Bhanu Prasad vs Ministry Of Home Affairs & Ors.

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s) :-

The brief facts of the case, as presented by the learned counsel for the applicant, are that the applicant initially joined the 25^th Battalion, BSF at Chawla Camp on 09.05.1992 as a Cook in Group 'D'. After joining the BSF, he underwent a 12-week basic training course at the STC, BSF, Churachandpur, Manipur, pursuant to letter No. TRG/STC/BSF/805/9394/10206 dated 12.08.1993, the training having been undergone from 12.04.1993 to 03.07.1993. The training included combatised training, handling and firing of small arms including SLR and Carbine. The applicant was thereafter taken on deputation from BSF to Delhi Police in 1995 and was permanently absorbed in Delhi Police on 15.04.1998 and after his absorption he continued to discharge duties under Delhi Police.

The applicant was thereafter sent on deputation to the Special Protection Group (SPG) from Delhi Police vide Office Order No.2780/99 dated 17.12.1999. During his tenure in the SPG, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant handled various small arms, underwent weapons and endurance-related training and performed security duties including the security of the Director, SPG. It is submitted that during SPG tenure, the applicant received O.B. No. 319/2000, a commendation by the Director, SPG dated 23.02.2000, and a High Commendation Certificate dated 14.07.2004. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the claim of the applicant arose from the recommendations of the 6^th CPC. He relied particularly upon paragraph 7.19.45 concerning the Followers cadre in the CPMFs and paragraph 7.19.50 concerning maintenance of parity between CPMFs and Delhi Police. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the 6^th CPC contemplated conversion of the relevant posts into Group 'C', proper training and combatisation, and career progression, while paragraph 7.19.50 recommended for Delhi Police Constables the revised scale of Rs. 3200-4900 in PB-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/-. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that once the erstwhile Group 'D' posts were upgraded to Group 'C', denial of Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/-to a person possessing the requisite combatised training creates an unjustified disparity. He further submitted that MHA issued order dated 29.10.2009 pursuant to paragraph 7.19.45 of the 6^th CPC, providing for conversion of Followers/other Group 'D' posts in CPMFs into Group 'C' posts in PB-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- and designation as Constable (Tradesman), such as Constable (Cook), Carpenter etc.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the principle underlying the said decision should also be extended to similarly placed tradesmen in Delhi Police. He also relied upon the subsequent action of Delhi Police in taking up the issue with MHA, including the letter dated 11.01.2012 and the D.O. letter dated 23.12.2011 referred to in the departmental record. Learned counsel for the applicant placed substantial reliance upon the judgment dated 28.09.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 3930/2011 concerning erstwhile Group 'D' employees of CRPF. According to the record, the said proceedings arose from the anomaly whereby erstwhile Followers, despite conversion into Group 'C' posts and subsequent combatisation, were receiving Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800/- whereas other Group 'C' Constables were receiving Rs. 2,000/-. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition and directed payment of Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/-per month with effect from 01.01.2006. He relied upon this judgment as further demonstrating the principle of parity and the retrospective financial effect claimed by him.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the O.A. No. 726/2013, filed by MTS employees including Sunil Kumar and others, was dismissed by judgment/order dated 12.10.2015, however, the applicant specifically distinguished his case on the ground that the applicants in that case had not undergone the requisite combatised training, whereas the applicant herein had undergone 12 weeks of basic training in the BSF involving weapons, firing and physical training and thereafter also served in the SPG where he handled weapons and performed security duties.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon Standing Order No. 326/2010, particularly paragraph 14(i), concerning recruitment/training for Group 'C' employees in Delhi Police, under which the basic training course is stated to include combatisation. The applicant's case is that having already undergone the requisite combatised training in BSF, he satisfies the material requirement relied upon for distinguishing combatised personnel from ordinary non-combatised MTS. He, therefore, contended that he cannot be denied the benefit merely because, after his permanent absorption in Delhi Police, he continued to be designated as MTS/Cook.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has made several representations before the competent authorities, including the representation dated 14.12.2022. The departmental communication also records the applicant's legal notice and the departmental response. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the denial of Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- and redesignation as Constable (Tradesman) is arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly when the applicant possesses the training and experience which, according to him, constituted the distinguishing factor in O.A. No. 726/2013.

Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed their counter reply opposing the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant's claim for redesignation as Constable (Tradesman) and grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- is misconceived and contrary to the applicable service rules governing Delhi Police. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was originally a BSF employee who was taken on deputation to Delhi Police as a Cook for one year in the first instance and was thereafter permanently absorbed in Delhi Police as Cook by order No. XIV/101(28)/95/7603-20/P.Br.(AC-V) dated 03.04.1998. It is further stated that the applicant was subsequently selected for deputation from Delhi Police to the SPG for a period of three years vide order dated 06.11.1998 and he was repatriated to his parent department, Delhi Police, w.e.f. 31.03.2005 vide order dated 11.03.2005. The respondents admitted that the applicant joined BSF and underwent 12 weeks of basic training at STC, BSF, Churachandpur, Manipur. However, they maintained that such training does not alter the governing position after the applicant's permanent absorption in Delhi Police. According to the respondents, the applicant is an MTS/Cook of Delhi Police and his service matters are governed by Delhi Police rules.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that upon the implementation of the 6^th Central Pay Commission in Delhi Police, all existing Group 'D' employees of Delhi Police were upgraded to Group 'C' in Pay Band-I with the common designation of Multi Tasking Staff. The applicable Grade Pay for the erstwhile Group 'D' posts was Rs. 1,800/-. The respondents further stated that there was no further recruitment in Group 'D', the minimum qualification for the relevant level was prescribed as 10^th pass or ITI equivalent, multi-skilling was introduced, and employees not possessing the prescribed qualification were given three months' training for placement in PB-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800/-.

The respondents specifically distinguished the MHA order dated 29.10.2009 from the applicant's case. They submitted that the said order was issued pursuant to paragraph 7.19.45 of the 6^th CPC and applied to Followers/other Group 'D' posts in the CPMFs, including CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP, SSB, NSG and Assam Rifles. Under that order, such posts could be converted into Group 'C' posts in PB-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000/- and designated as Constable (Tradesman), such as Constable (Cook) and Constable (Carpenter). Their principal contention is that the order was meant for CPMFs and was not an order applicable to Delhi Police.

Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that, when MTS employees of Delhi Police sought similar treatment, a proposal was sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs through D.O. letter dated 23.12.2011. The proposal was examined by MHA/Government of India and the position was communicated by letter dated 06.08.2012 that the proposal did not sound logical because Delhi Police personnel were not like Central Para Military Forces but like other State Police personnel. It is, therefore, contended that the competent Ministry had considered the issue and declined the proposal, leaving no basis for the Tribunal to direct the benefit contrary to the applicable administrative decision.

Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon O.A. No. 726/2013 filed by MTS employees of Delhi Police which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2015. It is submitted that the 6^th CPC recommendations concerning CPMFs were founded upon the requirement of combatisation of the Followers cadre, whereas the Group 'D' posts/MTS posts of Delhi Police were non-combatised. Consequently, there is no parity between the CPMF Followers, who were converted into combatised Constable (Tradesmen), and the non-combatised MTS of Delhi Police. It is stated that the said judgment was challenged by the concerned applicants before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 99/2016 and the same was pending before the Hon'ble High Court at the relevant time. The Respondents consequently submit that the applicant cannot derive an independent right to redesignation or Grade Pay merely on the basis of the issues raised in the said proceedings.

Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that prior to the 6^th CPC, there were approximately 2,200 sanctioned Group 'D' posts in Delhi Police in various trades such as Sweeper, Cook, Mochi, Mali, Dhobi and Barber. Following the 6^th CPC, these posts were upgraded to Group 'C' and designated as MTS. A proposal was subsequently made for framing new Recruitment Rules, and Delhi Police Group 'C' Multi Tasking Staff (Civilian) Recruitment Rules, 2017 were framed by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. It is, therefore, submitted that the service structure of MTS has been separately regulated and cannot automatically be equated with the combatised Constable (Tradesman) cadre of CPMFs.

The applicant, in rejoinder to the counter reply, reiterated that the respondents have themselves admitted the material facts which distinguish the applicant from the MTS employees whose claim was rejected in O.A. No. 726/2013. According to the applicant, the decisive distinction is that he had undergone combatised basic training in the BSF and had thereafter served in the Special Protection Group, where he handled weapons and performed security duties.

The applicant pointed out that the respondents themselves acknowledged that Delhi Police had subsequently taken up the issue with MHA through D.O. letter dated 23.12.2011. The applicant submitted that this conduct itself demonstrates that the question of extending the benefit to Delhi Police MTS was considered by the Department and was not a wholly unrelated issue.

The applicant pointed out that paragraph 7.19.50 of the 6^th CPC specifically recorded that complete parity existed between CPMFs and Delhi Police and that such parity needed to be maintained. According to the Applicant, such differential treatment is discriminatory and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Applicant further disputed the contention that Delhi Police MTS are necessarily comparable to ordinary State Police personnel rather than to the relevant tradesmen of the CPMFs. In support, the applicant relied upon the examples of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Police and Chhattisgarh Police. The Annexure-R-1 relied upon by him records recruitment of Follower Constable (Cook) in the Andaman & Nicobar Police and Fire Service, while Annexure-R-2 contains material concerning designation of tradesmen as Constable (Trade), including Cook, Barber, Bugler and other trades in Chhattisgarh Police. The applicant contended that these examples demonstrate that police organisations under different administrative structures have provided a Constable (Tradesman) designation and promotional avenues to persons performing tradesmen duties. The applicant further contended that the respondents cannot rely upon the non-combatised character of the general MTS cadre when the applicant's own record establishes that he had undergone combatised training before his absorption in Delhi Police.

