Dismissed

Krishan Sharma & Ors. v. C.A.T. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Oct 2008CWP/17666/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s rejection of their claim for parity of pay scales with CPWD employees. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal’s view that pay scales for autonomous bodies cannot be equated with Government employees.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed in limine against the view that High Court has no jurisdiction to equate pay scales of different departments.

Krishan Sharma & Ors. Vs C.A.T… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 17666 of 2008

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: October 4, 2008

¶5

Krishan Sharma and others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH

¶12

Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶17

The petitioners have challenged order dated 7.5.2007 (P-19), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal) rejecting their claim for parity of pay scales with their counterparts working in the Central Public Works Department (for brevity, ‘the CPWD’).

¶18

C.W.P. No. 17666 of 2008

¶19

¶20

Brief facts may first be noticed. The applicantpetitioners are employees of the Sports Authority of India and posted as Electrician in the Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports, Patiala. The applicant-petitioners alongwith other persons who were working as Plumbers and Pump Operators represented to the respondents that they should be granted the pay scales which is being granted to the respective categories of employees working in the CPWD (P-4). The applicant-petitioners primarily agitated their claim on the ground that they are discharging the similar nature of duties and work which is discharged by the employees of the CPWD. They also relied upon the case of one Daya Chand, who was working as Carpenter and raised an industrial dispute seeking same pay scale which is being granted to the Carpenters working in the CPWD of the Central Government. The Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, allowed his claim vide award dated 23.2.1994 (P-1), which has attained finality as the respondents accepted the same and pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 was granted to Daya Chand w.e.f. 1.1.1986 (P-2). Subsequently, another Carpenter working in the corporate office of the respondents was also granted the same pay scale vide order dated 20.1.1996 (P-3). The applicant-petitioners have claimed that the Finance Committee of the respondent Authority in its meeting held on 28.8.1991 decided that the pay scales of various posts in the respondent Authority should be rationalized and also identified the pay scales for rationalisation in order to bring them at par with the pay scales which is being given to the employees of the CPWD (P-5). On 7.9.1992, the applicant-

¶21

C.W.P. No. 17666 of 2008

¶22

¶23

petitioners again represented to respondent No. 2 for grant of the pay scale equivalent to that of the electricians working in the CPWD (P6), who forwarded the same to the Director (Personnel) for sympathetic consideration vide letter dated 8.9.1992 (P-7). 3. After revision of pay scales consequent upon the recommendations made by the 5^th Pay Commission, the pay scale of the electricians working in the CPWD was revised to Rs. 4000-6000 whereas the applicant-petitioners were granted the pay scale of Rs. 2650-4000. Thereafter a number of representations were made by the applicant-petitioners and others who were working as Plumber and Pump Operators and certain communications also exchange hands between the respondent authorities. Ultimately, the applicantpetitioners sent a legal notice claiming grant of pay scale of Rs. 40006000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 (P-13). Thereafter, the applicant-petitioners filed Original Application No. 345 of 2001 before the Tribunal with the grievance that the respondents have not correctly fixed their pay in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000, which is being granted to the Electricians working in the CPWD. They have also claimed release of arrears of pay after re-fixation of their pay. On 24.4.2001, the Tribunal disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondent authorities to take a decision on the legal notice dated 22.2.2001 (P13) within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It was further directed that in case the grievance of the applicant-petitioners is redressed then consequential benefits would be released to them and in case the respondent authorities were to

¶24

C.W.P. No. 17666 of 2008

¶25

¶26

conclude that the applicant-petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed, the authorities were required to communicate the decision on the legal notice along with reasons for coming to that conclusion (P14).

¶27

On 1.11.2001, the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant-petitioners taking the stand that Sports Authority of India (SAI) is an autonomous body being registered as a Society and its Governing Body is competent to fix its own recruitment rules, yardsticks, norms of performance and the pay scales. The recommendations of the Pay Commission are not ipso facto applicable to the employees of the SAI because there is no comparison in the duties and responsibilities, job requirements and the work load in the Government and autonomous bodies. The further stand taken is that the CPWD is an organization under the Government with exclusive functions of construction and maintenance of buildings whereas the SAI is a body primarily for promotion of sports and has only a few buildings for its offices or residence. It has, thus, been concluded that the functions and responsibilities of the Electricians in the CPWD are not comparable to the functions and responsibilities of the Electricians working in the SAI. It has also been observed in the rejection order that even the qualifications of Electricians in the SAI and the CPWD are different. In the SAI the prescribed qualification for appointment as Electrician is Matriculation or equivalent with Diploma as Electrician from ITI, whereas the prescribed qualification for Electrician in the CPWD are

