Madras High Court
Union Of India vs S.K.Dash on 28 March, 2014
Bench: M.Jaichandren, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.3.2014
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
Review Application No.99 of 2013
in
W.P.No.21548 of 2012
1 UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE
E-III (B) BRANCH
NEW DELHI.
2 THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN
NEW MEHRAULI ROAD
NEW DELHI-110 016.
3 THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF INDIA
SURVEY OF INDIA, HATHIBARKALA ESTATE
DEHRADUN-248 001
UTTARAKHAND. [ PETITIONERS ]
Vs
1 S.K.DASH
OFFICE SURVEYOR
ORISSA GDC SURVEY OF INDIA
SURVEY BHAWAN PO-RR LABORATORY
BHUBANESHWAR-751013.
2 C.K.V.PILLAI
OFFICE SURVEYOR
TNP & ANI GDC SURVEY OF INDIA
BLOCK-3 ELECTRONICS COMPLEX
THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
GUINDY CHENNAI-32.
3 K.CHANDRAN
OFFICE SURVEYOR
TNP & ANI GDC SURVEY OF INDIA
BLOCK-3 ELECTRONICS COMPLEX
THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
GUINDY CHENNAI-32.
4 K.PHAHI RAJU
OFFICE SURVEYOR
TNP & ANI GDC SURVEY OF INDIA
BLOCK-3 ELECTRONICS COMPLEX
THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
GUINDY CHENNAI-32.
5 N.MOHANDAS
OFFICE SURVEYOR
TNP & ANI GDC SURVEY OF INDIA
BLOCK-3 ELECTRONICS COMPLEX
THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
GUINDY CHENNAI-32.
6 S.SAMPATH KUMAR
OFFICE SURVEYOR
TNP & ANI GDC SURVEY OF INDIA
BLOCK-3 ELECTRONICS COMPLEX
THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
GUINDY CHENNAI-32.
7 M.SAMINATHAN
OFFICE SURVEYOR
TNP & ANI GDC SURVEY OF INDIA
BLOCK-3 ELECTRONICS COMPLEX
THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
GUINDY CHENNAI-32.
8 BAISHNAB BEHERA
OFFICE SURVEYOR
TNP & ANI GDC SURVEY OF INDIA
BLOCK-3 ELECTRONICS COMPLEX
THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
GUINDY CHENNAI-32.
9 N.SAMINATHAN
OFFICE SURVEYOR TNP & ANI GDC
SURVEY OF INDIA
BLOCK-3 ELECTRONICS COMPLEX
THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
GUINDY CHENNAI-32.
10 G.SATYANARAYANA
OFFICE SURVEYOR (RETIRED)
PLOT NO.44 FLAT NO.209
KRANTI HARIKA APARTMENT
HUDA COMPLEX SAROOR NAGAR
HYDERABAD-500 035.
11 I.KRISHNARAO
OFFICE SURVEYOR GIS & RS DIRECTORATE
SURVEY OF INDIA
UPPAL HYDERABAD-500039.
12 B.N.UMESH
OFFICE SURVEYOR KARNATAKA GDC
SURVEY OF INDIA
SARJAPUR ROAD
KORAMANGALA 2ND BLOCK
BANGALORE-560034.
13 K.B.RAMESH
OFFICE SURVEYOR
KARNATAKA GDC SURVEY OF INDIA
SARJAPUR ROAD
KORAMANGALA 2ND BLOCK
BANGALORE-560034.
14 K.M.RAVISH
OFFICE SURVEYOR KARNATAKA GDC
SURVEY OF INDIA SARJAPUR ROAD
KORAMANGALA 2ND BLOCK
BANGALORE-560034.
15 N.B.SUJIDE
OFFICE SURVEYOR
TNP & ANI GDC SURVEY OF INDIA
BLOCK-3 ELECTRONICS COMPLEX
THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
GUINDY CHENNAI-32.
16 THE REGISTRAR
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDING
CHENNAI-104. (RESPONDENTS)
This Review Application has been filed to review the order dated 7.8.2012 made in W.P.No.21548 of 2012.
