Bombay High Court
The Director, National Civil ... vs Siddheshwar Prasad Singh And ... on 10 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1007WP-260.13-Judgment 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- The Director, National Civil Defence College,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Civil Lines, Nagpur
440001.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Siddheshwar Prasad Singh, Aged adult,
Occ : Service, R/o. Quarter No.113, Type-II,
CPWD Colony, Katol Road, Nagpur.
2) Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New
Delhi-110001.
3) The Director General Civil Defence,
Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Block 7, Level-7, R.K.Puram, New
Delhi-110066.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs.Gauri Venkatraman, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K.Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent No.1.
None for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 10.07.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner-The Director of
National Civil Defence College, Nagpur challenges the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 31/07/2012, allowing
1007WP-260.13-Judgment 2/9
the original application filed by the respondent No.1 and directing the
petitioner to fix the pay of the respondent No.1 in the pay scale of
Rs.4500-7000 with effect from 01/01/1996.
2. The respondent No.1 was working on the post of vehicle
mechanic/electrician in the petitioner-National Civil Defence College.
The respondent No.1 was an ex-serviceman and according to him, he
possessed the requisite qualification for holding the said post. Since the
motor mechanic working in the Archaeological Survey of India was
receiving the pay in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 and the respondent
No.1 was receiving the same in the scale of Rs.4000-6000, the
respondent No.1 filed an original application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal for a direction to the petitioner-college to fix
the pay of the petitioner, as was applicable to the post of motor
mechanic working with the Archaeological Survey of India. According
to the respondent No.1, since the qualifications and duties of the vehicle
mechanic/electrician, the post on which the petitioner was working and
the motor mechanic working in the Archaeological Survey of India were
similar, the petitioner was also entitled to the pay scale of Rs.4500-
7000, as was paid to the motor mechanic working with the
Archaeological Survey of India, with effect from 01/01/1996. On an
appreciation of the material on record, the tribunal held that since the
1007WP-260.13-Judgment 3/9
qualifications of the vehicle mechanic/electrician working with the
National Civil Defence College and the motor mechanic working with
the Archaeological Survey of India were the same and since the duties
performed by the appointees on the said post in the National Civil
Defence College and the Archaeological Survey of India were the same,
the respondent No.1 was entitled to the fixation of his pay in the pay
scale of Rs.4500-7000 with effect from 01/01/1996, on parity. The
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is challenged by the
petitioner-college in the instant petition.
3. Mrs.Venkatraman, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the tribunal committed a serious error in holding that
the qualifications and duties of the vehicle mechanic/electrician
working with the National Civil Defence College and the motor
mechanic in the Archaeological Survey of India were similar. It is
submitted that the qualifications that are required to be possessed by a
vehicle mechanic/electrician working with the petitioner-college would
be a certificate of vehicle mechanic, recognized by the Government of
India, three years experience as a vehicle mechanic and a driving
licence preferably for heavy vehicles. It is stated that the qualifications
required to be possessed by a motor mechanic working with the
Archaeological Survey of India is a secondary school certificate, a
1007WP-260.13-Judgment 4/9
diploma or certificate in automobile engineering and a licence for
driving heavy and light duty vehicles. It is submitted that it is apparent
from the aforesaid that a vehicle mechanic/electrician working with the
petitioner-college would be required to possess a certificate as vehicle
mechanic, whereas the motor mechanic working with the
Archaeological Survey of India is required to possess a diploma or
certificate in automobile engineering. It is submitted that not only are
the qualifications of the two posts different, but the duties of the two
posts are also not similar. It is stated that the chart of duties of the post
of vehicle mechanic/electrician working with the petitioner-college
were placed before the Central Administrative Tribunal but the charts as
mentioning the duties for the post of vehicle mechanic/electrician and
the motor mechanic working with the petitioner-college and the
Archaeological Survey of India respectively were not considered by the
tribunal. It is submitted that a vehicle mechanic/electrician working
with the Archaeological Survey of India is responsible for the repairs of
all motor vehicles, trailors, generating set, cycles and other mechanical
equipment on the charge of the institute and he is further required to
assist and supervise the motor drivers and also submit necessary reports
to the controlling authority for vehicles. It is stated that a vehicle
mechanic/electrician working with the petitioner is required to carry
out weekly inspection of vehicles and to make necessary entries in his
1007WP-260.13-Judgment 5/9
book. It is stated that certain other ancillary duties are also required to
be performed by the vehicle mechanic/electrician and he is required to
observe the same timings as that of the motor drivers. It is stated that
the vehicle mechanic/electrician is required to charge the batteries of
the vehicles and the equipments. It is stated that as against this, a
motor mechanic working with the Archaeological Survey of India is
required to supervise and properly maintain the vehicles, to maintain
the log-books, accounts, registers pertaining to the vehicles and any
other work relating to his office/ branch and his job, as assigned by the
superior officers. It is stated that the duties of the vehicle mechanic/
electrician working with the petitioner-college and the duties of a motor
mechanic working with the Archaeological Survey of India are different.
