Shibshankar Biswas And ANR v. Union Of India And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA WP.CT/192/2021 SHIBSHANKAR BISWAS AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONERS VS.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS For the petitioners : Mr. Phatick Ch. Das For the respondents : Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal Hearing on : July 19, 2022 Judgment on : July 22, 2022 SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1.
The present challenge has been preferred against an order dated January 01, 2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata bench in O A No. 351/115/AN/2015, dismissing the original application and affirming the order dated May 20, 2013 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide F.No. U-
14040/28/2012-ANL, rejecting the applicants' claims for grant of enhanced pay scale.
2.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the Tribunal totally overlooked the communication dated January 27, 2019 by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Chief Secretary, Andaman and Nicobar Administration vide No. U-14015/1/2008/ANL communicating the approval of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure to a proposal to grant the pay scale of Rs.
5000-8000/- to Superintendent-cum-Foreman in Industries Department of Andaman and Nicobar Administration and instruction to the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to accordingly implement the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated September 05, 2007. 3.
Learned counsel contends that other employees in the Directorates of Transport and Shipping Services, having similar designation as the petitioners, had been granted higher pay scales. Relying on the principle of "Equal Work, Equal Pay", learned counsel argues that the petitioners' right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated by such decision. 4.
It is submitted that the petitioners were promoted from Chargeman to Superintendent-cum-Foreman on identical scale of pay of Rs. 4500-125-7000/- on regular basis. Learned counsel places, as
an instance, reliance on office order No. 27 dated January 06, 2004 in support of such contention, in respect of writ petitioner No. 1. 5.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits that the purported communication dated January 27, 2009, on which the petitioners place reliance, does not have any binding effect at all in the eye of law. The said communication was made specifically in respect of one Md. Ishaque, who possessed higher qualification then the petitioners.
6.
By placing reliance on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities Nos. 3 and 4, learned counsel contends that the case of Md. Ishaque, the then Superintendent-cum-Foreman, was treated in isolation pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 109/AN/2005 since he was possessing the qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineering and was recruited against the direct recruitment quota to the post of Superintendent-cum-Foreman. The upgraded scale of pay of Md. Ishaque was extended on personal basis with the approval of the competent authority. 7.
Hence, the parameters applicable to the isolated case of said Md. Ishaque cannot have any bearing on the pay scale of the present petitioners.
8.
It is contended that the nature of work done by the petitioners and the employees of the Directorates of Transport and Shipping Services who have been alleged by the petitioners to be of identical
nature, have different duties and responsibilities then the petitioners. That apart, the pre-revisional scale of the said post was of a higher grade then the petitioners. The experience as well as educational qualification for the said post in the Directorates of Transport and Shipping Services is of a higher grade then that required for the present petitioners.
9.
It is, thus, submitted that the Tribunal acted well within its jurisdiction in refusing the prayer of the petitioners for enhancement of the pay scale.
10.
A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal shows that the said order contains elaborate reasons. By drawing up a chart for the different designated posts in the concerned three departments, that is, the Directorates of Transport, Shipping Services and Industries, the Tribunal took into consideration the difference in the pay scale and educational qualification as well as experience required for the said different departments.
11.
Whereas the petitioners have been promoted to the post of the Superintendent-cum-Foreman, the alleged equivalent post in the Directorate of Transport is Chargeman and that in Shipping is Foreman. The pay scales, even prior to revision, stood at a higher rate for the Transport Directorate PB-2, that is, (Rs. 9300-34800) plus Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- whereas the pay scale in respect of Shipping Services is equivalent to Transport. However, the pre-revision scale of
Superintendent-cum-Foreman in the Industries Directorate has been PB-1 (Rs. 5200-20200) plus Grade Pay Rs. 2800/-. 12.
Whereas the Directorates of Transport and Shipping Services stipulate educational qualification as degree in Automobile/ Mechanical Engineering or diploma in Automobile/Mechanical Engineering plus two years' experience in Automobile workshop (Transport) and degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized university or diploma in Mechanical Engineering from recognized institution plus three years experience (Shipping Services), the qualification required for the Directorate of Industries is Secondary School Examination (Xth standard) passed and trade certificate in Carpentry/wood working, from recognized ITI/government training center with five years of experience in the relevant field. The scope of promotion in the said three Directorates is also dissimilar. The scope of promotion in the Transport and Shipping Services Directorates is from Assistant Chargeman/Chargeman whereas in Industries, the same is from Instructor, Instructor-cum-Blacksmith, Skilled Machinist, Sheet Metal Assistant, Electroplater, etc. 13.
Whereas the scope of promotion in case of the Transport and Shipping Services Directorates are from a lower pay scale to a higher pay scale, that in the Directorate to Industries is lateral with regard to pay grade.
14.
It has also been discussed by the Tribunal that the educational qualification and experience to which the post is attached is one of the criteria for determining the pay scale in a post. Such educational qualification and experience, according to the Tribunal, are as per respective recruitment rules, which are statutory in nature. The logic of the Tribunal was that, since the recruitment rules are statutory in nature and scales of pay and grade pay, qualifications and experiences are prescribed for the designated post by the respective recruitment rules, the Tribunal was not in position to direct the authority to modify and change the recruitment rules. 15.
Again, the first forum, that is, the respondent-authorities, vide order dated May 20, 2013, also refused the petitioners representation for hike in pay scale on several cogent grounds. Apart from the educational qualification and experience, which are different in respect of the three directorates as well as the respective nomenclature, the authorities also took into consideration the prerevised pay scale, compared to the revised pay scale in the Industries Department.
16.
The principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is not strictly applicable in the present case, since the nature of work rendered by the petitioners is also defined by their educational qualification and professional background.
17.
Since the other two Directorates having employees with similar nomenclature required much higher educational qualification as well as job experience of a more technical nature, there cannot be any parity to be struck, in the first place, between the said Directorates and the Directorate of Industries.
18.
Hence, the general argument of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is not applicable to the present case, since the basis of classification and distinction between the petitioners and the employees of the Directorates of Shipping Services and Transport are reasonable and proximate with the issue involved.
19.
In such view of the matter, we do not find any arbitrariness and/or illegality in the decision arrived at by the Tribunal, thereby affirming the rejection of enhancement of pay scale sought by the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition merits dismissal. 20.
Accordingly, WP.CT/192/2021 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.
21.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities. (SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
22. I agree.
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)