For petitioners : Mr.G.Masilamani
Additional Solicitor General for Mr.S.Udayakumar
Senior Standing Counsel
for Central Government
For respondents : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
for R1 to R15
R-16 Tribunal
J U D G M E N T
(The Judgment of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN J.,) This review application has been filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.21548 of 2012, seeking to review the order of this Court, dated 7.8.2012, made in W.P.No.21548 of 2012.
2. It has been stated that the petitioners in the present review application were the petitioners in W.P.No.21548 of 2012. The said writ petition had been filed challenging the order, dated 29.2.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in O.A.No.802 of 2010. The Original Application, in O.A.No.802 of 2010, had been allowed by the Tribunal, directing the writ petitioners to revise the pay scales of the respondents 1 to 15, from the scale of Rs.6500-10500 to the scale of Rs.7500-12000, with effect from 1.1.1996 and to grant consequential benefits.
3. It has been further stated that the respondents 1 to 15 had been working in the cadre of surveyors in the office of Survey of India, under the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. While so, they had been promoted as officer surveyors in group 'B' category.
4. It has been further stated that some of the employees of the office of Survey of India had filed O.A.No.747 of 2006, before the Tribunal, seeking implementation of the revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 to the category of Surveyors and Rs.7500-12000 to the category of officer surveyors, based on the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission and the report of the Ad-hoc Anomaly Committee appointed by the Government of India.
5. The Division Bench of this Court, which had heard the matter, had arrived at the conclusion that the respondents 1 to 15 had been fighting for their rights to get equal pay for equal work, on par with the group 'B' Officer Surveyors, which had been bifurcated into two groups in the ratio of 50% : 50%, without any rational basis. It had been pointed out that the Anomaly Committee had found that there was no functional difference between the two categories of officer surveyors and that the job done by both the categories were interchangeable. Therefore, the Anomaly committee had recommended the grant of the scale of pay of Rs.7500-12000 to all group 'B' officer Surveyors. The Division Bench had also found that all the petitioners in the present review application had questioned the order of the Tribunal, without considering the relevant factors. The Division Bench had felt that the petitioners ought to have implemented the order passed by the Tribunal, for the grant of the revised scale of pay, as per the request made by the respondents 1 to 15. Instead, they had approached this Court, by filing the writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the Division Bench was not convinced with the reasons given by the petitioners in challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, the writ petition, in W.P.No.21548 of 2012, had been dismissed.
6. The petitioners had challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 7.8.2012, before the Supreme Court of India, by way of a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court, having condoned the delay in the filing the said Special Leave Petition, had passed an order, dated 8.4.2013, which reads as follows:
"Delay condoned.
Mr.Rakesh Khanna, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India has pointed out many documents on record and submitted that all these material had been brought before the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as before the High Court in particular, the difference of qualification in the Department of Surveyors and Department of Geology. According to him, in the other departments, the minimum qualification is post graduate while in this department, it is only 10+2. Therefore, there is a material difference in the eligibility and thus there was no reason for the Tribunal or the High Court to consider the parity with them.
However, we do not find such an issue dealt with either by the Tribunal or the High Court.
In view of the above, we do not want to entertain with the petition and as suggested by Shri Khanna, we dismiss the petition with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court by filing the review petition."
7. It has been further stated that pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners had filed the present review application before this Court.
8. Mr.G.Masilamani, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners, had submitted that the maintainability of the review application cannot be questioned by the respondents 1 to 15, as the Supreme Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, by filing the review application, in its order, dated 8.4.2013.
9. It had been further submitted that the Supreme Court had also made it clear, in its order, dated 8.4.2013, that the issue relating to the eligibility of the respondents 1 to 15, for getting revised scale of pay, on par with the other similarly placed persons employed in the various departments of the Government of India, had not been considered, either by the Tribunal, or by the Division Bench of this Court, while passing the order, dated 7.8.2012.
10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners had further submitted that the Tribunal had merely passed an order, in O.A.No.747 of 2006, directing the petitioners herein to consider the claims of the respondents of the employees concerned in the light of the recommendations of V Central Pay Commission and the Anomaly Committee. The petitioners had considered the claims made by the respondents 1 to 15 and had passed appropriate orders, as per the direction issued by the Tribunal, in O.A.No.747 of 2006.