¶28

C.W.P. No. 17666 of 2008

¶29

¶30

(i) He must possess Electrical Supervisory Certificate of competency; and (ii) Must have minimum practical experience of 5 years in erection and running maintenance of different types of both HT and LT electrical experience including UG cable system. There is also difference in the manner in which recruitment is made. In the SAI recruitment is made on the basis of qualifications only without going through rigorous tests which are prescribed for the Electricians of the CPWD. The competent authority has, thus, come to the conclusion that the job requirements of the Electricians working in the CPWD are much more arduous when compared with the functions and duties performed by the applicant-petitioners. The competent authority has also found that the pay structure and promotion avenues in the SAI and the CPWD are entirely different. The SAI was providing to its employees benefit of time bound promotion to the next grade after 8 years of services, whereas there was no such provision in the CPWD. The competent authority has also noticed the fact that the job requirements of Carpenter and the Electricians are entirely different and not comparable. So far as the award of the Industrial Tribunal in favour of the carpenters is concerned, on which heavy reliance was placed by the applicant-petitioners, it has been asserted that it was an ex-parte award by the Industrial Tribunal and the applicantpetitioners cannot derive any benefit from the same (P-15).

¶31

Feeling aggrieved, the applicant-petitioners again filed O.A. No. 700-PB of 2002 before the Tribunal. Some other persons, who are working as Plumber and Pump Operators in the SAI, also

¶32

C.W.P. No. 17666 of 2008

¶33

¶34

filed O.A. Nos. 669-PB of 2002 and 701-PB of 2002 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal clubbed all the O.As and rejected the same vide common order dated 7.5.2007, subject matter of challenge in the instant petition (P-19).

¶35

Having heard learned counsel for the applicantpetitioners at a considerable length and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. The Tribunal has rejected the OAs on coming to the conclusion that the matters of grant of scales of pay are required to be left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. and the Courts/Tribunals need not to tinker with the same. The law on this issue is already well settled. The Tribunal has also found that the rejection order is also a speaking and well reasoned order and cannot be quashed on the ground that the same is illegal, erroneous and non-speaking.

¶36

The petitioners have placed heavy reliance on the alleged recommendations of the Finance Committee of the respondents regarding rationalisation of the pay scales. The petitioners have claimed that the Finance Committee has recommended for bringing the pay scales of Electricians, Plumbers and Pump Operators at par with their counterparts working in the CPWD. For this purpose, the petitioners have placed on record minutes of the 22^nd meeting of the Finance Committee of SAI, held on 28.8.1991 (P-5) and the decision taken against Agenda Item No. X reads thus:-

¶37

C.W.P. No. 17666 of 2008

¶38

¶39

“Item No. X Rationalization of various pay scales. It was desired that the proposal should be examined in file and submitted to the Financial Advisor (Sports). On a suggestion from the ED(A) it was agreed that the cases of Plumber, Pump Operator and Electricians should also be included in the proposal.”

¶40

From a bare perusal of the decision taken by the Finance

¶41

Committee of the SAI it emerges that it cannot be termed as a decision or acceptance of agenda item. Moreover, the respondents in their counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal (P-16) in para No. 1 on merits have specifically denied that any recommendations have been made by the Finance Committee of the SAI with regard to the pay scale of the Electricians. The respondents have further denied that the Finance Committee is not a competent authority to rule on the pay scales to be given to the employees of SAI. It has been asserted that the SAI after rationalizing the pay-scales brought out its own Service Bye-Laws and Conditions of Service Regulations, 1992, prescribing the pay scales of all the posts in the SAI Society. It has been specifically denied that the SAI in its regulations have stated that employees of SAI are to be given the same pay scale as is being given to the Central Government Employees or the CPWD. It is by

¶42

C.W.P. No. 17666 of 2008

¶43

¶44

now well settled that the Courts are not clothed with the power of equating the nature, functions and duties of two sets of employees working in different departments. In that regard, the Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, 1989 (1) SCR 121; Harbans Lal v. State of H.P., (1989) 4 SCC 459; and State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, JT 1996 (10) SC 876 . We see no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court by admitting the instant petition. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is upheld and the petition is dismissed in limine.

¶45

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶46

(JORA SINGH) October 4, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor

Krishan Sharma & Ors. v. C.A.T. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Sharma & Ors. v. C.A.T. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.R.Ambedkar Teachers Welfare Asso. Vs Kurukshetra University and Ors.

Balram Rawat Vs State of Haryana

Deepak Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Nanda Goods Transport Co. Vs HUDA and Anr.

Vipul Gupta Vs State of Haryana through Its Fc and Ors.

Alka Rani Vs State of Haryana and Others