AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
(i)to quash and set aside the impugned memorandum dated 12.05.2021 ( Annexure-A-1);
(ii)to direct the respondents to grant 4,600/- grade pay to Radiographer (Radiology technician Grade-2) as per 6th CPC (w.e.f. 01.01.2006) recommendation and subsequent pay scales to promotional posts in the radiology cadre i.e. Radiology Technician Grade-II may be grant 4,600/-, Radiology Technician Grade-I may be grant 4,800/-, Technical officer (Radiology) may be grant 5,400/-PB-3, Senior Technical officer (Radiology) may be grant 6,600/-, and Chief Technical officer (Radiology) may be grant 7,600/-
(iii)to remove the anomaly with regard to the facts that promotional post and feeder post both lie in the same grade Viz Technical officer (Radiology), Senior Technical officer (Radiology) and Radiology Technician Grade -II, Radiology Technician Grade-I;
(iv)to direct the respondents to grant Radiology Technician after merging of Radiology Technician Grade 2 and Grade-1 grade pay of Rs. 4,800/- from date of merging i.e. 26.09.2016;
(v)May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.
The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that this is the second round of litigation and the Tribunal in the first round of litigation in OA No.421/2021 in the matter of Satyapal Arya & Ors. Vs. UOI had passed orders directing the respondents to thoroughly examine the far-reaching claims regarding the pay structure across 5 stages in the Radiology Department and pass a reasoned order on the representation of the applicants dated 21.01.2016 within a period of 3 months. In compliance with the said directions, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 12.05.2021, showing complete highhandedness by refusing to resolve the justified pay anomalies of the Radiology cadre despite the Institute itself agreeing that anomalies exist. This arbitrary approach contradicts the stance taken in the case of PGIMER Chandigarh (upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.30058/2014), where similar technical cadres (Laboratory/X-ray/Radiotherapy) were restructured w.e.f. 01.03.1992 based on the Prabhakar Committee recommendations, granting appropriate pay scales and higher Grade Pay up to Rs. 7600/- across hierarchical levels. The applicants submitted that the 6th CPC granted a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to Radiographers (designated as Radiology Technician Grade 2 in AIIMS), which was accepted by the Union of India, but the respondents wrongly granted them a lower Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. Furthermore, the promotional post of Radiology Technician Grade 1, achieved after 8 years of service, was also placed in the same Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, violating the principle that lower and promotional posts cannot be in the same grade pay. Subsequently, the respondents merged Radiology Technician Grade I and Grade II into a single cadre and granted a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, which is illegal and wrong due to two primary reasons: (i) Grade 2 should have received Rs. 4600/- and the promotional Grade 1 should have received Rs. 4800/- (or higher), whereas the merged post was assigned an even lower Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, thereby decimating promotional avenues; and (ii) as per DoPT OMs, when two grades are merged, incumbents must be given the pay scale of the higher post (which in this case should have been Rs. 4800/- for the merged Radiology Technician cadre), but they have only been granted Rs. 4200/-till date. Aggrieved by this illegal denial, the applicants have filed the instant Original Application.
The counsel of the applicant argued as under on the following grounds:
A. Because the respondents themselves have stated that the applicants are entitled to higher pay.
B. Because even as per the $6^{th}$ CPC, the entry grade of Radiographers (Radiology technician Grade-II in AIIMS), the applicants are having requisite qualification i.e. B.Sc Radiography.
C. Because $7^{th}$ CPC report approved by cabinet also clarifies C.T.O Radiology 7600 and Jr. T.O (Radiology technician in AIIMS) 4800/-.
D. Because having promotional post of Radiographer Grade-I in the same grade pay of 4200/-, as Radiographer Grade-II having Grade Pay of 4200 from which, promotions are made is arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law.
E. Because again in the cadre, Technical Officer and Senior Technical Officer have been given identical grade pay 4600 whereas latter is promotional post of former.
F. Because the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
G. Because the case of the applicants is squarely covered by the various judgment on this fact.
H. Because even after various representation and 3 Committee, the legitimate grievance of the applicants have not been resolved.
I. Because the anomaly has been existing from 1.1.2006 and the respondents are even aware of the same which evident from the fact that various committees has been constituted to resolve the issue but actually redressal has not taken place till date.