11. It had also been stated that not being satisfied with the order passed by the petitioners, the employees had challenged the same before the Tribunal, in O.A.No.811 of 2007. A similar direction had been issued by the Tribunal asking the petitioners to consider the claims of the employees and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as the claims made on behalf of the employees, for parity of pay, had been rejected. The employees had moved the Tribunal, once again, challenging the order of rejection.
12. It had also been stated that merely based on the statement made on behalf of the petitioners that the order passed by the Tribunal had been complied with and that there was no positive direction had been issued by the Tribunal, in its order, dated 29.9.2008, made in O.A.No.811 of 2007, directing the petitioners to grant the revised scale of pay to the employees, as claimed by them, a specific direction had been issued by the Tribunal, in its order, dated 29.2.2012, in O.A.No.802 of 2010, directing the respondents 1 and 2 therein to grant the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000, to the petitioners therein, who are the respondents 1 to 15 in the present review application, with all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the order impugned in the said original application, dated 29.1.2010, rejecting the request made on behalf of the petitioners therein had been quashed. In such circumstances, the petitioners had filed the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.21548 of 2012, challenging the order of the Tribunal, dated 29.2.2012, made in O.A.No.802 of 2010. However, the Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ petition, by its order, dated 7.8.2012.
13. It had also been stated that the Supreme Court had passed an order, dated 8.4.2013, in the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioners, granting liberty to the review petitioners to file the review application before this Court, after it had found that the Division Bench of this Court, as well as the Tribunal, had not decided the core issue as to the eligibility of the respondents 1 to 15 herein to get parity of pay with other similarly situated persons employed in the various Departments of the Government of India and to get their pay fixed at Rs.7500-12000.
14. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners had also submitted that the Anomaly Committee had made the recommendations for fixing the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000, to all group 'B' officer surveyors, without considering the necessary factors before making such a recommendation. He had submitted that the relevant factors, which are to be considered before a decision regarding pay parity is arrived at, had been enumerated by the Supreme Court in its decision, in The SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Vs. WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS (1993 SUPP (1) SCC 153). The learned counsel had further submitted that the relevant factors relating to pay parity had not been considered by the Tribunal, while passing its order, in O.A.No.802 of 2010.
15. It had been further stated that the Division Bench of this Court, while passing its order, dated 7.8.2012, in W.P.No.21548 of 2012, had also failed to consider the necessary factors for the fixation of the pay scales of the officer surveyors. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 29.2.2012, in O.A.No.802 of 2010 and to remit the matter back to the said Tribunal to pass appropriate orders on the claims made by the respondents 1 to 15, by taking into account the relevant factors as pointed out by the Supreme Court, in its decision reported in THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Vs. WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS (1993 SUPP (1) SCC 153).
16. The learned counsel had further submitted that the Supreme Court did not want to entertain the matter, on merits, as the issue relating to parity of pay had to be decided by it, for the first time, as the Tribunal and the Division Bench of this Court had not considered the same, earlier. Therefore, the Supreme Court had found it fit to permit the petitioners to file a review application before this Court, after having observed that no findings had been given both by the Tribunal, as well as the Division Bench of this Court, on the core issue relating to the fixing of pay scale of the respondents 1 to 15, on par with other similarly placed persons.
17. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners had further submitted that the order of the Supreme Court has to be read harmoniously, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the real context in which the said order had been passed. In fact, the Supreme Court had found that the core issue, with regard to the material differences in the eligibility relating to parity in the pay scales had not been dealt with by the Tribunal and the Division Bench of this Court, even though it is a well settled position in law that an order has to be passed giving proper reasons for arriving at a particular conclusion. However, the Tribunal, in its orders, dated 4.5.2007, 29.9.2008 and 29.2.2012, made in O.A.No.747 of 2006, O.A.No.811 of 2007 and O.A.No.802 of 2010, respectively, had not passed speaking orders, giving sufficient reasons for arriving at its conclusions. Therefore, the review application filed by the petitioners is maintainable.
18. It had been further submitted that the question as to whether the officer surveyors will have parity in their pay scales with group 'B' employees of the other Departments of the Central Government had not been dealt with, both by the Tribunal and the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court had found it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to file a review application before this Court to obtain appropriate findings on the issue, on merits.
