Technical Executive Officers A vs Union Of India & Ors

Group

‘B’

Officers of

states with

designation","2nd Pay

Commission","3rd Pay

Commission","4th Pay

Commission","5th Pay

Commission","6th Pay

Commission

Gujrat

(ARTO)",350-575,650-1200,2200-4000,8000-13500,"15600-39100

GP 5400

Tamil Nadu

(ARTO)",350-575,650-1200,2200-4000,8000-13500,"15600-39100

GP 5400

Maharashtra

(ARTO)",-,650-1200,2200-4000,"7450-11500

upto

30/11/2008

10000-15200

w.e.f.

1/12/2008","15600-39100

GP 5400

Orrisa

(ARTO)",350-575,650-1200,2200-4000,8000-13500,"15600-39100

GP 5400

Uttar

Pradesh

(ARTO)",350-575,650-1200,2200-4000,8000-13500,"15600-39100

GP 5400

Lakshdeep

(UT)",-,-,2200-4000,10000-15200,"15600-39100

GP 6600

Delhi

(MLO)",375-650,650-960,2000-3200,6500-10500,"9300-34800

GP 4600

Group

‘C’

Asstt.

Inspectors

of states

with

designation","2ND Pay

Commission","3rd

Commission","4th

Commission","5th

Commission","6th Pay

Commission

Gujrat,270-435,425-600,1640-2900,5500-9000,"9300-34800

GP 4200

Tamil Nadu,270-435,425-600,1640-2900,5500-9000,"9300-34800

GP 4400

Maharashtra,-,-,1640-2900,"5000-8000

Upto

30/11/2008

5500-9000","9300-34800

GP 4300

,,,,"w.e.f.

01/12/2008",

Orissa,270-435,425-600,1640-2900,5500-9000,"9300-34800

GP 4200

Utter

Pradesh",260-350,425-600,1640-2900,5500-9000,"9300-34800

GP 4200

Delhi,"DTI 205-

280

RSI 205-

280

DI -","380-560

425-600

425-700","1320-2040

1350-2200

1400-2300","4000-6000

4500-7000

4500-7000","5200-20200

GP 2800

5200-20200

GP 2800

5200-20200

GP 2800

rejected the claim for relief inter alia stating as follows:,,,,,

Otherwise also, on comparison of the nature of duties and jobs performed by RTOs/ARTOs/Inspectors (Regional Transport Officer/Assistant",,,,,

Regional Transport Officer/inspectors) with that of the MLOs/MVIs/Inspectors etc. of the Transport Department, GNCTD (i.e. members of the",,,,,

Association) it is observed that the scope of the same is much wider in the case of the former than in the latter. For instance, an RTO in other States",,,,,

is called ""Regional transport Officer' and the functions he performs are as under:",,,,,

i) Issuance of driving licenses and renewals thereof,,,,,

ii) Registration of new vehicles and transfer of ownership of vehicles,,,,,

iii) Ensuring rules and regulations on roads. iv) Maintenance of high-way-traffic,,,,,

v) Enforcement of various provisions of Motor Vehicle Act,,,,,

vi) Conducting Public awareness programmes by way of various campaigns and safety drives,,,,,

vii) Preparation of Challans in respect of erring drivers and vehicles,,,,,

viii) Checks on over loaded vehicles,,,,,

ix) Impounding of vehicles founding violating of rules,,,,,

x) Issuance of permits to stage carriages, national permits to commercial and tourist vehicles, issuance of permits to Taxi/Autos etc.",,,,,

xi) Inspection of Vehicles,,,,,

Of course, in the discharge of above functions, he is assisted by a couple of ARTOs and Inspectors, but, nevertheless, he performs multifold",,,,,

functions, whereas a 'Motor Licensing Officer' (commonly called MLO) of the Transport Department of GNCT of Delhi, performs only limited",,,,,

functions, in as much as he is basically a Licensing Officer, in the sense that he is responsible for only in respect of the functions mentioned at Sr. No.",,,,,

(i) &,,,,,

(ii) above. He is not at all responsible for maintenance of highway-traffic or enforcement activities of various other kinds. Even in the discharge of his,,,,,

limited aforesaid functions, he is assisted by Motor Vehicle Inspectors (MVIs /HQIs etc.). Moreover, activities of the Transport Department; of Delhi",,,,,

are highly decentralized in as much as whole of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has been divided into 9 zones, (each headed by an MLO) who",,,,,

is assisted by a couple of inspectors (MVI/ HQI etc.); besides, there is a separate full-fledged Enforcement wingmanned by Enforcement",,,,,

