Allowed

Manoj Kumar And Ors. v. Steel Authority Of India Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Jharkhand HC10 Apr 2023WPC/1720/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order quashed Central Administrative Tribunal orders dismissing writ petitions challenging pay scale denials. The High Court held that employees authorized to work as Assistant Managers (Mining) in the non-executive cadre are entitled to the pay scale of that specific cadre, backed by Supreme Court precedents. It directed the employer to sanction arrears.

What did the court decide?

Quashed CAT orders; directed respondent to disburse salary difference arrears attached to non-executive cadre Assistant Manager pay scale within three months.

Manoj Kumar And Ors. Vs Steel Authority Of India… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1720 of 2017

¶3

------

¶4

1. Manoj Kumar (Personnel No.4796), Son of Shri Amir Singh

¶5

2. Keshnath Yadav (Personnel No.4803), Son of Shri Umashankar Yadav

¶6

…. …. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), through its Chairman, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, P. Box, No. 3049, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-New Delhi110003.

¶9

2. Director (Raw Material & Logistic) and Nominated Owner of the Collieries, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, P.O., P.S., & Dist.-New Delhi-110003.

¶10

3. General Manager (P&A), SAIL Colliery Division, office of the Steel Authorty of India Limited, Growth Division, 2^nd Floor, Trimurti Bhawan, 97, Park Streets, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Kolkata 700016 (West Bengal).

¶11

4. General Manager (Chasnalla & Jitpur Colliery), Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Colliery Division, Chasnalla, P.O. & P.S. Patherdih, Dist.-Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶12

5. Deputy General Manager/Agent, Jitpur Colliery, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Colliery Division, P.O. Jitpur, P.S. Jorapokhar, DistrictDhanbad, Jharkhand.

¶13

6. Assistant General Manager (Egg.) & I/C (P&A) Chasnalla & Jitpur, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Colliery Division, Chasnalla, P.O. & P.S. Patherdih, Dist.Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶14

7. Colliery Manager (J), Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Colliery Division, Jitpur Colliery, P.O. Jitpur, P.S. Jorapokhar, District Dhanbad, (Jharkhand).

¶15

8. Executive Director, Colliery, SAIL, 2^nd Floor, Trimurti Bhawan, 97, Park Streets, P.O. P.S. & Dist.-Kolkata-700016 (West Bengal).

¶16

.... Respondents

¶17

With

¶18

W.P.(S) No.2386 of 2017

¶19

------

¶20

1. Arvind Kumar Singh, son of Late Vijay Kumar Singh

¶21

2. Navin Kumar, son of Shri Chandramani Sharma

Petitioners

Versus

1. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), through its Chairman, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, P. Box, No. 3049, New Delhi 110003.

¶26

2. Director (Raw Material & Logistic) and Nominated Owner of the Collieries, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, P. Box No.3049, New Delhi-110003.

¶27

3. General Manager (P&A), SAIL Colliery Division, office of the Steel Authority of India Limited, Growth Division, 2^nd Floor, Trimurti Bhawan, 97, Park Street, P.O. & P.S. Park Street,Kolkata-700016, District Kolkata (West Bengal).

¶28

4. General Manager (Chasnalla & Jitpur Colliery), Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Colliery Division, Chasnalla, P.O. Chasnalla P.S. Patherdih, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶29

5. Deputy General Manager(Agent), Chasnalla Colliery, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Colliery Division, Chasnalla, P.O. Chasnalla, P.S. Patherdih, District Dhanbad, (Jharkhand).

¶30

6. Executive Director, Colliery, SAIL, 97, Park Street, Kolkata 700016, District Kolkata (West Bengal), office of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. Growth Division, 2^nd Floor, Trimurti Bhawan.