The applicant also disputed the respondents' reliance upon the fact of his permanent absorption in Delhi Police on 03.04.1998 as a complete answer to his claim. According to the Applicant, permanent absorption determines the department in which he is serving but cannot by itself defeat a claim for parity where the substantive basis of the claim is founded upon the 6^th CPC recommendations, the nature of his training, the treatment of similarly placed tradesmen and the Recruitment Rules applicable to Group 'C' posts. The applicant further maintained that the departmental rejection communicated after his representations cannot be treated as conclusive merely because MHA had earlier declined the proposal. According to the Applicant, the Department had itself approached MHA regarding the issue and thereafter did not adequately pursue the matter, whereas paragraph 7.19.50 had been implemented in respect of other Delhi Police ranks. He consequently alleges that the continuing denial to the tradesmen/MTS cadre has resulted in discriminatory treatment and stagnation in promotional avenues.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings available on record.

It is an admitted fact that applicant has completed basic training course of 12 weeks at the STF, BSF, Manipur from 12.04.1993 to 03.07.1993 and the training included combatised training, handling and firing of small arms including SLR and Carbine.

Applicant joined Delhi Police from BSF on deputation on the post of Cook initially for a period of one year w.e.f. 31.07.95 and finally absorbed permanently in Delhi Police on 15.08.1998. Thereafter the applicant remained on Central Administrative Tribunal^{deputation with SPG from Delhi Police as Security} Assistant (M) w.e.f. 13.11.1998 to 31.03.2005.

It is mentioned in the office order no. 7780/99 dated 17.12.1999 issued by the Special Protection Force (Cabinet Secretariat) vide 291/SPG, EST/QS(II)M-25062 that “In terms of provisions of Cabinet Secretariat Order No. A-11013/16/85-DO-I dated 30.3.85 as amended from time to time, Shri Bhanu Prasad, Cook of Delhi Police is hereby appointed to the combatised post of SA(M) in SPG w.e.f. 13.11.99.” Further the OSD (Security), PMO has given a „High Commendation Certificate‟ to the applicant for the outstanding profession competence displayed by him in connection with PM's security during the year 2003-04. From this, an inference is to be drawn that the applicant imparted his duty to the post of SA(M) in SPG to the combatised post of SA(M) at least for the period w.e.f. 13.11.1999 to 31.03.2005.

It is also an admitted fact that Delhi Police vide letter dated 11.01.2012 (No. 671/P.Br/PHQ) has requested MHA to reconsider the upgradation of MTS staff of Delhi Police into Constable (Trademan). The MHA has to take a considered view thereon.

The issue appears to be involved in the matter is as to Central Administrative Tribunal^{whether the level of training undertaken by the applicant} during his service in BSF w.e.f. 12.04.1993 to 03.07.1993 and duties imparted by him in SPG at combatized post of SA(M), for a period from 13.11.1999 to 31.03.2005 can be taken into account or equivalent as training imparted to Constable (Exe) in Delhi Police.

Prima facie, answer to the said issue appears to be positive. However, the respondents have to examine the issue in the light of curriculum and training aspects imparted to Constable (Exe) of Delhi Police and vis-à-vis combatized SA(M) of SPG and BSF and to take an appropriate decision on the request of applicant.

The facts/issue of the present case are entirely different from the facts and issue involved in the O.A. No. 726/2013 decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2015. Para 29 of the order dated 12.10.2015 is reproduced below:

As the applicant in OA No.726/2013 has not undergone any combatized training and the instant applicant has completed his training in BSF as well as imparted duties to the post of combatize SA(M) in SPG, thus the order dated 12.10.2015, passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 726/2013 may not come in the way in granting Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- instead of present grade pay of Rs.1800/- to the applicant.

In view of the above, the O.A. is allowed with the following directions:

The respondents shall examine the request of the applicant to extend the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/-in place of Rs.1,800/-, in light of the fact that the applicant has undergone the combatized training in BSF w.e.f. 12.04.1993 to 03.07.1993 and further imparted duties in SPG at combatized post of SA(M) for a period 13.11.1999 to 31.03.2005 and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon.

If the respondents arrive on a decision to accept the said request of the applicant, then, the respondents shall undertake the necessary consequential refixation of pay and other consequential benefits, as admissible to the applicant in accordance with law.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

All pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.