AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:-
The applicant was initially engaged as casual labour on daily wages in the year 1988 and continued to work upto 1992. In response to Memo dated 10.01.1991 issued by the respondents, the applicant appeared in the prescribed trade test on 24.10.1991 and qualified the same. Accordingly, the applicant was issued offer of appointment as Junior Carpenter vide order dated 27.01.1992. Subsequently, as directed vide order dated 04.02.1992, he was medically examined and having been found fit, he was appointed to the post of Junior Carpenter in temporary capacity in the pay scale of Rs.800-15-1010-EB-20-1150 w.e.f. 27.01.1992, vide order dated 06.02.1992.
The applicant was granted 1st MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and 2nd MACP w.e.f. 27.01.2012, vide Office Order dated 09.09.2013.
The applicant came to know that his counterparts working as Tin Smith/Spray Painter/Head Mistry Carpenter in DAVP were drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs.950-1150-EB-25-1400 for their initial appointment and in pursuance of Notification dated 30.09.1997, their existing pay scale of Rs.950-1150-EB-25-1400 was revised to Rs.3050-4590, vide order dated 16.10.1997. Aggrieved, the applicant made a representation dated 06.03.2017 before the respondents requesting them to revise his pay scale at par with his counterparts working in DAVP.
When his representation was not decided, the applicant preferred OA No.4168/2017 before this Tribunal, which was dismissed with liberty to make a fresh representation. Accordingly, the applicant made a fresh representation on 29.12.2017 highlighting names of candidates against whom he sought pay parity, and the same has not been decided by the respondents.
Aggrieved, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the instant OA seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a)To direct the respondents to fix the pay scale of the applicant Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1400 at par with his counterpart employee as carpenter namely, Vinod Kumar, Ganesh Chand and Satish in Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity from the date of initial appointment.
(b)To direct the respondent to grant all the consequential benefits like promotion, seniority benefits of ACP and MACP and arrear of pay and allowance to the applicant.
(c)To pass any other order/s as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Per contra, the respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the applicant was initially appointed as Junior Carpenter at erstwhile Patiala House/Faridabad in the Publications Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting on purely temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs.800-15-1010-EB-1150. He was on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 27.01.1992 and his services were substantiated w.e.f. 27.01.1994 vide order dated 19.02.2002 on completion of probation period.
Consequent upon recommendations of the 5th CPC, the respondents, vide order dated 22.10.1997, fixed the pay of the applicant at Rs.2780/- under Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thereafter, he was granted 1st financial upgradation w.e.f. 27.01.2004 on completion of 12 years’ regular service fixing his pay at Rs.6680+Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in the revised pay scale. He was also granted 2nd financial upgradation w.e.f./01.07.2012 on completion of 20 years’ of regular service and vide order dated 05.08.2016, his pay was fixed at Rs.33,000/- w.e.f. 05.08.2016.
The applicant cannot claim pay parity at par with his so-called counterparts on the following grounds:-
Sh. Vinod Kumar was appointed permanently as Carpenter w.e.f. 20.07.1988 in BOC, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (erstwhile DAVP) and at that time his basic pay was Rs.1070/- whereas the applicant was appointed as Junior Carpenter and his basic pay was Rs.800/-.
Sh. Ganesh Chand, Carpenter is also working in BOC (erstwhile DAVP), was getting more pay than Sh. Vinod Kumar, being senior to him. Both the aforesaid employees were appointed much earlier to the applicant under different recruitment rules and scales of pay.
Sh. Subhash Chand is working as Spray Painter in the same department but his designation is completely different from that of the applicant. Hence, the applicant cannot claim pay parity with him.
Sh. Satish Kumar is also working in the same department, however, he was initially appointed as Carpenter whereas the applicant was appointed as Junior Carpenter. Hence, the claim of the applicant seeking pay parity with the above employees of DAVP is misconceived and, hence, the instant OA deserves to be dismissed.
The applicant has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents reiterating and reasserting the averments made in the OA.
We have heard Sh. T.D. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D.S. Mahendru, learned counsel for the respondents and have also perused the pleadings available on record.
Having gone through the pleadings, it is noticed that the applicant was initially appointed as temporary casual labour in the year 1988. He was appointed as Junior Carpenter w.e.f. 27.01.1992 in the pay scale of Rs. Rs.800-15-1010-EB-1150 whereas three of the employees of DAVP with whom the applicant is claiming pay parity, had been initially appointed as Carpenter in the pay scale of Rs.950-1150-EB-25-1400 and the fourth one, namely, Satish Kumar was initially appointed on a different post i.e. Spray Painter.
It is also noticed that since the date of initial appointment as Junior Carpenter in the year 1988, the applicant has not raised any issue with the respondents seeking pay parity with the so-called counterparts, nor assailed revision of their pay, vide order dated 16.10.1997. He has also not raked up this issue even at the time of grant of 1st and 2nd financial upgradation, vide office order dated 09.09.2013.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the instant OA is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.