To buttress his arguments, handed across the bar a copy of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in WP(C) 10645/2016 – Amar Chand & others vs Union of India and others; and WP(C) 10649/2016 – Sabu Thomas and others vs Union of India and another dated 24.02.2020, which inter alia states as follows:
14.In defending the said decision to revert the pay scale of the applicants from Rs.5,000-8,000/- to Rs.4,500-7000/-, it was contended by the Respondents that in terms of the qualification for the post of Radiographer, the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- could only be extended to those posts for which the minimum qualification was the three year diploma in Radiological Technology. The Health Department had moved a proposal on 18th April, 2002 for the removal of the anomaly pointed out in O.A. No.1219/1999, after which the Department of Personnel and Training („DoPT‟) took a decision to remove the anomaly by placing Senior Radiographers in the pay scale of Rs.4300-7000/-and Junior Radiographers in the pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000/-. Thus, the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- of Senior Radiographers stood withdrawn with effect from 1st January, 1996.
15.The CAT, in the aforementioned order dated 13th April, 2004 found that the withdrawal of the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-retrospectively from 1st January, 1996 was without issuing any Show Cause Notice to the applicants, and was therefore violative of the principles of natural justice. It was further observed that:
"24.Another aspect which has to looked into is invidious discrimination. The hostility in action is apparent as the counter parts in various other Ministries and departments despite having identical qualifications have been placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 a similar treatment has been denied to applicants which would amount to creating a class within the class which does not pass the test of reasonableness and violates principles of equality."
Per contra, the counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the applicants and argued vociferously that the impugned order dated 12.05.2021 and the reliefs sought are already under active consideration by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, with proactive steps being taken to address cadre concerns. Further, the reliance on the PGIMER, Chandigarh order is misplaced as it involved distinct facts, whereas the answering respondent is bound strictly by the decisions of the MoH&FW. He further submits that the Coordination Committee recommendations could not be implemented due to long-standing nomenclature variations and a decision by the Department of Expenditure. Finally, that the present Original Application is premature and barred for non-compliance with Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as statutory remedies have not been exhausted.
The counsel for Ministry of Health & Family Welfare further argued vehemently on the following grounds from his counter affidavit filed on 01.07.2025 :
First, it was submitted that according to the 6th CPC recommendations, the entry level of Assistant Radiographer III was Grade Pay Rs. 1900, Assistant Radiographer II was Grade Pay Rs. 2400, and Radiographer was Grade Pay Rs. 4200, with subsequent grades at Rs. 4200 and Rs. 4600. AIIMS, New Delhi had duly issued a detailed order dated 12.05.2021 in this regard.
(ii)Second, the respondents strongly disputed the validity of the solitary page annexed by the applicants, clarifying that the actual Coordination Committee report constituted by the MoH&FW proposed a distinct cadre restructure for the Radiology and Radiotherapy cadre.
(iii)Third, it was pointed out that the Department of Expenditure (DoE) did not agree to the Coordination Committee recommendations and vide I.D. Note dated 22.12.2021 advised that proposals for cadre restructuring in different INIs should be examined independently, taking into account all parameters such as educational qualifications, recruitment methods, and feeder posts. While a revised structure for the technical cadre of AIIMS, New Delhi was approved by the DoE, the proposed higher pay structure was not agreed to.
(iv)Finally, it was urged that the present Original Application has been filed prematurely without fulfilling the mandatory statutory requirements of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and thus deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
The counsel for the applicant argued on the basis of the rejoinder dated 18.11.2023, contending that as per the 6th CPC report, the entry-level grade pay for Dark Room Assistant was Rs. 2800 and Dark Room Attendant was Rs. 1800, whereas Assistant Radiographer Grade III / Dark Room Assistant Grade III was fixed at Rs. 1900, Grade II at Rs. 2400, and Grade I at Rs. 2800. It was forcefully submitted that both Radiology Technician Grade II and Radiographer serve as feeder posts sharing the exact same essential qualification, namely a B.Sc. in Radiology with Physics, Chemistry, and Biology as compulsory subjects in Class 12th, yet they have been improperly placed in the same grade pay. The counsel further highlighted that multiple expert bodies, including the Coordination Committee, A.B. Dey Committee, Dr. A.K. Gupta Committee, and the Standing Finance Committee, supported restructuring the pay scales in accordance with the 6th CPC proposals, with AIIMS itself having previously recommended granting the grade pay of Rs. 4600 to Radiology Technician Grade II; however, this grievance has remained unresolved for over fourteen years. Lastly, it was urged that complete parity exists in terms of duties, responsibilities, patient load, qualifications, and working conditions with PGI, Chandigarh, and that the Government of Uttarakhand has already granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 under the 6th CPC to the feeder post of Radiographer for candidates possessing a graduation in Radiology Science, rendering the denial of similar benefits to the applicants wholly arbitrary and unsustainable.