Officers/Inspectors/Sub Inspectors/Asst. sub Inspectors/Constable etc.; for pollution control, we have Pollution control Officers/Pollution Level Test",,,,,

Inspectors etc. As regards certification of fitness of commercial vehicles, there is another Unit called Auto Rickshaw Unit and Vehicle Inspection",,,,,

Unit at Burari. In other words nature and scope of duties of MLOs/MVIs etc. of the Transport Department of Delhi is much less in comparison to,,,,,

that of RTOs/ ARTOs/Inspectors of other States of the country.,,,,,

It is also observed that the case of the petitioners had been duly considered by the IV and V Central Pay commission and Ministry of Finance of,,,,,

Govt. of India and since no recommendations whatsoever had been received by this department from the aforesaid higher authorities, it is safely",,,,,

presumed by the department that the case of the petitioners had been duly considered but rejected.,,,,,

In view of the above reasons viz. non recommendation of higher pay scales to the members ofthe Association by the Central pay Commission and,,,,,

the difference in the scope and nature of their duties vis- a-vis. those of their counter parts in other States, the department is constrained to hold that",,,,,

there is no merit in the representations dated 30.12.1996 and 30.4.2002 of the Technical Executive Officers' Association; the said representations are,",,,,,

therefore, rejected.",,,,,

Here it may not be out of place to mention that a similar representation was received by the Department from officers of its Enforcement Branch,",,,,,

also and the same was forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, who in turn after consultation with their integrated Finance Division",,,,,

vide I.D. Note No. F. 4267/AS 8bFA (H) dated 27.2.2004 rejected the said representation on consideration as above.,,,,,

This issues with the prior approval of the Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Transport), Govt. of NCT of Delhi.",,,,,

Mr. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the Tribunal failed to address the relevant facts and relied upon the materials placed before it",,,,,

â€" in the form of the tabular statements indicating the pay scales granted to various cadres in the different States (Uttranchal, Gujarat, Utter Pradesh,",,,,,

Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu etc.). It is contended that the petitioner association had relied upon the relevant material such as the conditions of",,,,,

service, the nature of duties that had to be performed by the members of the association, belonging to different cadres within the Government of NCT",,,,,

of Delhi, the onerous nature of the responsibilities â€" for which purpose reliance was placed upon certain statistics sourced under the Right to",,,,,

Information Act. Learned counsel emphasized that the work performed by the officials in these four cadres were compared favourably with the work,,,,,

performed by their counterparts in other States. For this purpose he again relied upon the replies furnished to the queries under the RTI Act.,,,,,

It was urged that the decisions of the Supreme Court have consistently emphasized that equal pay for equal work is now a facet of non-,,,,,

discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. Counsel stated that the petitioner’s members have been denied pay parity despite the,,,,,

increasing volume of traffic and the increased workload, in Delhi. By way of illustration, it was pointed out that the strength in the cadre of MLOs at",,,,,

the relevant time in Delhi when the representations were made, were 14 as against a heavy work load; whereby about 40 lakhs registrations/licences",,,,,

were issued. It is submitted that according to the information available, Delhi handles traffic volumes which are more than the sum total of what is",,,,,

dealt with by all the other metropolises together. Counsel, therefore, emphasized that non consideration of vital information by the CAT is entirely",,,,,

erroneous and on a fair application of the principle of equal pay for equal work and the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed i.e. the pay parity,,,,,

with their counterparts w.e.f. 01.01.1996.,,,,,

The respondents urged that the duties of the Motor Vehicle Officers in the various cadres of other states and UTs are not similar to that performed,,,,,

by officers in Delhi. It is argued in this regard that RTO and ARTO of Transport Department of other States perform multifarious functions which,,,,,

include issuance of driving licence, registration of new vehicles, transfer of ownership ensuring compliance of rules and regulations on roads,",,,,,

maintenance of highway traffic and conducting public awareness drive by way of campaigns etc. On the other hand the employees in the Motor,,,,,

Vehicles Departments in Delhi such as MLOs perform limited functions i.e. Â confined to issuance of driving licence and registration of new vehicles.,,,,,

Learned counsel highlighted that even in this limited function the MLOs are assisted by MVIs, RSIs and DTIs in their work. Furthermore, the MLOs",,,,,

may optionally be deployed for maintenance of highway traffic; however, there is no compulsion for them to perform such duties ordinarily.",,,,,

