This judgment confirms the High Court's rejection of two writ petitions filed by the NDMC. The bench upheld orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal which directed NDMC to grant pay parity to Auto Workshop and Draftsmen employees, matching scales prescribed for counterparts in the Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU based on prior resolutions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2 & 3
NDMC AUTO WORKSHOP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibbar and Ms.Roshini Chopra, Advocates. 3
+ W.P.(C) 2337/2013 & CM APPL. 4421/2013 NDMC THR DIRECTOR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Jagdeep Kr. Sharma, Standing Counsel for Mr.Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate. versus M.P.DWIVEDI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibbar and Ms.Roshini Chopra, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL)
W.P.(C) Nos.340/2011 & 2337/2013 Page 1 of 8
to the applicants before it (who are the respondents before the Court) with the employees working in erstwhile DESU/DVB, in its Auto Workshop (in W.P.(C) No.340/2011) and draftsmen (in W.P.(C) No.2337/2013) in the Electrical Department.
Page 2 of 8
W.P.(C) Nos.340/2011 & 2337/2013
(Air Conditioning) w.e.f 11.05.1994. The applicants in W.P.(C) No.340/2011, who belonged to the Auto Workshop Division of NDMC, approached the CAT complaining that pay parity was not given and the applicants in WP(C) 2337/2013, who belonged to the cadre of draftsmen (Junior Draftsmen, Senior Draftsmen and Head Draftsmen) made identical complaints and approached the CAT.
“ 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on
Page 3 of 8
W.P.(C) Nos.340/2011 & 2337/2013
record. In our considered view when the Apex Court in Narender Kumar (supra) has clearly ruled parity between the Auto Workshop staff of NDMC with their counterparts in Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU, it does not lie within the jurisdiction of the administrative authority to come to a conclusion different from it, by stating that they are pitted differently in functional requirements. It amounts to infiltrating into an area occupied by judicial dicta, which cannot be countenanced in law.
9. As we find that in an identical situation when in the case of Mr.Beg the respondents have admitted to have erroneously fixed his pay scale under the S.S.Committee at par with counterparts in DVB/DESU and what has been allowed is the revised pay scale, it holds good for all the categories, which were subject matter of the decision of the Apex Court and rather as a model employer the revised pay sales should have been suo motu granted by the respondents to the applicants. However, the same has been withheld leading to unnecessary litigation. In such view of the matter, this erroneous grant of pay scale holds good for the set of employees, i.e., applicants in the TAs and we have no hesitation to hold that the respondents have deprived applicants S.S.Committee’s pay scales, as revised in case of their counterparts in DVB/DESU. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Satyabarth Choudhry (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 475 held the differential treatment in the matter of pay scales amounts to an illegality.
10. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the applicants are entitled in both the TAs to the revised pay scales, as recommended by the S.S. Committee, and revised in the case of their counterparts in DVB/DESU, with arrears from the date the scales have been allowed to the applicants in the form of only pay scale in pursuance of the decision of the Apex Court in Narender Kumar’s case (supra). The same shall be
Page 4 of 8
W.P.(C) Nos.340/2011 & 2337/2013
disbursed, on implementation, to the applicants, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”
“ 9. In our considered view, such objections raised by the Respondents are absolutely unacceptable particularly in view of the fact that once the Council of NDMC, vide its Resolution dated 07.01.1974 had already resolved to extend the benefits of pay scales to all the categories of its employees at par with the pay scales of the counterparts in DESU and the NDMC itself has implemented in the case of all other categories of Draftsmen working in their own department, namely, Mechanical (Auto) Department, the Respondents can not permitted to take a different view in the case of the Applicants. lt has also been seen
Page 5 of 8
W.P.(C) Nos.340/2011 & 2337/2013
that the issue of parity in pay scale with the Junior/Senior/Head Draftsmen with their counter parts in DESU has already been examined by the Finance and Law Division of the respondent-NDMC and agreed to grant the same but the Respondents did not implement it. In our considered view, once the ultimate Authority of the Respondent-NDMC, namely, the Council has decided to extend the benefit to the Applicants, the same cannot be rejected at a lower level.
10. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this TA with the direction to the Respondents to grant pay scale to the various categories of the Draftsmen working with them in their Electrical Department at par with the corresponding categories of draftsman working in DESU w.e.f. 01.04.1972 in terms of resolution No.1 dated 07.01.1974 passed by the Council of the Respondent NDMC, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, under intimation to the Applicants with all consequential benefits. The Respondents shall also refix the pay of the Applicants from the aforesaid date and accordingly and pay upto-date arrears within the aforesaid period. There shall be no order as to costs.”
approached the Court with a grievance much after the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission which meant that the question of S.S. Committee report had no relevance. Learned counsel argued that S.S. Committee was constituted way back in early 1970 and had submitted its report vis-a-vis revision of pay scales of DESU/DVB employees. At that point of time, question of any parity between the concerned employees i.e. individuals working in the Auto Workshop of NDMC or the predecessors or draftsmen cadre, had never arisen. Therefore, the directions issued by the CAT, cannot be sustained.
Page 7 of 8
W.P.(C) Nos.340/2011 & 2337/2013
previous parity and refuse to accord the replacement scales. Both the orders of the CAT – though they deal with the different cadre in the NDMC, are premised upon the logic i.e. parity once established, cannot be ignored except for good and valid reasons. No reasons were forthcoming in either of the proceedings which the respondent/applicants initiated before the CAT, to justify disparity which had ensued on account of erroneous implementation of 6th Pay Commission’s recommendations. Consequent directions by the CAT were therefore reasonable and justified. The conclusions in the impugned order are sound and therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court. The petitioners are therefore directed to give effect to CAT’s orders within ten weeks from today and pass individual pay fixation and fitment orders.
10. Dasti .
S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)
A.K.CHAWLA JUDGE)
OCTOBER 04, 2018 ssc
Page 8 of 8
W.P.(C) Nos.340/2011 & 2337/2013
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) must grant revised pay scales to Auto Workshop and Draftsman employees based on precedent concerning Delhi Vidyut Board/DESU.
Whether the rejection of pay parity with DVB/DESU counterparts constitutes illegal differential treatment in service matters.
Whether the Tribunal was justified in enforcing pay parity despite delays related to the 6th Pay Commission implementation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narendra Kumar & Anr. vs. Dharam Dutt & Anr.Relied on¶4
Narendra Kumar & Anr. vs. Dharam Dutt & Anr., (1993) Supp. (3) SCC 205 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Satyabarth ChoudhryRelied on¶21
Union of India v. Satyabarth Choudhry (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 475 · Who else cites this
NDMC & Ors.
NDMC Auto Workshop Employees Association
NDMC Thr Director
M.P. Dwivedi & Ors.
S Ravindra Bhat
A K Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
