AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since the issues involved in the connected matters are interlinked, they are required to be heard together. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, we have heard these O.A.s together and the same are being disposed of by this common order. In the instant O.A.s, the applicants are seeking identical relief. One such relief sought in O.A/305/2024 is extracted as under:
a)call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders in Lr.No.02/Genl/OFMK/Estt/2023-24 dated 15.02.2024 and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and law of the land and;
b)consequently direct the respondents to revise the pay scales of the applicant in the post of Junior Hindi Translators as Rs.5500-9000 from 01.01.1996 notionally and actually from 11.02.2003 up to 31.12.2005 i.e., prior to implementation of 6th CPC and;
c)and direct the respondents to grant the arrears of such re-fixation along with the interest of 18% and all consequential Central Administrative Tribunalbenefits and;
d)to direct the respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicant as per the 6th CPC pay scales subsequent to such revision of pay as directed by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
e)and be please to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Highlighting the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention that the present O.A. has been filed challenging the letter, dt. 15.02.2024, of the DGM, HR, vide which, the applicant’s claim for extension of benefit rendered, vide order, dt. 20.01.2023, of the CAT, Principal Bench, in O.A./2474/2015, was rejected on the sole ground that the as per the directions of the BoO (C&S), dt. 24.01.2024, the benefit was to be extended only to the applicants therein. Vide the said judgment, the pay-scale of Hindi Translator was granted parity with equivalent staff of the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS), and it has reached finality in various judgments of the Tribunals, as also confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond & Ors. in SLP (C) No. 17419/2009, dt. 25.07.2013.
During the course of the hearing, it is argued by the applicant’s counsel that the rejection, vide the impugned order, dt. 15.02.2024, is on the sole premise of the fact that they were not parties to the earlier round of litigation. The relevant portion of the impugned order, dt. 15.02.2024, is as under:
“2.DoO (C&S) Kolkata vide Lr.No.340/OA 2474/2015/0FM/MK/333Per/NI-1, dtd.24.01.2024 has also stated that individuals who are not amongst with applicants are not covered under the above order of Hon'ble Tribunal.”
It has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the applicant that though there is a claim of the applicant for granting benefits w.e.f. 1996, however, the relevant date for consideration would be the date of appointment. From that period, the applicant is entitled to the benefit. He further submits that merely because the applicant was not a party to the earlier round of litigation, does not, ipso facto, give the right to the Respondents to reject the claim.
Further, the counsel for the applicant submits that the reply affidavit so filed by the Respondents is adding additional points in terms of para 6 and 7, as under:
“6...... Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench in the case of Manoj Kumar & Ors vs Union of India in OA No. 2474/2015 vide order dated 20.01.2023 has allowed the Original Application and directed the respondents to issue an order forthwith "to grant the pay scale of Rs 5500 - Rs 9000, to the Junior Translator, w.e.f 01.01.1996, strictly on notional basis and actual basis w.e.f. 11.02.2003, till 31.12.2005, i.e. the date after which the 6th CC came into effect, which has already established the parity. The said directions shall be complied with expeditiously, certainly not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needlessly to say that appropriate orders within this period of 12 weeks, shall also be passed granting the resultant consequential benefits to the applicants as per their entitlement, including, but not restrictedly, re-fixation of pay, arrears, promotion etc. " Accordingly, the matter was taken up with the Ministry of Defence which referred the matter to the Department of Expenditure. Department of Expenditure w.r.t. the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal PB order dated 20.01.2023 directed that 'the department has no objection to the implementation of the order of CAT, PB's order dated 20.01.2023 subject to the condition that the applicants are similarly placed as the applicants in similar court cases implemented so far. Accordingly, the department has implemented the order of Hon'ble Tribunal PB dated 20.01.2023 in r/o the applicants only. MoF (DoE) vide I.D. No. 10(5) / E. III (B) / 2022 dated 09.01.2023 has intimated that "The upgraded pay scales were approved by the Government for the posts belonging to CSOLS only and these were not applicable to any similarly designated post outside the CSOLS. However, since the 5th CPC had recommended for creation of a similar service in respect of such posts in AFHQ and such a service was created in consultation with Department of Expenditure wherein parity in the matter of pay scales at par with COLS was allowed, the higher pay scales approved by the Government in respect of posts in CSOLS were extended for posts in AFHOOLS as well. However, the posts concerned in the present case do not belong to CSOLS or AFHOOLS as such were not eligible for higher pay scales." It is amply clear that the post of erstwhile Junior Hindi Translator (now Junior Hindi Officer) is a separate cadre under Ordnance Factory Board (now Director General Ordinance DOO(CAS), Kolkata), the recruitment rules of this cadre in Ordnance Factories are also governed by separate SRO and there is no similarity as regards duties, responsibilities, and status of the post vis-à-vis Central Secretariat Official Language Service (SLOS) and post of AFHQOLS as well. 7. ....... Ordnance Factories has no similarity with COLS Cadre Central Administrative TribunalOfficers as far as duties and higher pay scales are concerned. Kind Attention of Hon'ble Court is invited to the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of State of Haryana vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personnel Staff Association - Appeal Civil No. 3518/1997, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had unambiguously held that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is primarily the function of an Executive and not the Judiciary and therefore ordinarily the Courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the Expert Bodies like the Executives. The pay scales of the Applicants having notified strictly on the basis of the recommendations of the relevant Pay Commission as adopted and notified by the Government. It is re-affirmed that the duties of Junior Hindi Translators in the Respondent Organization cannot be equated and compared with the duties performed by the similarly placed Officials of the CSOLS.”