¶31

.... .... Respondents

¶32

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶33

------

¶34

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Adv. : Mrs. Aanya, Advocate For the SAIL : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate ------

¶35

07/Dated: 10.04.2023

¶36

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J

¶37

Both the writ petitions arising out of similar cause of action and as such, both have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶38

¶39

2. Both the writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the order dated 03.01.2017 passed in O.A. No.51/52/2015 and order dated 07.04.2017 passed in OA/051/00053/2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi have been assailed, whereby and whereunder, the original applications have been dismissed refusing to interfere with direction upon the respondents to grant pay scale and other monetary benefits to the writ petitioners attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) as also rejected the prayer of the writ petitioners to consider the case of the applicants for regular promotion on the post of Assistant Manager (Mining).

¶40

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the original applications are required to be enumerated which read as under:It is the case of the writ petitioners that the applicants/writ petitioners, who were initially appointed against the substantive post of Overman/Mining Supervisor, have been subsequently appointed/authorized to work as Assistant Managers (Mining) in Chasnalla & Jitpur Colliery of Steel Authority of India (SAIL). The appointment/authorization of the applicants as Assistant Managers (Mining) in the said colliery was done pursuant to their having acquired higher qualifications/certifications for management of coal mines, after passing the requisite examination conducted by the competent Board of Mining Examinations.

¶41

The applicants/writ petitioners claim that their

¶42

appointment/authorization as Assistant Managers (Mining) was due to the shortage of personnel, with requisite qualifications, for functioning as Assistant Managers (Mining) in the Jitpur Colliery. In terms of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, framed under the Coal Mines Act, 1952, a

¶43

¶44

specified number of employees/personnel are required to be appointed for mining operation. The number of personnel to be appointed at different levels in the mines is primarily co-related with the average out-put of the said mines. As such, the appointment/authorization of the applicants as Assistant Managers (Mining) was done as per requirements under the said Coal Mines Regulation, 1957. In other words, the applicants claim that their appointment/authorization as Assistant Manager (Mining) was “directly relatable to the production/output of coal in the mines of the respondents SAIL.”

¶45

In spite of the fact that the applicants have been appointed to act as Assistant Managers (Mining) in terms of the Regulation, 1957, the respondents are not making payment of salary to the applicants vis-à-vis the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) and they are being paid as per the pay scale and other allowances, attached to their substantive post of Overman. Further, the applicants claim that since they are duly qualified and are actually discharging their duties as Assistant Manager (Mining), they are entitled to consideration for regular promotion to the executive cadre posts from their substantive post of Overman which is part of the non-executive cadre. In order to secure such consideration, the applicants had submitted several representations, requesting for consideration of their promotion to the executive cadre.

¶46

The grievance of the writ petitioners, as would appear from the pleading made as referred hereinabove that the works are being taken from them of the post of Assistant Manager but the pay scale attached to the said post have not been given.

¶47

Further, since the writ petitioners are performing their duty of higher post of Assistant Manager, even though, they are holding the substantive

¶48

¶49

post of Overman and hence, they are also entitle for the benefit of regular promotion to the higher post of the Assistant Manager.

¶50

The learned Tribunal has called upon the respondent SAIL, wherein, the plea was taken in the written statement that both the reliefs cannot be granted in favour of the writ petitioners/applicants, since, the writ petitioners are claiming the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager under the Executive Cadre.

¶51

It has been contended that the writ petitioners are also claiming to have their regular promotion to the post of Assistant Manager in the Executive Cadre.

¶52

It has been submitted that the post of the Assistant Manager is under both the categories, i.e., under the non-executive cadre and the executive cadre.

¶53

Admittedly, the writ petitioners are holding the substantive post of Overman which is the post under the non-executive cadre and that also having the post of Assistant Manager under the non-executive cadre and as such, there is no question to seek parity in pay scale of the employees working as Overman and discharging their duty to the post of Assistant Manager under the non-executive cadre who have the pay scale of Assistant Manager in the executive cadre.

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent SAIL has also taken the ground that since the mode of recruitment for the post of Assistant Manager under the non-executive cadre and the executive cadre both are different and having different qualification and the nature of work and hence, there is no question of applicability of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.

