AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel representing the petitioners as well as Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India
representing Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
This case stands disposed of on agreement reached by the parties. Facts briefly are that the petitioners are employees of Brahmaputra Board,
which is an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. The petitioner nos.1 to 7, 14 and 15 are
presently working as Head Assistants, whereas petitioner nos.8 to 12 as Assistants Grade-I and the petitioner no.13 as an Office Superintendent.
The common relief claimed is for fixation and/or the benefit of revised scale of pay of Rs.5000-150-8000/- in the cadre of Head Assistant with
effect from 01.01.1996 in terms of Part-B of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 (in short, ""the 1997 Rules""), which had been
adopted following the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission (in short, ""Fifth CPC""). Contention made is that since inception the
Brahmaputra Board has been adopting the Central Government pay scale for its employees in terms of recommendations made by Central Pay
Commission. Accordingly, it had also adopted the recommendation of the Fifth CPC as well as the 1997 Rules. The Fifth CPC had recommended
categorization of pay scales of Central Government employees under two distinct and separate parts i.e. Part-A and Part-B, which got reflected in
the First Schedule of the 1997 Rules. In Part-A the revised scales are prescribed for group of posts merging into a common scale, whereas in
Part-B the revised scales are prescribed against specific posts which were categorized as ""common categories"" of posts. It is contended that under
the said common category of posts, the post of Assistants, Head Clerks etc. are included and, therefore, going by Part-B the revised scale stood
at Rs.5000-150-8000/- from the pre-revised scale of Rs.1400-40-1800-50-2300. Instead of granting benefit under Part-B, the petitioners have
been granted the revised pay of Rs.4500-125-7000, corresponding to their previous scale of Rs.1400-40-1800-50-2300, as contained in Part-A
of the 1997 Rules.
Claiming the revised scale in terms of Part-B of the 1997 Rules with all consequential benefits, the petitioners had earlier instituted OA No.143
of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. Claim was made on grounds that Head Clerks/Head Assistants employed in
a sister organization i.e. Ganga Flood Control Commission, Patna, falling under the same Ministry of Water Resources, have been granted the
higher revised scale as per Part-B. It was contended that the Head Clerks/Head Assistants in both the organization being at par with each other,
therefore, the higher revised scale could not be denied to the petitioners. In addition, it was also urged that although Brahmaputra Board had
adopted part-A of the First Schedule of the 1997 Rules, the higher revised scale of pay of Rs.5000-150-8000 had been extended to the Junior
Engineers Grade-II, who were the employees under the Brahmaputra Board and in the same cadre as that of the petitioners. The said Original
Application was disposed of by the Tribunal on 21.07.2011 by taking note of a letter dated 24.08.2007, issued by the Secretary of Brahmaputra
Board and addressed to the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources. By the said letter a request had been
made that as in the case of CWC which has implemented the revised scale for their Head Clerks/Assistant and Office Assistant as per the Fifth
CPC recommendation, the Brahmaputra Board may also be allowed to implement the revised scale as per Part-B of the Fifth CPC
recommendation. The Tribunal noticed that about four years had elapsed without any action being taken on the request letter. Accordingly,
direction was made to the Secretary of the Ministry of Water Resources to take a decision on the aforesaid request letter dated 24.08.2007 within
a time bound period. It was made clear that while taking a decision, the grounds taken in the Original Application be also considered. Liberty was
granted to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal again in case they were aggrieved with the decision, which was directed to be taken. The fall-
out was the speaking order dated 28.03.2013, whereby a finding was recorded that grant of revised pay scale to the petitioners as per Part-B
cannot be acceded to. The rejection was made by citing the following grounds:
i) The pre-revised pay scale of Head Assistant/Head Clerk in Ganga Flood Control Commission was Rs.5000-8000 whereas in the case of
Brahmaputra Board, it was Rs.4500-7000.
ii) The promotional post of Head Assistant in Brahmaputra Board is Assistant Grade-I in the pay structure of PB-2 with Grade pay of Rs.4200. In
the event of upgradation of the Grade pay of the post of Head Assistant to Rs.4200, vertical relativity would be disturbed. In the case of Ganga
Flood Control Commission, the promotional post is that of Administrative Officer in the Grade pay of Rs.4600.
iii) The duties and responsibilities of the post of Head Assistant/Head Clerk in Ganga Flood Control Commission is supervisory in nature whereas
it is not the case with Head Assistants of Brahmaputra Board.
iv) Head Assistant/Head Clerk is a common category post existing across the Government agreeing to the proposal would have wide
repercussions involving huge Financial Implications.
Once again the petitioners moved the Tribunal challenging the speaking order dated 28.03.2013 in OA No.211 of 2013. The said OA was
disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2014 on the findings that the petitioners failed to controvert the reasons given in the speaking order dated
28.03.2013 and that it was not necessary to interfere in a matter which is of Fifth Pay Commission vintage. The Tribunal observed that if the
petitioners so desired, they may make comprehensive representation before the 7th Pay Commission in order to clear any lingering anomalies in
their pay scales. In this respect, the Chairman of Brahmaputra Board was directed to forward the specific anomaly in the pay structure of the
petitioners to the Secretary of the Pay Commission.
Before this Court in the present writ petition, Mr. Dutta submits that the speaking order dated 28.03.2013 is an incomplete order, in that, it
made no mention that while deciding on the petitioners'' claim consideration was had to the provisions under Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the 1997 Rules
read with Part-A and Part-B of the First Schedule thereof. Referring to the First Schedule, Mr. Dutta contends that it does not specify the grades
or the posts, as it is done in Part- B. According to him the post of Head Clerks finds clear mention under Part-B against the revised scale of
Rs.5000-150-8000. He submits that Part-A is not applicable as because Part-A is only in respect of those categories of posts which are not
mentioned in Part-B. He reiterates that the post of Head Clerk is clearly mentioned in Part-B. The submission, therefore, is that while rejecting the
claims of the petitioners by the speaking order dated 28.03.2013 the provisions of the 1997 Rules, particularly Rule 3, 4 and 5, did not receive
any consideration. Even before the Tribunal, the said aspect of the matter did not receive any consideration. We find force in the submissions of
Mr. Dutta.
Mr. Keyal submits that examination of the case of the petitioners having regard to the provisions under the 1997 Rules is open for consideration
in case any representation is made by the petitioners herein. In this regard, Mr. Dutta submits that a fresh representation highlighting the basis of
their claim for the revised scale of pay as per Part-B would be made given 2(two) weeks'' time from today.
Having regard to the above and without going into the merits of the grounds assigned in the speaking order dated 28.03.2013, this writ petition
stands disposed of allowing the petitioners to make fresh representation to the competent authority in the Ministry of Water Resources through the
Chairman of the Brahmaputra Board highlighting their claim on the basis of the provisions under the 1997 Rules and other legal dictums. The said
representation be made within two weeks from today and, in turn, the competent authority in the Ministry of Water Resources shall examine and
dispose of the same by a speaking order within 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The order of the Tribunal stands
modified to the extent above. Ordered accordingly.