This matter was heard at some length by this Bench on 22.04.2024 and the following order was passed :
This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicants had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 421/2021 and a direction was given to the respondents to pass orders on the representations of the applicants.
Learned counsel submits that the representations have been rejected by an order dated 12.05.2021 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present OA. The issue involved in the present matter pertains to the revision of pay scales of the Radiology and Radiotherapy cadres.
It is submitted that the pay scales recommended for these cadres by the Sixth Central Pay Commission have already been implemented across various Union Government hospitals. Upon acceptance of the said recommendations, the revised pay scales have been extended to radiographers working at PGIMER, Chandigarh and JIPMER, Puducherry. However, the corresponding cadres at AIIMS, particularly in Radiology and Radiotherapy, have not been granted the same benefits.
It is further submitted that Respondent No. 4, AIIMS, in its affidavit dated 12.12.2022, has acknowledged the existence of an anomaly. In paragraph 17 of the said affidavit, it is admitted that the pay scales of the feeder cadre and the promotional posts are identical. The feeder posts include Radiology Technician Grade III and Radiology Technician Grade II, while the promotional post is Radiology Technician Grade I.
He submits that the anomaly so far had been admitted by the respondents AIIMS and further it has been stated that the proposal has been sent by the Internal Committee for cadre review to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
At this stage, Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Ministry, seeks to rely upon the counter affidavit to justify the reasons for non-acceptance of the proposal till date and prays for a short adjournment.
In view of the above, list this matter under part heard category on 15.05.2026.
We have heard the matter and observed that the Respondents – AIIMS, New Delhi and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare are merely dilly dallying in this case and have denied pay parity to the Radiologists of AIIMS as per with their colleagues in PGI, Chandigarh. The decision of CAT Bench Chandigarh has been upheld right till the Hon’ble Supreme Court. With this background when AIIMS – Delhi; PGI – Chandigarh and JIPMER – Puducherry are sister organisations and when the junior sister – PGI – Chandigarh has given the benefit of higher pay scales as per the Sixth Pay Commission to their Radiology cadre; it would be irrational, discriminatory and arbitrary if similar benefits are not extended to the Radiology cadre of AIIMS, Delhi which is the senior sister of PGI – Chandigarh. We have observed that this matter has been haplessly and viciously trapped in the deliberations of two committees of AIIMS – one headed by Dr A.B. Dey and later headed by Dr Arun Kumar Gupta, but unfortunately, no relief had been forthcoming from both these committees. This is sheer travesty of justice as it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. We are therefore of the considered opinion that “enough is enough”; that this long pending litigation now needs to be closed.
The instant OA has merit and deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned memorandum dated 12.05.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to grant Grade Pay of ₹4,600/- to Radiographer (Radiology Technician Grade-II) as per the recommendations of the 6th CPC with effect from 01.01.2006, along with the subsequent pay scales applicable to the promotional posts in the radiology cadre, namely, Radiology Technician Grade-II, Radiology Technician Grade-I, Technical Officer (Radiology), Senior Technical Officer (Radiology) and Chief Technical Officer (Radiology). The anomaly arising from the feeder post and the promotional post carrying the same grade pay shall accordingly be rectified. The Respondents are further directed to grant the applicants the post of Radiology Technician pursuant to the merger of Radiology Technician Grade-II and Radiology Technician Grade-I, with effect from the date of such merger, i.e., 26.09.2016. The aforesaid benefits, along with arrears, shall be extended to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of in similar manner. However, there will be no order as to costs.