¶55

The learned Tribunal after considering their submissions has

¶56

¶57

dismissed the original applications considering it to be misconceived, against which, the present writ petitions have been filed.

¶58

Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted by admitting the fact that the writ petitioners are in the non-executive cadre and holding the substantive post of Overman and by virtue of the authorization issued by the Agent have been allowed to discharge their duty to the post of Assistant Manager who is also under the non-executive cadre.

¶59

But his contention is that irrespective of the fact that the post of Assistant Manager either in the non-executive cadre or the executive cadre, if the nature of work is same, then the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ will be applicable but that has been denied and the same has also not been considered by the learned Tribunal in the right perspective, therefore, impugned orders on this ground, are fit to be quashed and set aside.

¶60

Per contra , Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-SAIL has submitted that the writ petitioners have got no case on merit, since, they admittedly, are in the non-executive cadre and hence, they cannot claim parity with the officers in the executive cadre and hence, there is no question of applicability of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, since, the mode of recruitment and the qualification are quite different of the post of Assistant Manager in the non-executive cadre and the executive cadre. However, he has submitted that since, the writ petitioners are working as Assistant Manager by way of authorization given by the Agent of the project which is in the non-executive cadre, as such, they at best be held entitle for the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager of the non-executive cadre.

¶61

¶62

He has further submitted that in any case, the writ petitioners are not entitled for consideration of promotion to the post of Assistant Manager either in the non-executive cadre or the executive cadre merely by virtue of the fact that they have been allowed to discharge their duty to the higher post of Assistant Manager in the non-executive cadre.

¶63

6. In response, Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that by conceding to the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent SAIL that the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager of the non-executive cadre can only be paid to the writ petitioners and the submission has been made that the same if paid to the writ petitioners, there will be no issue.

¶64

He has further submitted so far as the prayer sought for grant of regular promotion to the post of Assistant Manager either in the nonexecutive cadre or the executive cadre merely by virtue of the fact that they have been asked to discharge their duty to the higher post, they cannot be held entitle for the substantive promotion to the aforesaid post.

¶65

It has been submitted by Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not pressing the aforesaid prayer.

¶66

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the material available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order. 8. At the outset, it is being referred herein that in the original application, two fold prayers were made, i.e., first prayer was to extend the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager by virtue of the fact that the writ petitioners have been asked to discharge their duty to the higher post of Assistant Manager (Mining) and the second prayer is to grant promotion to the writ petitioners to the post of Assistant Manager

¶67

¶68

(Mining).

¶69

9. Since, Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has confined his prayer only for disbursement of pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining), therefore, the issue of entitlement of the writ petitioners of the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) is only required to be considered and is being considered hereinafter.

¶70

10. The submission has been made on behalf of the respondent-SAIL, so far as the entitlement of the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) is concerned, by advancing the argument, that the writ petitioners can only be held entitle for the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the non-executive cadre, such contention has been made by putting reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vrs. B.K. Dhir, [(2017) 9 SCC 337], State of Punjab and Anr. Vrs. Dharam Pal, [(2017) 9 SCC 395], P. Grover (Smt) Vrs. State of Haryana and Anr., [(1983) 4 SCC 291], Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vrs. Hari Om Sharma, [(1998) 5 SCC 87] and A. Francis Vrs. Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu, [(2014) 13 SCC 283] , wherein, the law has been laid down regarding disbursement of salary in course of discharging duty in the officiating capacity.

¶71

It has been held that if by virtue of the order passed by the competent authority, an employee in the lower hierarchy is being asked to discharge his duty of the higher post of higher responsibility, the pay scale attached to the post of the higher hierarchy is to be admissible to the concerned employee.

¶72

It has been submitted on the basis of the aforesaid position of law

¶73

¶74

that the writ petitioners at best can be entitled for the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) in the non-executive cadre.