19. It had been further stated that the basic contention raised on behalf of the respondents 1 to 15 is that they are also graduates like group 'B' employees of the other Departments of the Central Government. However, the relevant factors, such as, the method of recruitment, the level at which recruitment is made, the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, the minimum educational/technical qualifications required, the avenues of promotion, the nature of duties and responsibilities, the horizontal and vertical relationships with similar jobs, public dealings, satisfaction level, financial resources etc. had not been considered by the Tribunal, while passing such orders. The Division Bench of this Court had also omitted to consider such factors, while directing the petitioners to fix the scale of pay, as claimed by the respondents 1 to 15.
20. The learned senior counsel had further submitted that the report of the Anomaly Committee had not been accepted by the Central Government, as it is not mandatory in nature. The recommendations made by the Anomaly Committee, with regard to the fixation of the pay scale of the officer surveyors, is not based on the relevant factors, which are necessary to be considered, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Vs. WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS (1993 SUPP (1) SCC 153).
21. The learned senior counsel had further submitted that the issue relating to the parity in pay had not been considered by the Tribunal, as it should have been considered, as per the decision of the Supreme Court THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Vs. WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS (1993 SUPP (1) SCC 153). Therefore, the Supreme Court had rightly granted liberty to the petitioners to file the review petition before this Court for the consideration of the said issue. As the said issue has not been considered by the Tribunal on all the three occasions, when the matters were heard and the decisions were rendered, in O.A.No.747 of 2006, O.A.No.811 of 2007 and O.A.No.802 of 2010, respectively, this Court may be pleased to set aside the order of the Tribunal, made in O.A.No.802 of 2010, directing the Tribunal to pass a reasoned order, considering all the relevant factors, while deciding the issue relating to the parity in the pay scales of the respondents 1 to 15 herein, as claimed by them.
22. Further, it has been pointed out that even the letter, dated 18.9.2008, issued by the Surveyor General of India, does not show that the necessary factors had been considered before the recommendations had been made with regard to the fixation of the pay scale of group B officer surveyors of the Survey of India.
23. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court, in UNION OF INDIA Vs. P.V.HARIHARAN & ANOTHER (1997 (3) SCC 568), wherein it had been held as follows:
"........we feel impelled to make a few observations. Over the past few weeks, we have come across several matters decided by Administrative Tribunals on the question of pay scales. We have noticed that quite often the Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a pay Commission. Change of Pay scale of a category has cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above the below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realize that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. the pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is all being mis-understood and mis-applied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunals will exercise due restraint in the matter. Unless a clear case of hostile discrimination is made out, there would be no justification for interfering with the fixation of pay scales.......".
24. The learned senior counsel had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF IDNIA Vs. R.YADAIAH (2001) 10 SCC 563) wherein it had been held as follows:
"Ordinarily, the Courts or Tribunal should not go into the question of fitment of the officers in a particular group or the pay-scale thereto, and leave the matter to the discretion and expertise of the Special Commission like Pay-Commission, unless the Court finds on materials produced that there is some apparent error."
25. It had been stated that several factors, such as the method of recruitment, the level at which the recruitment is made, the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, the minimum educational/technical qualifications required, the avenues of promotion, the nature of duties and responsibilities, the horizontal and vertical relationship with similar jobs, public dealings, satisfaction level, financial resources etc. were to be taken into account, while considering the fixation of the pay scales of various different categories of employees. Such a procedure had not been followed by the Anomaly Committee, before making its recommendation, fixing the scale pay of Rs.7500-12000 to all the group 'B' officer surveyors.
26. Per contra, Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 15 had submitted that the review application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and therefore, it should be dismissed, in limine.
27. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 15 had further submitted that, after the III Central Pay Commission, surveyors were in the pay scale of Rs.425-750 (ordinary grade) and Rs.550-900 (selection grade). The Surveyors were granted special pay of Rs.50/- per month for holding charge of sections/camps in place of officer surveyors, as per the award of Board of Arbitration in CA reference No.4 of 1979. In the recommendation of the IV Central Pay Commission, the ordinary and selection grades, which had been existence in the Survey of India, with different pay scales were merged and treated as a single grade and surveyor pay was fixed corresponding to the ordinary scale, which was Rs.1400-2600. They were granted special pay of Rs.100/- per month at the revised rate, with effect from 1.1.1986. This had created an anomaly, as the replacement pay scale had been fixed at a higher level of Rs.1640-2900 in the other Departments. In order to rectify the said anomaly, a Joint Consultative Machinery Committee had been constituted. Thereafter, the matter had been referred to the V Central Pay Commission. However, the V Central Pay Commission had not considered the anomaly, that was in existence nor had it framed a yardstick for the proper grading and fixation of the pay scales of the surveyors. However, as the officer surveyors were in the pre revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, the V Central Pay Commission had recommended the replacement pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 for 50% of the posts and Rs.7500-12000 for the remaining 50% of the posts. In such circumstances, the group 'B' Officers Association had made a representation to grant a single pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to all officer surveyors, who are performing similar duties.
28. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 15 had further submitted that the officer surveyors had also made representations that the pre revised scale of Rs.2000-3500 had to be re-fixed at the scale of pay of Rs.7500-12000, similar to other employees employed in the various departments of the Central Government. In order to settle the anomaly arising out of the implementation of the V Central Pay Commission recommendations, a Departmental Anomaly Committee had been constituted, during the year, 1998. Thereafter, in the year, 2001, an ad-hoc Departmental Anomaly Committee had been constituted. The said committee had recommended the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 to all the officer surveyors. The said recommendation had been submitted to the Ministry of Finance for its concurrence. As no action had been taken for the approval of the recommendations, by the Ministry of Finance, O.A.No.747 of 2006 had been filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had passed an order, dated 4.5.2007, stating as follows:
.... We direct the respondents not to delay any longer the decision relating to the pay scale of officer surveyors as also that of surveyors and consider the Anomaly Committee's report in the light of the Hon'ble Apex court judgments referred to supra and take appropriate decision on the pay scales of surveyors and officer surveyors independently and without referring to VI CPC, so that, it does not get delayed further and issue necessary orders to that effect within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order ......"
29. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 15 had further submitted that, as the directions issued by the Tribunal, by its order, dated 4.5.2007, had not been implemented, in respect of the officer surveyors, O.A.No.811 of 2007, had been filed before the said Tribunal. The Tribunal had passed an order, dated 29.9.2008, issuing directions, which is as follows:
... We direct that the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Science & Technology will consider the proposal submitted by the Surveyor General of India in his letter dated 18.9.2008 and pass suitable orders to resolve the issue....."
30. However, the Department of Science and Technology had not accepted the proposal sent by the Surveyor General of India, regarding the fixation of higher pay scales for the officer surveyors. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 15 herein had filed an original application, in O.A.No.802 of 2010, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had passed an order, dated 29.2.2012. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
"We very clearly direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to grant the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the petitioners herein with all consequential benefits. The impugned order dated 29.1.2010 is hereby quashed."
31. Aggrieved by the said order, a writ petition had been filed, by the petitioners, before this Court, in W.P.No.21548 of 2012. The said writ petition had been dismissed, on 7.8.2012. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order before the Supreme Court had also been dismissed, by an order, dated 8.4.2013, with liberty to the petitioners to file a review application before this Court.
32. He had further submitted that the review application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. There is no error on the face of the record for this Court to review its order, dated 7.8.2012, made in W.P.No.21548 of 2012. In spite of clear directions issued by the Tribunal, in its order, dated 29.2.2012, in O.A.No.802 of 2010, the petitioners had not implemented the said order, by fixing the pay scale of the respondents 1 to 15, at Rs.7500-12000, on par with other similarly placed persons employed in the various departments in the Central Government.
33. It had been further stated that in spite of the fact that different orders had been passed by the Tribunal, in favour of the officer surveyors, for the revised fixation of the pay scales, and in spite of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners had not followed the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 7.8.2012, made in W.P.No.21548 of 2012.
34. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 15 had further submitted that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Supreme Court had given a finding that the issue regarding the parity of pay scales had not been considered by the Tribunal and the Division Bench of this Court is not correct. The Supreme Court had not stated, in its order, dated 8.4.2013, in the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioners, that this Court ought to review its order, dated 7.8.2012, made in W.P.No.21548 of 2012. In such circumstances, it is clear that the review application filed by the petitioners cannot be held to be maintainable, either in law or on facts.
35. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions relating to the scope of the review application filed before this Court, by the petitioners herein.
