AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravindra Bhat, J.—We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners had approached the Tribunal for a direction to grant them grade pay of Rs. 4800 (PB-2) and Rs. 5400/- (PB-3) upon completion of four years as per the provisions of part-B Section II, serial No. 1(1) of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 1st January, 2006.
The petitioners are working in Indian Coast Guard Organization which was established in the year 1977 by virtue of a decision of the Central Government. The said organisation was to have its own regular composite cadre of civilians for the headquarters and lower formations of employees. Till this end was achieved, the Government was to induct suitable persons on deputation from other Central Government Cadres. The Coast Guard used to resort to direct recruitment in the post of LDC, Assistant and Stenographers, Grade-D.
The petitioners have relied upon the hierarchy of posts and a pay structure that existed from time to time in view of recommendations of 3rd, 4th and 5th Pay Commissions. This has been disclosed in the form of tables sharing parity. The same is extracted below for convenience:-
Promotion & Feeder Grade in CGO
Equivalent Promotion & Feeder Grade in CSS
Equivalent Promotion & Feeder Grade in AFHQ
SCSO
?
CSO
?
SO
?
Assistant
?
UDC
?
LDC
DS
?
US
?
SO
?
Assistant
?
UDC
?
LDC
JD
?
DD
?
SO
?
Assistant
?
UDC
?
LDC
The grievance by the petitioners in the proceedings before CAT was that the parity which existed between a Section Officer in the Coast Guard of the two different groups, i.e. PB-2 and PB-3 with other similarly placed officials in the Central Secretariat Services and Armed Forces Headquarters, was sought to be denied by the respondents. It was argued before the CAT that this denial of parity was arbitrary and not based on any rationale. In support of their submissions, the petitioners relied upon the Recruitment Rules and the staffing pattern in the Coast Guard as compared with the other organisations which contain a similar hierarchy of civilian posts.
The Tribunal heard the matter. Since the respondents resisted the petitioner''s claim, it relied upon its previous ruling in OA no. 143/2004 decided by the Lucknow Bench on 10.10.2011. The following extracts of the Tribunal''s order are reproduced below:-
Respondents have also relied upon the order dated 10.10.2011 in OA no. 143/2004 decided by the Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held as follows:-
Parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. The Pay Commission has two functions: to revise the existing pay scale, by recommending revised pay scales corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales and, secondly, make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions attached to those posts. Thus one of the functions of the pay than what was earlier being enjoyed with reference to their duties and responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts. One post which is considered as having a lesser pay scale may be assigned a higher pay scale and another post which is considered as having a lesser pay scale may be assigned a higher pay scale and another post which is considered to have a proper pay scale may merely be assigned the corresponding revised pay scale but not any higher pay scale. Therefore, the mere fact that at an earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the same pay scale does not mean that after the implementation of revision in pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised pay scale. The benefit of higher pay scale can only be claimed by establishing that holders of the subject post and holders of reference category posts, discharge duties and functions identical with, or similar to, each other and that the continuation of disparity is irrational and unjust.
Thereafter, without further examination of materials presented by it, the Tribunal rejected the submissions of the petitioners.
Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned senior counsel argues that the staffing pattern, the pay scale and the broad nature of duties and functions of the Section Officer at both levels-who claim the parity in the present case-are identical with those discharged by members of the Secretariat Service at a similar level as well as those in the Armed forces headquarters, placed at a similar level. It was argued that the recommendations of the Pay Commission, contrary to the assertions of the respondents, nowhere states that existing parity must be broken. In support of this argument, learned counsel relied upon the following extracts of the Commission''s recommendations:-
Recommendations:
3.1.9 Accordingly, the Commission recommends up-gradation of the entry scale of Section Officers in all Secretariat Services (including CCS as well as non participating ministries/departments/organizations) to Rs. 7500-12000 corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4800. Further, on par with the dispensation already available in CSS, the Section Officers in other Secretariat Offices, which have always had an established parity with CSS/CSSS, shall be extended the scale of Rs. 8000-13500 in Group -B corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4800 on completion of four years service in the lower grade. This will ensure full parity between all Secretariat Offices. It is clarified that the pay band PB 2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with the grade pay of Rs. 4800 is being recommended for the post of Section Officer in these services solely to maintain the existing relatives which were disturbed when the scale was extended only to the Section Officers in CSS. The grade carrying grade pay of Rs. 4800 in pay band PB-2 is, otherwise, not to be treated as a regular grade and should not be extended to any other category of employees. These recommendations shall apply mutatis-mutandis to post of Private Secretary/equivalent in these services as well. The structure of posts in Secretariat Offices would now be as under:-
Post
Pre revised pay scale
Corresponding revised pay bank and grade pay
LDC
Rs. 3050-4590
PB-1 of Rs. 4860-20200 along with grade pay of Rs. 1900
UDC
Rs. 4000-6000
PB-1 of Rs. 4860-20200 along with grade pay of Rs. 2400
Assistant
Rs. 6500-10500
PB-2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4200
Section Officer
Rs. 7500-12000
Rs. 8000-13500 (on completion of four years)
PB-2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4800
PB-2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 5400*
(on completion of four years)
Under Secretary
Rs. 1000-15200
PB-2 of Rs. 15600-39100 along with grade pay of Rs. 6100
Deputy Secretary
Rs. 12000-16500
PB-3 of Rs. 15600-39100 along with grade pay of Rs. 6600
Director
Rs. 14300-18300
PB-3 of Rs. 15600-39100 along with grade pay of Rs. 7600
(* This scale shall be available only in such of those organisations/services which have a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments organisations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSE, etc. would therefore be covered.)
It was submitted that the above extracts of the Pay Commission recommendations in fact establish that existing parity could not be disturbed. In furtherance of the same argument, the learned senior counsel relied upon the extracts of the Rules framed pursuant to the recommendations/and even accepting it, under a proviso Article 309 of the Constitution in 2008. The relevant extract of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 are as below:-
REVISED PAY SCALES FOR CERTAIN COMMON CATEGORIES OF STAFF"
Section I
(i) The revised pay structure mentioned in Column (5) and (6) of this part of the Notification for the posts mentioned in Column (2) have been approved by the Government. The initial fixation as on 1.1.2006 will be done in accordance with Note 2 below Rule 7 of this Notification.
(ii) On account of merger of pre-revised pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000, Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500, some posts which presently constitute feeder and promotion grades will come to lie in an identical grade. The specific recommendations about some categories of these posts made by the Pay Commission are included Section II of Part B. As regards other posts, the posts in these three scales should be merged. In case it is not feasible to merge the posts in these pay scales on functional considerations, the posts in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and Rs. 5500-9000 should be merged, with the post in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500 being upgraded to the next higher grade in pay band PB-2 i.e. to the grade pay of Rs. 4600 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500. In case a post already exists in the scale of Rs. 7450-11500, the post being upgraded from the scale of Rs. 6500-10500 should be merged with the pos in the scale of Rs. 7450-11500.
(iii) Posts in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500 carrying minimum qualification of either Degree in Engineering or a Degree in Law should also be upgraded and placed in the scale of Rs. 7450-11500 corresponding to the revised pay band PB-2 of Rs. 9300-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4600.
(iv) Posts of scientific staff in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500 carrying minimum qualification of engineering degree or a post-graduate degree should also be upgraded and placed in the scale of Rs. 7450-11500 corresponding to the revised pay band PB-2 of Rs. 9300-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4600.
(v) Upgradation as in (ii) above may be done in consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. Regarding (iii) and (iv) above, upgradation may be done by the Ministries concerned in consultation with their Integrated Finance.
Section II (In Rupees)
Sl. No.
Post
Present Scale
Revised Pay Scale
Corresponding Pay Bank & Grade Pay
Pare No. of the Report
Pay Bank
Grade Pay
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
I
OFFICE STAFF IN THE SECRETARIAT*
1
Section Officer/PS/equivalent
6500-10500
7500-12000
8000-13500
PB-2
PB-3
4800
5400
3.1.9
(on completion of four years)
(on completion of 4 years)
(Modified by Govt.)
This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQSS/AFHOSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments organisations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would therefore be covered.
II.
1.