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said grounds urged are beyond the impugned order so passed and cannot be accepted at this juncture. He further submits, by analogy, that the applicants are similarly situated to those in other Ordinance Factories where the orders have been implemented.
Opposing the grant of relief vehemently, the counsel for the Respondents states that the applicants are not entitled to the relief sought in the present O.A. It is further stressed, based on the averments made in the counter affidavit, more particularly, at para 6, as highlighted above, that the applicants belong to a distinct cadre having distinct duties and responsibilities. Therefore, the applicants cannot claim similarity to the decision rendered in O.A./2474/2015.
During the course of the hearing, it is specifically observed that while the matter was taken up with the Ministry of Defence, which referred the matter to the Department of Expenditure, the Department of Expenditure directed the respondent that they have no objection to the implementation of the CAT order and the PB's order dated 20.01.2023 subject to the condition that the applicants are similarly placed as the applicants in similar court cases implemented so far. Accordingly, the department has implemented the order of Hon'ble Tribunal PB dated 20.01.2023 in r/o the applicants only in the said case.
Through the contested order issued on February 15, 2024, the Respondents attempted to distinguish the case by claiming the applicant is not in a comparable position. However, they failed to provide any significant evidence to demonstrate that the applicant's professional responsibilities differ from those of the individuals involved in O.A./2474/2015.
In Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 has held that service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly; only because one person has approached the Court would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. Justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over other employees; the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; this principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated equally. This principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of delays/laches/acquiescence. Persons who did not challenge wrongful action in their case and woke up after a long delay, such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them, and delays/laches/acquiescence would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
In “Union of India and Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh” (2008) 8 SCC 652, this Court summarized the settled principles in the following manner:
Central Administrative Tribunal“7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc.., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” ( emphasised)
At this stage, we may also highlight the decision rendered by the Apex Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO.1663 OF 2016 -Union of India & Ors. Vs D.G.O.F. Employees Association and Anr. decided on 9.11.2023, while dealing with the upgradation of the pay scales of Assistant and Personal Assistants of the Ordinance Factory Board, Headquarters as had been given to similarly placed employees of Central Secretariat Service (‘CSS’ for short) and equivalent posts in the Armed Force Headquarters Civil Service (‘AFHCS’ for short) Cadre, New Delhi and similar other cadres , it was observed :
“14.As noted by the High Court, it is evident that parity of pay scales vis-à-vis LDCs, UDCs, Assistants/PAs and Stenographers, was maintained even prior to 01.01.1986 under the Third Central Pay Commission recommendations (for the period of 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1985). This parity was continued in the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations (with effect from 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995) and the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations (for the period 01.01.1996 to 14.09.2006). The post of Assistants, PAs and Stenographers is governed by Director General Ordnance Factories Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1977.
15.Be that as it may, in the present facts the perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court impugned herein would indicate that the High Court having kept in view the legal, as well as the factual aspects, has not proceeded in a manner so as to equate two sets of employees in different organizations. But, keeping in view the recommendations of the Pay Commission and the applicability of the pay scales recommended to similarly placed employees employed in the headquarters, and on noticing discrimination despite historical similarity, has merely rectified the error, which does not call for interference.
16.In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. “
Given the current situation, the applicants have been forced to seek recourse through the Tribunal. As a model employer, the Respondents bear the responsibility to apply the relevant orders universally. No arbitrary differentiation should be made within the Hindi Translator cadre. It is acknowledged that various Ordnance Factories have already provided these benefits to their staff, with the sole exception of the applicants in this case.
14. Conclusion
In view of the above discussions, the impugned order, dt. 15.02.2024, is quashed and set aside. For the reasons mentioned above, as well as for the parity of decision in O.A/2474/2015, which was decided in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dt. 25.07.2013, in the matter of Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond & Ors. in SLP (C) No. 17419/2009, we allow the O.A(s). to the following extent:-
The applicants are entitled to the grant of notional benefit in terms of the decision of the CAT, Principal Bench, in O.A./2474/2015, from the date of appointment to the cadre of Junior Hindi Translator on a notional basis. The actual arrears shall flow and payable from three years from the date of filing the O.A(s).
The aforesaid exercise may be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, appropriate pay re-fixation may also be passed within the aforesaid period.
Accordingly, the O.A.s are disposed of in the above terms. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
Copy of this order should be placed on both the original applications as per Rules.