It is also stated that besides the work of the transport department Delhi is decentralized and the NCT is divided into 13 Zonal offices, STA",,,,,

Branches, Vehicle Inspection Unit etc. Furthermore, Delhi has a full-fledged enforcement wing unlike other States where such duties are combined in",,,,,

the office of the RTOs. As regards certification of fitness of commercial vehicles, there is another Unit called Auto Rickshaw Unit and Vehicle",,,,,

Inspection Unit. The work of issuance of Stage Carriage and National Permits is dealt with by the State Transport Authorities. It was thus urged that,,,,,

the parity or identity in nomenclature does not automatically translate into parity in duties or the onerous of the functions actually performed.,,,,,

Section 213 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to the extent it is relevant is extracted below:",,,,,

Appointment of motor vehicles officers.â€"(1) The State Government may, for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act,",,,,,

establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint as officers thereof such persons as it thinks fit.,,,,,

(2) Every such officer shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).,,,,,

(3) The State Government may make rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions and in particular,,,,,

and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power to prescribe the uniform to be worn by them, the authorities to which they shall be",,,,,

subordinate, the duties to be performed by them, the powers (including the powers exercisable by police officers under this Act) to be exercised by",,,,,

them, and the conditions governing the exercise of such powers.",,,,,

(4) The Central Government may, having regard to the objects to the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, prescribe the minimum qualifications",,,,,

which the said officers or any class thereof shall possess for being appointed as such.,,,,,

As is evident, the petitioners’ request for pay parity was rejected by the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), on the basis of material given",,,,,

to it. The GNCTD concluded that there was no similarity in the performance of duties. Mainly, the disparity noted was with respect to",,,,,

multifariousness of tasks performed by the RTOs â€" as Motor Vehicle Officers are described in the other States. Saliently the Government of NCT,,,,,

of Delhi in the rejection letter of 30.04.2004 noticed that RTOs in other States, (unlike MLOs in Delhi) not only issue driving licences and register new",,,,,

vehicles, but also ensure compliance of rules and regulations on road and are involved in the maintenance of highway traffic and enforcement of the",,,,,

Motor Vehicles Act and also conduct and carry out other tasks such as conducting public awareness campaigns, preparing challans in respect of",,,,,

erring drivers and checking overloaded vehicles and impounding them and issue permits to stage carriages etc. On the other hand, the employees and",,,,,

the officials of the NCT of Delhi do not perform such varied and multiple tasks. Even with respect to the job of issuance of licence and registration of,,,,,

new vehicles, the MLOs are assisted by subordinate staff. Furthermore, the task of enforcement is largely performed by other agencies; likewise the",,,,,

duties such as issuance of stage carriage permits etc. are entirely different and performed by a separate unit.,,,,,

The highlight of the Government of NCT of Delhi’s decision, therefore, appears to be that the multifariousness of the task or duties, which fall",,,,,

to the RTOs (broadly equivalent to MLOs in Delhi) and the unity of such responsibility in one office, is absent in Delhi. To this Court, this aspect is of",,,,,

crucial importance. For a claim of pay parity to succeed, not only the job description, but also qualifications, broad terms and conditions and the nature",,,,,

of duties performed are to be similar if not entirely identical. In this regard it is significant that even with regard to the prescription of minimum,,,,,

qualification, with respect to the position of MLOs, the State is empowered to frame the rules in the first instance; Section 213(4) of the Motor",,,,,

Vehicle Act empowers the Central Government if it chooses to frame such rules. Therefore, even with respect to the essential qualifications and other",,,,,

terms, the pattern of employment in each State or Union Territory appears to be different. The similarity or identity in nomenclature, or the fact that",,,,,

the statutory post is mandated in the Central enactment per se, therefore, cannot be translated into a legitimate and successful claim for pay parity",,,,,

across the country.,,,,,

What this Court is asked now to undertake is a complex task of comparing not only the duties performed by the employees of the various States,,,,,

vis-Ã -vis those performed by the MLOs and other cadres (who are members of the petitioner association) but also to examine and compare the,,,,,

recruitment rules, the cadre strength, the educational qualifications and other terms and conditions â€" all of which are relevant for considering any",,,,,

claim for pay parity. This complex task is not for the Court to perform in judicial review. The Court cannot take upon itself a primary decision making,,,,,

task which the Constitution enjoins it not to perform.,,,,,

For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.",,,,,