35.1. In RAJENDER SINGH Vs. LT. GOVERNOR, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS (2005) 13 SCC 289 the Supreme Court had held that the power of review of the High Court, to review its own order, inheres in the said Court having plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. When the order of the High Court suffers an error on the face of the record and if the High Court had not considered the relevant materials placed before it and if it had ignored to consider several issues that had arisen for its consideration it would be appropriate for the High Court to review its own order.
35.2. In BAGIRATHI AMMAL S. Vs. PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION (2007 (5) CTC 881), the Supreme Court had held that a review is permissible on the discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which could not be produced by a party to the proceedings at the time when the decree or order had been passed, despite due diligence, or on account of some mistakes, or where an error is apparent on the face of the record, or is palpably wrong, and in cases where other sufficient reasons are in existence. It had been pointed out that the error must be one of inadvertence and it should be more than a mere error and it must be manifest on the face of the records. It had also held that the review would lie when the error is so apparent and it could be noted without any further investigation or enquiry.
35.3. A Division Bench of this Court, in RAJALAKSHMI Vs. SAROJINI (2011 (1) CTC 546), had held, following the law laid by the Apex Court, in RAJENDER SINGH Vs. LT. GOVERNOR ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS (2005 (5) CTC 487 (SC) and BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA Vs. NETAJI CRICKET CLUB (2005 (4) SCC 741) that the power of review can be exercised by the Court to correct the errors to prevent miscarriage of justice.
35.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the following decisions in CHHATTISGARH RURAL AGRICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS (2004) 4 SCC 646), STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. AMAR NATH GOYAL AND OTHERS (2005) 6 SCC 754, K.S.KRISHNASWAMY AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (2006) 13 SCC 215) and UNION OF INDIA Vs. ARUN JYOTI KUNDU AND OTHERS (2007) 7 SCC 472, in support of his contention that the recommendation made by the pay commission was not binding in nature.
35.5. He had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER Vs. HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION (2002) 6 SCC 72), relating to principle of equal pay for equal work.
36. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 15 had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions relating to the scope of judicial review:
(i) SOW CHANDRA KANTE AND ANOTHER Vs. SHEIKH HABIB (1975) 1 SCC 674.
(ii) ARIBAM TULESHWAR SHARMA Vs. ARIBAM PISHAK SHARMA AND OTHERS (1979) 4 SCC 389.
(iii) SMT. KRISHNA PATHAK Vs. VINOD SHANKAR TIWARI (2005) ALL. L.J.1770.
(iv) K.T.VEERAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (2006) 9 SCC 406.
(v) BRIJ LAL AND OTHERS Vs. PIYAREY HASSAN & OTHERS (2013 AIR CC 2028 (ALL).
(vi) SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD V. SEBI (2013) 2 SCC 730.
(vii) KHELA BANERJEE Vs. CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL (2013) 7 SCC 615.
(viii) KAMLESH VERMA Vs. MAYAWATI (2013) 8 SCC 320.
(ix) UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD. (2013) 8 SCC 337.
(x) UNION OF INDIA represented by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai Division, AND OTHERS Vs. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,MADRAS BENCH, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER, DATED 22.1.2014, (REV.APPLW.NO.163 OF 2013).
37. The learned counsel had also relied on the following decisions to substantiate his contentions relating to the scope of judicial interference in the exercise of executive discretion.
(i) R.VISWAN AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (1983) 3 SCC 401.
(ii) STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Vs. J.P.CHAURASIA AND OTHERS (1989) 1 SCC 121. (iii) PREM CHAND SOMCHAND SHAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA (1991) 2 SCC 48. (iv) SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT Vs. WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION (1993 SUPP (1) SCC 153). (v) SHYAM BABU VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (1994) 2 SCC 521). (vi) STATE OF W.B. Vs. DEB KUMAR MUKHERJEE (1995 SUPP (2) SCC 640). (vii) RAMESH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2008) 5 SCC 173). (viii) UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAGDISH PANDEY (2010) 7 SCC 689).
38. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, and on considering the decisions cited supra, we are of the considered view that the present review application, filed by the petitioners, is maintainable.
39. we are aware of the well settled position in law that the review jurisdiction of this Court is limited in nature. However, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court, in its order, dated 8.4.2013, made in the Special Leave Petition, filed by the petitioners, had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, by filing a review petition, we are constrained to hold that the review application filed by the petitioners before this Court, is sustainable in the eye of law.
