AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, J.—The Petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 5th January, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 2214/1998.
We are concerned in this writ petition with the Drawing/Design/Estimating Staff and the restructuring of their cadre in the Civil Engineering Department of the Railways. What is specifically under challenge is a letter dated 28th September, 1998 whereby percentage distribution of posts in various scales for the category of Draftsman/Design Assistant/Estimating Staff has been ordered.
Our attention has been drawn by learned Counsel for the Petitioners to Railway Board Letter No. PCIII/91/CRC/1 dated 27th January, 1993. The significance of this letter is two-fold: firstly, it shows that the Drawing/Design/Estimating Staff were clubbed together prior to 27th January, 1993 for purposes of identifying all Group C and Group D staff of all Engineering Departments including workshops; secondly, it shows that the restructuring formula arrived at in consultation with the staff side in the Committee of the Department Council of the Joint Consultative Machinery (Railways) merely revised the percentage distribution of staff in the various disciplines.
Annexure E to the letter dated 27th January, 1993 contains a chart giving the percentage distribution of staff, the existing and the revised percentages agreed upon. The chart is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Category Grade (Rs.) Existing % Age Revised % Age Drawing/Design/Estimating Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1200-2040 20 20 1400-2300 30 20 1600-2660 25 25 2000-3200 25 35 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
The pay scales of the above categories of staff was considered by the 5th Central Pay Commission (5th CPC). In its recommendations given in paragraph 83.177, the 5th CPC stated:
We have discussed the pay scales and service conditions of the first three categories (except Permanent Way/Works/Bridge Mistries) in Chapters on workshop Staff and Engineering Services. However, we mention below the pay scales granted to these categories in accordance with our general approach on the pay structure of subordinate engineering cadres:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Designation Pay Scales Redesignation Existing Proposed Rs. Rs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Asstt. Draftsman 1200-2040 1320-2040 Draftsman Grade III ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Draftsman 1400-2300 1600-2660 Draftsman Grade II ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Head Draftsman 1600-2660 1640-2900 Draftsman Grade I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Draftsman 2000-3200 2000-3500 Chief Draftsman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Design Assistant 1400-2300 1600-2660 Design Asstt. III 1640-2900 Design Asstt. II ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hd. Design Asstt. 1600-2660 2000-3500 *Design Asstt. I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Design Assistant 2000-3200 2375-3750 Chief Design Assistant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * (Direct recruitment of Engineering graduates (25%))?
The Petitioners considered the recommendations of the 5th CPC as well as their own functional requirements and accordingly issued a letter dated 28th September, 1998 wherein the recommendations of the 5th CPC were partly accepted.
The letter dated 28th September, 1998 was challenged by the Respondents who are Design Assistants by filing an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order the Tribunal allowed the original application and passed an order to the effect that the Petitioners should de-link the percentage distribution of posts in the discipline of Design Assistant from the discipline of Draftsman/Estimating Staff and grant replacement scales for Design Assistants and Chief Design Assistants as recommended by the 5th CPC.
Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners are before us and it has been contended that the de-linking of percentage distribution of posts is really an administrative function and the Tribunal ought not to have given any direction in this regard. Apart from this, it is submitted that the proposal for de-linking was not proposed even by the 5th CPC which is an expert body and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have gone beyond the recommendations of the 5th CPC. It is further contended that insofar as the replacement scales are concerned, they are dependant on the de-linking of the percentage distribution of posts and if the first submission of the Petitioners is accepted, the second submission would not arise. Alternatively, it is submitted that the pay scales fixed by the Petitioners cannot be judicially reviewed by the Tribunal in the absence of any arbitrariness.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and are of the view that the writ petition must succeed.
It has been held by the Supreme Court in Secretary, Finance Department and others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, that normally the courts should not interfere in complex matters involving job evaluation, equation of posts and salaries, reduction of number of pay scales, etc. The caveat laid down by the Supreme Court is to the effect that interference by the court is permissible only if there is unjust treatment by arbitrary state action or inaction.
In our opinion, the matter of cadre restructuring has been looked into by the Petitioners and also by an expert body such as the 5th CPC. That expert body did not find any inequality in the clubbing together of various posts into one cadre. Ex facie, therefore, there is nothing unjust or inequitable that could be said to exist as to warrant our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution or interference by the Tribunal u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon J.A. Naidu and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, In our opinion, this decision does not help the Respondents. On the contrary, it defeats the argument sought to be advanced by the Respondents inasmuch as it has been held by the Supreme Court that in matters of Government policy, merely because there is some hardship that is caused to some particular group, it does not mean that there is arbitrariness which would call for judicial intervention.
It is well-known that in matters pertaining to Article 14 of the Constitution, there cannot be absolute equality. Therefore, even if as a result of clubbing together of different posts in one cadre results in some difference in the pay-scales, Article 14 need not necessarily be attracted. In the overall functional context in which the Petitioners have taken the decision after considering the views of the 5th CPC, they have arrived at a conclusion which may at best be described as causing some hardship to the Respondents. But, as held by the Supreme Court, merely because there is some hardship, it does not mean that the decision is arbitrary or liable to be set aside in judicial review without more ado.
That being the position, we are of the view that the decision rendered by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. We do so and allow the writ petition.