Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

HON'BLE Mrs.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant is working as a Phototype Setting Operator in the Lakshadweep Government Press (LGP) and has now completed 19 years of service in the same grade. The LGP is the sole printing agency of the Lakshadweep Administration. Though the LGP started its functioning with Letter Press Technology in the year 1964, it switched over to Offset Technology in the year 1986. Since then, the applicant is working as DTP Operator. It is submitted that the responsbility and nature of duties of DTP operators in the Government of India Presses (GIP) and the applicant are one and same. But the pay scale attached to Prototype Setting Operator in the LGP is only Rs.1320-2040 while the scale of pay of DTP operator at GIP is Rs.1400-2300 (pre-revised). In order to bring parity among printing staff, the 3rd respondent had introduced new classifications of posts and pay scales for printing staff working under the various ministries/departments of Government of India vide Annexure A-1 O.M dated 31.10.1989. It is submitted that ever since the implementation of the O.M at the GIP, all the printing staff of LGP including the applicant were persuading to upgrade their pay scales on the basis of the provisions contained in the O.M. While so, on receiving an information under the Right to Information Act that the O.M is also applicable to the printing staff of all Union Territories including LGP, some of its printing staff of various designations such as Foreman, Machineman Gr.III, Machineman Gr.II, Block Maker, Dark Room Attendant, Machine Attendant and Bindery Assistant submitted their individual representations before the 1 st respondent (through proper channel) requesting to revise their pay scale in accordance with the provisions of the O.M and accordingly the 2 nd respondent passed favorable orders by revising their pay scales in tune with the similarly situated employees of GIP with effect from 31.10.1989 as per the direction of this Tribunal. It is submitted that the applicant is also entitled to get revised pay scale Rs.1400-2300 with effect from 31.10.1989 in tune with the DTP operators at GIP. Accordingly the applicant submitted a statutory representation dated 30.10.2012 before the 1 st respondent through proper channel. Considering the similarity and comparability in the nature of duties and responsibilities of the DTP operator at GIP and the applicant, 1st respondent administration, forwarded a proposal to the 2nd respondent recommending revision of pay scale as Rs.1400-2300/- from Rs.1200-2040 to the Prototype Setting Operator at LGP after classifying the post as 'Master Craftsman' and re-designating the post as DTP operator. The pay scale fixed to the post classified as Master Craftsman is Rs.1400-2300/-. Acting upon Annexure A-1, the 2nd respondent has revised the pay scales including the post of DTP Operators in the Government of India Press with effect from 31.10.1989 after classifying the post as 'Master Craftsman'. Whereas the request of the applicant for pay revision, whose post (Prototype Setting Operator) was classified as Master Craftsman and re-designated as DTP Operator, was denied by the 3rd respondent stating that the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 is only applicable to supervisory post vide Annexure A-7 order. This is challenged by applicants as the pay scale is also applicable to the posts classified as 'Master Craftsman' as evident from para 2 of Annexure A-1 O.M. Furthermore, the post of the applicant has been re- designated as DTP Operator after classifying the post as 'Master Craftsman'. In similar cases, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have revised the pay scales of the applicants therein in accordance with the O.M with effect from 31.10.1989 as could be seen from Annexure A-2 order.

3. It is submitted by respondents that the applicant is working as Photo type Setting Operator and not as DTP Operator. The post is deployed in the DTP Section for typing and page setting in the Computer. It is submitted that Annexure A-4 is not an authoritative document and it is a document prepared by some vested interest in the department and has no official validity. It is not an approved or authorized document issued by a competent authority.

4. In compliance with the directions in Annexure A-5 order in O.A.No.664/2013 the department forwarded the representations of the applicants to the Ministry of Urban Development by F.No.01/08/2013-LGP dated 24.8.2013. The Ministry had considered the representations of the applicants in consultation with Directorate of Printing. The Directorate had made a comparative study of the post of Phototype Setting Operator in the Government Press, Lakshadweep Administration viz-a-viz higher post of DTP Operator in Government of India Presses. Consequent to this exercise, by Annexure A-7 impugned order dated 7.7.2014, the Ministry of Urban Development informed that the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/- is applicable only to supervisory posts and since the post of Phototype Setting Operator in LGP is not a supervisory post, the benefit of higher scale of pay cannot be extended to the applicants.

5. In compliance of the order of Tribunal in O.A.317/2011, the Ministry made a comparative study of technical posts of LGP with similar posts of Government of India Press and upgraded the posts of Machineman III/II, Block Maker, Dark Room Attendant, Machine Attendant, Bindery Assistant, Foreman and Section Holder and bought them at par with Government of India Press with suitable amendment in the Recruitment Rules.

6. In compliance of directions of the Tribunal in O.A.No.664/2013 and others, the respondent forwarded the representations of applicants to the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Development on 24.8.2013. The respondent here makes a contradictory statement. It is stated that the representations were examined in consultation with Directorate of Printing who made a comparative study of the post of Phototype Setting Operator in Lakshadweep Government Press and similar post in Government of India Press. It is also stated that Government of India made a comparison of Phototype Setting Operator in LGP with higher post of DTP Operator in GOI Press. Hence, the post referred in O.A.No.664/2013 was compared with two posts - a similar post in GOI Press and a higher post of DTP Operator in GOI Press. Respondent in his arguments does not substantiate what necessitated this dual comparison which included comparison with a higher post and arrive at a conclusion that Phototype Setting Operator in LGP is not a supervisory category post. It is obvious that if LGP post is compared with a Government of India higher post, the comparison is likely to lead to a negative result. The comparison and its outcome should have been made only with a similarly placed post.

       (1)       Master Craftsman Rs.1400-2300
       (2)       Technical Supervisor Rs.1400-2300

9. Hence the contention of respondents that Rs.1400-2300 is a scale of pay given to a supervisory post does not appear to be supported by above order of Ministry of Finance which has given the same scale to Master Craftsman, a non supervisory post. Despite the introduction of DTP technology in 1986 in LGP, no post of DTP Operator was created and the work of DTP Operator was managed by Compositors with appropriate training. The post of DTP Operators, which work the applicant was doing, was reclassified as Master Craftsman with scale Rs.1400-2300 by respondent administration. The island administration had also redesignated the post of Compositors as Assistant DTP Operator. While closing C.P.No.4/2014 and C.P.No.6/2014 in O.A.No.664/2013 and O.A.No.665/2013, the Tribunal had noted that the claim made by petitioners for upgradation of their scale of pay has been accepted in principle subject to the approval of the Ministry concerned. The Contempt Petition was closed on the above submission recorded. Hence the respondents were convinced about the case for upgradation of pay scale and cannot back off after making submission in the above Contempt Petition. The respondents in their reply statement refer to wrong judicial pronouncements and the solemn duty of Courts to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate the same without citing what mistake was made. The respondents on the other hand does not give sound arguments on backing out of the assurance made before the Tribunal in the Contempt Petition cited above. Other posts in the LGP have been upgraded but the post of Phototype Setting Operator who are actually doing the work of DTP printing and have been redesignated as Master Craftsman have been left out of the upgradation loop.