40. The Supreme Court has made it clear, in its order, dated 8.4.2013, that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, and the Division Bench of this Court had not considered the core issues, which had arisen for their consideration relating to the claim of the respondents 1 to 15 herein, for parity in their pay scales, with those who are employed in certain other departments of the Central Government. It had also been pointed out that the material differences, if any, in the eligibility of such respondents to make their claims had not been considered.
41. It is also noted that the Tribunal, as well as the Division Bench of this Court, had not considered the various factors, which should have been taken into account, including the method of recruitment, the level at which the recruitments are made, the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, the minimum educational/technical qualifications which are required for the avenues of promotion, the nature of duties and responsibilities, the horizontal and vertical comparison with similar jobs, public dealings, the satisfaction level and the financial resources of the Government concerned, for the fixation of the pay scales.
42. It is also noted that the Anomaly Committee had recommended the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to all group 'B' officer surveyors, without giving the reasons for making the said recommendations. Having considered the fact that the Tribunal had passed orders, in O.A.No.747 of 2006, O.A.No.811 of 2007, and O.A.No.802 of 2010, on 4.5.2007, 29.9.2008, and 29.2.2012, respectively, without properly analysing the relevant issues that had arisen before it, with regard to the parity of pay scales, and as the Tribunal had not arrived at its conclusions in a logical manner, and as the Division Bench of this Court had passed an order, dated 7.8.2012, in W.P.No.21548 of 2012, confirming the order passed by the Tribunal, on 29.2.2012, in O.A.No.802 of 2010, the Supreme Court had granted liberty to the petitioners to move this court, by filing a review application. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it would not open for this Court to give a different interpretation to the considered order passed by the Supreme Court, dated 8.4.2013.
43. It is noted that the Tribunal has passed its orders without proper application of mind and without giving sufficient reasons for arriving at its conclusions. In fact, no positive direction had been issued by the Tribunal, to the petitioners herein, to grant the relief to respondents 1 to 15 herein, as prayed for by them in the original applications, in O.A.No.747 of 2006, and O.A.No.811 of 2007.
44. It is also noted that the Tribunal had issued a positive direction, in its order, dated 29.2.2012, in O.A.No.802 of 2010, directing the Union of India and the Secretary of the Ministry of Science and Technology, New Delhi, to grant the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the respondents 1 to 15 herein, with all consequential benefits, without showing sufficient cause or reasons for passing such an order.
45. It is also noted that such a direction had been issued merely for the reason that the petitioners had stated that the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal, on 4.5.2007, and 29.9.2008, in O.A.Nos.747 of 2006 and 811 of 2007 respectively, had been complied with and that there was no positive direction issued by the Tribunal for the implementation of the recommendations made by the Anomaly Committee.
46. Even though various grounds had been raised on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents concerned, and a number of decisions had been relied on by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, we are not inclined to render any findings on the merits of the matter, as we are of the view that the matter has to be remitted back to the Tribunal, for considering the various issues which have been raised with regard to the fixation of the pay scales of group 'B' officer surveyors on par with the other employees working in the various departments of the Central Government and with regard to the binding nature of the recommendations made by the Central Pay Commission concerned and the Anomaly Committee.
47. As such we find it appropriate to entertain the review application, as per the order of the Supreme Court, dated 8.4.2013, and to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, dated 29.2.2012, made in O.A.No.802 of 2010, and the order of the Division Bench, dated 7.8.2012, made in W.P.No.21548 of 2012, confirming the said order of the Tribunal, and to remit the matter back to the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders, after considering all the necessary issues, by taking into account the relevant factors, which would have a bearing on the claims made on behalf of the respondents 1 to 15 herein, relating to the parity of pay. The Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties concerned may be permitted to file the necessary pleadings and documents, if any, before the matter is heard by the Tribunal, finally.
48. Accordingly, the review application stands allowed, to the extent noted above. No costs.
(M.J.J.) (M.V.J.) 28.3.2014 INDEX : YES INTERNET : YES To:
THE REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDING CHENNAI-104.
M.JAICHANDREN J., and M.VENUGOPAL J., lan Review Application No.99 of 2013 in W.P.No.21548 of 2012 28.3.2014