Head Clerk/Assistants/Steno Gr. II/equivalent
4500-7000
5000-8000
6500-10500
PB-2
4200
3.1.14
2.
Administrative Officer Grade II/Sr. Private Secretary/equivalent
7500-12000
7500-12000 (entry grade for fresh recruits)
8000-13500 (on completion of four years)
PB-2 4800
5400 (on completion of 4 years)
3.1.14
III
ACCOUNTS STAFF BELONGING TO UN-ORGANIZED ACCOUNTS CADRES The existing relativity between the accounts related posts outside organized accounts cadres and ministerial posts will be maintained and the accounts staff belonging to unorganized Accounts cadres shall be extended the corresponding replacement Pay Band and grade pay.
3.8.5
IV
ARTISTS
1
Senior Artist
6500-10500
7450-11500
PB-2
4600
3.8.6
V
CANTEEN STAFF
1
Posts of Canteen Staff in the pre-revised Group ''D'' pay scales All the posts of canteen staff in Group ''D'' will be placed in the revised Pay Band PB-1 along with grade pay of Rs. 1800 once the staff occupying these posts is suitably retrained and made multi-skilled. 3.8.7
VI
DRAWING OFFICE STAFF
1
Chief Draughtsman
6500-10500
7450-11500
PB-2
4600
3.8.9
VII
ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING (EDP) STAFF
1
Data Processing Assistant
6500-10500
7450-11500
PB-2
4600
3.8.11
VIII
FIRE FIGHTING STAFF
1
Firemen
2610-3540
3050-4590
PB-1
1900
3.8.12
2
Leading Fireman
3050-4590
3200-4900
PB-1
2000
3
Station Officer
4000-6000
4500-7000
PB-1
2800
4
Asstt. Divisional
5000-8000
6500-10500
PB-2
4200
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the findings of CAT are un-exceptionable. It was argued that the Pay Commission recommendations, to maintain a difference in the pay band of those working in Secretariat services as compared with those in non-Secretariat services was real and consequently, Coast Guard officials working above the post of Assistant, cannot claim parity of pay scales with similar level of officials in the Secretariat Services as a matter of right. It was emphasised that mere historical parity could not efface existing disparities, wherever they were found. The learned counsel submitted in this regard the Pay Commission was alive to all the circumstances and had taken into account representations of concerned parties as well as the existing Rules before recommending that those working in non-Secretariat Services should not be given parity with those working in the Secretariat services.
This Court has carefully considered the submissions. It is evident from the relevant extracts of the Pay Commission''s recommendations that even though the subsequent portion of its report (paragraphs 3.1.14 onwards) do mention that historical parity need not necessarily be protected yet the fact remains that the earlier portions i.e. para 3.1.9, which has been extracted previously in this judgment, - had specifically carved out the services such as the Coast Guard as exceptions and maintained the pre existing parity with members of the Central Secretariat services and those in the armed forces headquarters. That this recommendation was indeed acted upon and Rules were appropriately amended to preserve the parity recommended by the Pay Commission, is evident from the Recruitment Rules 2008, Extracts of the CSS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 - made effective from 1st January, 2006 - clause (v) along with table extracted earlier, lend force to the petitioner''s submission that in fact parity which existed has been preserved under the Rules. Such being the case, the respondent''s contention, which found favour in the impugned order, is unsupportable in law.
In addition to the above reasons, the Court also notices that the respondents position is further assailable by the fact that other non secretariat organisations such as Central Information Commission, Planning Commission, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Election Commission and the CAT itself had shown the readiness/willingness to provide for higher pay scales as has been sought for by the petitioners in this case. Indeed, similar officials, employees above the rank and status of ''Assistant including Section Officers'' are not members of any Secretariat Services. In those organisations, the employees who do receive such higher pay (sought for by the petitioners here) are also equally members of non-secretariat services. The petitioners therefore cannot be discriminated. For this reason, the position taken by the respondent is found to be arbitrary. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order of the CAT cannot be sustained and it is accordingly, set aside. The directions sought for by the petitioners in OA no. 143/2004 are granted. The respondents are directed to make consequent orders of pay fixation and release the difference of pay and emoluments to the petitioners within six weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. No order as to costs.