Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12049
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suresh Kumar Batra, Member (J)
Balwinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.No.060/428/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. K.B. Sharma
For the Respondents: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
Similarly situated employees entitled to parity in benefits regardless of prior litigation participation.
Headnote:The applicant claimed minimum pay scale of Group ‘D’ post plus DA under DoPT O.M. dated 07.06.1988 and Tribunal decisions in Jasbir Singh and Harjit Singh cases, challenging rejection order dated 24.06.2020. Court found applicant directly paid by department per Annexure A-3, working continuously since 2003 against sanctioned post. Tribunal quashed rejection for non-compliance with prior directions and parity principle. Issues framed: Whether applicant entitled to benefits extended to similarly situated co-employees. Ratio: Service jurisprudence requires equal treatment for similarly situated persons; non-party status does not bar parity if facts identical. Tribunal relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha and prior Tribunal orders granting benefits to co-employees listed in same payment sanctions. Impugned order quashed; respondents directed to grant minimum Group ‘D’ pay scale plus DA and consequential benefits within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant seeks group d pay parity under dopt om. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contention over direct employment vs contractor status. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. non-compliance with prior tribunal direction examined. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. parity mandated for similarly situated co-employees. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. impugned order quashed; benefits directed. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER (Oral)
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the order dated 24.06.2020 (Annexure A-8), whereby the claim of the applicant for grant of minimum of pay scale of Group ‘D’ post plus DA in view of judicial pronouncement and instructions dated 07.06.1988 has been rejected by the respondents. The applicant has sought the following relief:
i. The impugned order dated 24.06.2020 (Annexure A-8) be quashed and set aside.
ii. The respondents be directed to grant minimum of the pay scale of Group ‘D’ post plus Dearness Allowance to the applicant by extending the benefit of DoPT O.M. dated 07.06.1988 (A-2) and decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Jasbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. in O.A.No. 931/PB/2013 decided on 10.09.2014 (Annexure A-5), Harjit Singh & Ors. Vs. UoI in O.A.No. 922/PB/2013 decided on 24.09.2014 (Annexure A-9), along with all consequential benefits.
iii. The applicant be held entitled to all consequential benefits and reliefs from the due dates.
2. It has been averred by the applicant that the applicant was initially engaged as Frash by the respondent department in 2003 and has been paid wages directly by the respondent department as per Annexure A-3(Colly). The applicant has submitted that he has been working continuously with the respondents since 2003 and has completed more than 10 years of service working against sanctioned post, however, he has not been granted the benefits of O.M. dated 07.06.1988 (Annexure A-2) by the respondents.
3. It is contended by the applicant that employee junior to him namely Smt. Somwati has been granted the benefit of O.M. dated 07.06.1988 (A-2) vide office order dated 25.08.2015 (A-4), and that similarly placed employees are also getting minimum pay scale of Group ‘D’ post plus DA i.e. Rs. 18,000/-, whereas the applicant is being paid Rs. 8,200/- only. It has been submitted by the applicant that similarly placed employees filed O.A.s before this Tribunal viz. Sh. Kiran Pal & Ors. filed O.A.No. 815/CH/2011 and Sh. Jasbir Singh filed O.A.No. 931/PB/2013, and vide orders dated 12.09.2011 and 10.09.2014 (A-5) respectively, this Tribunal held the applicants therein entitled to the benefit of instructions dated 07.06.1988.
4. The applicant served a legal notice dated 23.01.2018 (A-1) upon the respondents requesting grant of minimum pay scale of Group-D employees by extending him benefit of judgment (A-5) of this Tribunal. Thereafter, the applicant filed O.A.No.060/1143/2019 against inaction of the respondents on the legal notice, which was decided vide order dated 06.11.2019 (A-7), whereby the respondents were directed to consider and decide the legal notice of the applicant in view of the ratio laid down in the relied upon judgment and in case the applicant is found similarly situated the relevant benefit be granted to him, otherwise a reasoned and speaking order be passed. The applicant filed Execution Application M.A.No.060/514/2020 before this Tribunal against non- compliance of order dated 06.11.2019 by the respondents, and subsequently, the respondents rejected the case of the applicant vide order dated 24.06.2020 (Annexure A-8), which is under challenge in this O.A.
5. It is the contention of the applicant that the respondents have not considered the ratio of law laid down in the case of Jasbir Singh (supra) while passing the impugned order dated 24.06.2020 (A-8). The applicant has contested the stand of the respondents that the applicant was engaged through contractor, and submitted
