THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P. No.23096 of 2010
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar)
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari
calling for the records relating to and connected with orders passed in
O.A. No.8258 of 2007 dated 14.06.2010 on the file of the
A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and set aside the same as
being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to principle of equal pay for equal
work and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to revise the
pay of the petitioners in accordance with the revised pay scales 1999, 2003 and 2005 and further to declare that the petitioners are entitled to monetary benefits from their respective dates of promotion to Fitter Grade-II on par with their counter parts in the Department and other departments as well as was given in the case of Sri S.Eshwar Prasad, Fitter Grade-II in the N.S. Dam Maintenance Division, Hill Colony, Nagarjunasagar.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri D.Linga Rao appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for the respondents and perused the material made available on record.
3. It has been contended by the petitioners that they were initially appointed as the Helper Grade-II with the 1st respondent and subsequently they were promoted as Fitter Grade-II. Fitter Grade-II AKS, J & NVSK, J 2 W.P. No.23096 of 2010 (Repairs) was shown as skilled Class-IV and the pay scale revised in the year 1999 was Rs.4260-9250. Fitter Grade-II (Work Shop) was shown as skilled Class-III and their pay scales, as per the revised pay scales in the year 1999, was Rs.4370-9520, which was placed on a higher side to that of Fitter Grade-II (Repairs) and therefore, they are entitled to pay scale on par with the Fitter Grade-II, (Work Shop) as skilled Class-III. Ventilating the said grievance, the petitioners have filed O.A. No.8258 of 2007 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 14.06.2010 dismissed the said O.A. holding that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the scale 4370-9775. Assailing the same, petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
4. Per contra, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, inter alia, it is submitted that the petitioners are working as Fitter Grade-II (Repairs) in state garage section, and their nature of work is repairs and replacement to motor vehicles under skilled class-IV (L-Repairs). The petitioners are claiming their pay on par with Fitter Grade-II working in the Engineering Department i.e. Nagarjuna Sagar Dam Maintenance Division at item No.83 of Pay Revision Commission Schedule 2005 of the Irrigation & Command Area Development Department under Workshop and Construction. The Tribunal vide its order dated 14.06.2010 had categorically held that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the scale 4370-9775 as they are not working under Workshop and Construction. The 1st respondent has rightly AKS, J & NVSK, J 3 W.P. No.23096 of 2010 fixed the pay of the petitioners in the scale of Rs.2870-5470 of Revised Pay Scale 1999, and Rs.4260-9520 in Revised Pay Scale 2005, under skilled class-IV as per their eligibility. It is further submitted that the scales are applicable as per nature of works of workmen and the petitioners are working as Fitter Grade-II (Repairs) under skilled class-IV in State Garage Motor Vehicles Repairs Sections and their nature of work is repairs and replacement to motor vehicles and accordingly their pay was rightly fixed. Further, comparison of petitioners' promotion with Sri S.Eshwar Prasad, Fitter Grade-II working in the Nagarjuna Sagar Dam Maintenance Division is not correct as he is working in maintenance division which comes under Workshop & Construction in the category of skilled class-III.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that order dated 14.06.2010 of the learned Tribunal is erroneous on the face of the record inasmuch as the finding of the learned Tribunal that no documents are filed to show that the petitioners were appointed as Fitter Grade-II is contrary to the material on record. He further contended that the learned Tribunal had ignored the contention of equal pay for equal work and dismissed the O.A. in toto without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to revise the pay of the petitioners in accordance with revised pay scale of 2005. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AKS, J & NVSK, J 4 W.P. No.23096 of 2010 The Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Rajni Vali and others1. P.Savita and others Vs. Union of India and others2. Food Corporation of India Workers' Union Vs. Food Corporation of India and others3. State of Karnataka and others Vs. Karnataka State Patels Sangha and another4.
6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioners are working as Fitter Grade-II (Repairs) in State Garage Section and their nature of work is repairs and replacement to motor vehicles under skilled Class-IV (L-Repairs). The petitioners are claiming their pay on par with Fitter Grade-II working in the Engineering Department i.e. Nagarjuna Sagar Dam Maintenance Division. As the petitioners do not belong to Workshop & Construction category, they are not entitled to their claim and therefore, the learned Tribunal had rightly dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioners.
7. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that initially the petitioners were appointed as Helper Grade-II and subsequently they were promoted to Fitter Grade-II (Repairs) in State Garage I & II Section and their nature of work is repairs and replacement of parts of motor vehicles under skilled Class-IV, (L.Repairs). The scale of Fitter Grade-II (Repairs) was 4260-9520 and whereas the scale of Fitter Grade-II (Workshop & 1 2000 (1) SLR 486 2 AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1124 3 AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2178 4 Civil Appeal Nos.4163-4164 of 2004 and 850 of 2006, dt.08.02.2007 by the Supreme Court.
AKS, J & NVSK, J 5 W.P. No.23096 of 2010 Construction) was 4370-9775. The claim of the petitioners is that their pay has to be fixed on par with Fitter Grade-II (Workshop & Construction), which is categorised under the skilled class-III and whereas the petitioners are working as Fitter Grade-II (Repairs), which is under the skilled class-IV. The learned Tribunal in its order observed as under:
"The application is opposed by the respondents and the General Superintendent, PWD Workshop & Stores, filed a counter affidavit stating that the applicants are working in the repair section. It is stated that there is no anomaly in fixing the pay scales and their scales were rightly fixed. The applicants are claiming their pay on par with Fitter Grade-II in the Engineering Department under Item 83. For granting such a claim, the applicants have to show that they are working as Fitter Grade-II in Work Shops and Construction as the respondents are contending that they are only working in repair section.
The matter is posted today to give an opportunity to the applicant to show that they were appointed in Work Shops and Construction.
The learned counsel for the applicants has not filed any documents to show that they were appointed as Fitter Grade-II in Work Shops & Construction. So, they are not entitled to claim the scale 4370-9775."
8. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners were given an opportunity to show that they were appointed in Workshops and Construction but they filed to show the same.
AKS, J & NVSK, J 6 W.P. No.23096 of 2010
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner had specifically urged before this Court that the finding of the learned Tribunal that no documents are filed to show that the petitioners were appointed as Fitter Grade-II is contrary to the material on record. In this regard, it is noticed that the petitioners have not filed any such documents either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court. As such, the grounds raised in the writ petition are not tenable to the extent that the learned Tribunal has ignored the principle of equal pay for equal work and therefore, the learned Tribunal had justified in dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioners. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the present case.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.06.2010 passed in O.A. No.8258 of 2007 by the learned Tribunal and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
AKS, J & NVSK, J 7 W.P. No.23096 of 2010 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
____________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: -08-2022
LSK