¶75

Such submission has been made on the basis of the fact that under the respondent-SAIL, there are two categories, i.e., the executive cadre and the non-executive cadre.

¶76

In the executive cadre, the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) is there, while in the non-executive cadre, the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) is also there.

¶77

The qualification of both the posts, i.e., Assistant Manager (Mining) in the executive cadre and non-executive cadre is different, since, the basic educational/eligibility criteria to have the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) in the executive cadre, i.e., the degree in Engineering or equivalent. While, in the non-executive cadre, the basic eligibility criteria to hold the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) is second class manager, certificate of competency.

¶78

It has also been contended that the mode of entry into the service in both the cadres, i.e., Assistant Manager (Mining) in the non-executive cadre and the Assistant Manager (Mining) in the executive cadre are also different, therefore, the writ petitioners, even though, have been asked to discharge their duty to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) in the nonexecutive cadre, which is the substantive cadre and by virtue of holding the post of Overman, one or the other writ petitioners have been asked to discharge their duty of the post of Assistant Manager (Mining), therefore, the writ petitioners, can only be held entitle for the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the non-executive cadre, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments as referred hereinabove.

¶79

¶80

It has also been contended that the writ petitioners are not at all entitled for equal pay for equal work, due to the reason of difference in the mode of entry.

¶81

11. The submission has been made that there cannot be parity of pay scale from one category to another. Herein, the writ petitioners are allowed to discharge their duty as Assistant Manager (Mining), a post having in the non-executive cadre and as such, there cannot be any parity in the pay scale based upon the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the executive cadre.

¶82

Reference of the judgment in this regard has been made rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Jagjit Singh & Anr ., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 .

¶83

12. Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has not disputed the fact that both the categories where the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) is available, are in different category, i.e., both in the non-executive and executive cadre.

¶84

It has also been admitted by Mr. Gadodia that the mode of recruitment to enter into the service of the non-executive cadre for the purpose of holding the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) is quite different to that of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the Executive Cadre.

¶85

Further, even the educational qualification of both posts are different, therefore, this Court has gathered from the submission advanced by Mr. Gadodia, that the contention which has been raised regarding nonapplicability of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ in the facts and circumstances of the case, based upon the difference in the mode of recruitment fill up the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) in the nonexecutive cadre and executive cadre as also the qualifications are also

¶86

¶87

different, therefore, the writ petitioners cannot be held entitle for the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the executive cadre by making application of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. However, taking into consideration the submission made on behalf of Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-SAIL that since, the works are being taken from one or the other writ petitioners of the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the non-executive cadre and as such, they will be entitled for the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the non-executive cadre on the basis of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vrs. B.K. Dhir (supra) .

¶88

13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioners are entitled for the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the non-executive cadre from the date of asking them to discharge their duty on the said post till the date of discharge of their duty on the said post.

¶89

14. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and taking into consideration the concession of the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the orders passed by the learned Tribunal are required to be quashed and set aside. 15. Accordingly, the order dated 03.01.2017 passed in O.A. No.51/52/2015 and order dated 07.04.2017 passed in OA/051/00053/2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, are hereby quashed and set aside. 16. In consequence thereof, the writ petitioners are entitled for the pay scale attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of non-executive cadre.

¶90

¶91

17. The respondent-Steel Authority of India Limited, in consequence thereof, is directed to disburse the difference of arrears of salary attached to the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the non-executive cadre within the period of three months’ from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶92

18. In the result, the instant writ petitions are allowed.

¶93

19. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶94

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶95

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶96

Rohit/- N.A.F.R.

Manoj Kumar And Ors. v. Steel Authority Of India Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar And Ors. v. Steel Authority Of India Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Ganjhu Alias Shekhar Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nandlal Bharti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rashid Jawed Alias Sanju Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ishtiyaque Ahmed Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinabandhu Mahato Vs Mecon Ltd. through Its Director Technology Sri L R Singh

The State of Jharkhand Vs Bishnu Prasad Singh