AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Union of India represented by the Chief Postmaster General, together with two subordinate officers have filed the
present writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [For short ""Tribunal""] in allowing O.A. No. 636/2002 filed by the
first respondent by order dated 10.06.2003.
The first respondent joined as a Postman in the year 1973 and he got retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.07.1994 as a Sub
Postmaster. It was his grievance that he was not given the revision of pay scale in respect of certain cadres which was made with effect from
10.01.1975. He made a representation and the same was rejected by an order date 11.02.2000. Therefore, he wanted to set aside the order
dated 11.02.2000 and for a consequential direction to refix his pay in the cadre of Mail Overseer in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 260-350 with
effect from 01.01.1975 and consequently fix the pay in the cadre of postal clerk till his retirement.
The petitioners disputed the claim of the first respondent by stating that in certain categories of position, revision were made only with effect
from 01.01.1978 and the new scale of Rs. 260-350 which was in the earlier scale of Rs. 225-350/225-380 were revised. But this revision was
made only with effect from 01.01.1978 along with the five categories of other staffs who were also given the benefit of revised pay scale only from
01.01.1975 instead of 01.01.1978 based on the Board of Arbitration. That order came to be issued in the year 1983. On the basis of this, on a
reconsideration of the of the entire matter order was issued in the year 1988 extending the revised pay scales to all the eleven categories of staffs
with effect from 01.01.1975.
While introducing retrospectivity certain conditions were also made and the first respondent was not coming within the stipulated condition.
Therefore, the revision was not extended to the revision made for Mail Overseer with effect from 01.01.1975. It was also stated that the first
respondent had moved the Tribunal earlier in OA. No. 766 of 1986. The same was disposed of with a direction to consider his case of stepping
up his pay. The first respondent''s contention was that in all the eleven categories of staffs, the postman grade is the feeder category and therefore,
there is no reason to make any distinction amongst them. The Tribunal accepted the case of the first respondent and that the first respondent was
working as a Mail Overseer right from the year 1973. Thus on the eligibility criteria he was entitled to get revised scale of pay. The question of
conditionality attached to the pay revision, the Tribunal held that such a condition was not feasible.
It was stated by the Government for stepping of pay that both senior and junior should belong to the same cadre and the junior should belong to
the categories mentioned in Serial No. 3 to 11 and the junior should belong to categories mentioned in Serial No. 1 and 2. The Tribunal pointed
out that it is an anomaly and it was very artificial to introduce such a revision and that on the basis on the equal pay for equal work this anomaly
should be removed. It was also held that Sorting Postman, Head Postman and Overseer Postman are all performing the same duties and there was
no reason for the Government not to apply the same logic in respect of Mail Overseer. On the question of his earlier Original Application, the
Tribunal held that there was a new cause of action had arisen for him to come to the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of Mr. O.V. Krishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Sumathi, learned Counsel for the respondents.
The contesting respondent had also filed a counter affidavit justifying the order of the Tribunal. Mr. Krishnan learned Counsel submitted that the
order of the Tribunal has added a new rider created in favour of the first respondent and the Tribunal''s order was based upon some illogical
conclusion. He also submitted that the distinction was based upon the departmental conditions and that the cadre of Mail Overseers was not
included in the revision of pay scale with effect from 01.01.1975. It was pointed out that the fixation of revised pay scale was available only to five
posts and the Mail Overseer post is not covered and that there were anomalies in the categories of Sorting Postman and Head Mailguard and the
remaining categories were included and only when the department found in respect of the first respondent that his junior I. Thangaraj was drawing
a scale above the first respondent, a stepping up was done under FR 27 that too only with effect from 01.08.1978.
Ms. Sumathi, learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the following two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 Suppl. [2]
SCC 565 [The Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.] and 1995 Suppl. [3] SCC
528 [Union of Indiaand Ors. v. Debashiskar and Ors.].
The first decision relates to two Government Companies being directed to make parity in the scale of pay on the basis that they were
Government owned companies and there should not be any anomaly between the two companies especially when they had adopted the earlier Pay
Commission scales. The second judgment relates to the parity of pay scale of the Draughtsmen employed in Army base Workshop and
Draughtsmen in CPWD. In that case, the Tribunal found the qualification for appointment of such Draughtsmen in the Army as well as
Draughtsmen Grade II in CPWD were equivalent and the former was entitled to pay parity. In this case the Tribunal never undertook any such
exercise and the Tribunal by adopting its own logic cannot direct any revision of pay scale that too, with retrospective effect. In the present case,
the petitioners have taken a definite stand that the Mail Overseers were not included in the original revision and they were also not a party to Board
of Arbitration. Further, when such anomalies were found in other categories, they were included and the case of the first respondent was dealt
separately and only a stepping up was done in his case that too, with a limited retrospectivity.
We find that the approach of the Tribunal in granting a positive direction to the department by granting revision of pay from an earlier date was
not supported by any concrete facts, but based on logic. Such a move is improper and not borne out by the power of judicial review vested with
the Tribunal for granting such direction. Under these circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed and the order of the Tribunal will stand set
aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.