T. Chellappan vs Union of India

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Coconut Development Board on behalf of respondents 2 and 4.

The petitioner challenges a decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

The petitioner, while working as Daftry, was considered for promotion to the post of Gestetner Operator which fell vacant due to the death of Sri.C.X.Cleetus in the headquarters of the Board. The minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 25.3.1993 show that the establishment took a conscious decision to promote the petitioner as Gestetner Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400. It is not in dispute that the said post carried that scale in terms of the recruitment regulations framed for that post in terms of the provisions of the Coconut Development Board Act, 1979. The petitioner claimed that he is eligible to be given the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800. Ext.P1 order dated 10.9.1991 shows that the Board created 11 temporary posts, including that of Gestetner Operator in the scale Rs. 1200-1800. The materials came to show that Cleetus was working as Gestener Operator in the scale of Rs. 950-1400. It appears that he was working in that post for more than two decades. The establishment, therefore, treated that post as one kept aside and thereby, created a temporary post of Gestetner Operator with scale of Rs. 1200-1800. This is how Cleetus was given the benefit of enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800. Unfortunately, just an year or more after his such appointment to the scale of Rs. 1200-1800, Cleetus passed away. Thus, the vacancy arose. The DPC considered the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Gestetner Operator on an ad hoc basis. The DPC was aware that the feeder category for the post of Gestetner Operator, that is to say, the post of Daftry carried the scale of Rs. 775-1025 and if the petitioner were to be brought directly to the scale of Rs. 1200-1800, he would be getting a double jump in the scales. Unlike in the case of Cleetus who was stagnating as Gestetner Operator for more than two decades, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, we cannot see any irrationality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the establishment having refused to give him a double jump in the pay scales along with the promotion. The ground reality is that Cleetus was given the scale of Rs. 1200-1800 after he had toiled for more than two decades in the scale of Rs. 950-1400. The fact of the matter remains that even now, the recruitment regulations have not been modified. We notice this because, the last paragraph of the DPC decision says that if and when the recruitment regulations are amended bringing Gestetner Operator to the scale of Rs. 1200-1800 and if the applicant therein would then be qualified in terms of the amended Recruitment Rules, he could be considered for that post. This is not a case where the doctrine of equal pay for equal work would apply as between the petitioner and late Cleetus. We also see that from 1996, the petitioner was given additional responsibilities to do Spiral Binding, Photocopy Machine Operation etc. and was thereby given Rs. 100/- as honorarium over and above the salary in terms of the pay scale. We say this for two reasons. Firstly, the honorarium was enjoyed in connection with other benefits and secondly and more importantly, from the date of his appointment order as Gestetner Operator, i.e., 04.3.1993, he was aware as to the scale in which he has been placed as Gestetner Operator and the fact that he is being appointed as against the vacancy that occurred owing to the death of Cleetus. Obviously, the DPC minutes is a material that would have been availed to the petitioner, if he wanted. If he had any grievance as regards the pay scale to which he was placed before 4.3.1993, we think it is too late in the day for judicial intervention on the basis of a writ petition filed before this Court as W.P.(C) No.30114 of 2006, though the said writ petition has different exhibits, including an earlier judgment of this Court relegating the petitioner to the establishment for consideration of the claim based on equal pay for equal work. Repeated representations and the judgments do not essentially generate and sustain a cause of action as claimed by the petitioner now, even if we have not affirmed the view of the Tribunal that the application was barred by limitation. This writ petition, therefore, fails.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.