Pay Rules, 1997) were in question by the applicant. 

In such circumstances, the rejection of claim of the applicant for higher  pay scale by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any errors of law or on  facts   warranting   interference.  The   matters   relating   to   pay   fixation/revision  lies in the domain of experts. Unless and until a clear case of violation of  Instructions/Circulars of such pay revision or a case of discrimination in teeth  of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is made out with similarly situated  persons, judicial review of such administrative action is not called for. 

 We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order does not suffer  from any errors warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution  of India. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J)   (B.B.Mangalmurti,J) jk