It is submitted that without considering these aspects of the matter, the
tribunal recorded an erroneous finding of fact that the qualifications
and the duties of the two posts were similar. It is submitted that the
tribunal failed to consider that the Archaeological Survey of India falls
under the Ministry of Human Resources whereas the petitioner-college
falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is submitted that the
recommendations made by the 5th and 6th pay commissions for the post
of motor mechanic in the Archaeological Survey of India are accepted
by the Ministry of Human Resources whereas the Ministry of Home
Affairs has not accepted any such recommendations as are applicable to
1007WP-260.13-Judgment 6/9
the post of motor mechanic working with the Archaeological Survey of
India. It is submitted that in the absence of acceptance of
recommendations of the 5th and 6th pay commissions for the post of
vehicle mechanic/electrician working with the National Civil Defence
College falling under the Ministry of Home Affairs, the tribunal
committed a serious error in allowing the original application filed by
the respondent No.1.
4. Shri Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.1, supported the order of the tribunal. It is submitted that the
tribunal had rightly held, on an appreciation of the material on record
that the qualifications for the post of vehicle mechanic/electrician and
motor mechanic working with the National Civil Defence College and
the Archaeological Survey of India respectively are the same. It is
submitted that the tribunal rightly held that the duties performed by the
appointees on the aforesaid posts are also similar. It is submitted that
after having held so, the tribunal rightly held that it was necessary for
the petitioner-college to grant a higher pay scale, that was applicable to
the post of motor mechanic in the department of Archaeological Survey
of India, to the post of vehicle mechanic/electrician, which was a
solitary post like the post of motor mechanic. It is submitted that
merely because no specific recommendations are made by the 5 th and 6th
1007WP-260.13-Judgment 7/9
pay commissions for the post of vehicle mechanic/electrician working
with the National Civil Defence College and there is nothing to show
that any such recommendations were accepted by the Ministry of Home
Affairs, it cannot be said that the respondent No.1 was not entitled to
any relief. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ
petition.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the impugned order as also the other documents that are
annexed to the petition, it appears that the tribunal was not justified in
allowing the original application filed by the respondent No.1. Firstly,
the Archaeological Survey of India comes under the Ministry of Human
Resources whereas the petitioner-National Civil Defence College falls
under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The qualifications for appointment
to the post of vehicle mechanic/electrician in National Civil Defence
College and the motor mechanic working with the Archaeological
Survey of India are different. Apart from the other qualifications which
are also different, a vehicle mechanic/electrician working with the
National Civil Defence College is required to possess a certificate of
vehicle mechanic, whereas a motor mechanic working with the
Archaeological Survey of India is required to possess a diploma or
certificate in automobile engineering. The basic qualifications that are
1007WP-260.13-Judgment 8/9
required to be possessed by a vehicle mechanic/electrician working with
the National Civil Defence College and the motor mechanic working
with the Archaeological Survey of India are different. So also, on a
perusal of the list of the duties that are required to be performed by the
vehicle mechanic/electrician working with the National Civil Defence
College and the motor mechanic working with the Archaeological
Survey of India, it appears that they are distinct and separate. On a
perusal of the duty-list meant for the two posts, that are referred to, is
not similar as is observed by the tribunal. There are several duties that
are required to be performed by a vehicle mechanic/electrician which
are not required to be performed by a motor mechanic and similarly
there are duties that are required to be performed by a motor mechanic
that are not required to be performed by a vehicle mechanic/electrician.
The tribunal committed an error as rightly submitted on behalf of the
petitioner in holding that the duties performed by the vehicle
mechanic/electrician were similar to the duties performed by a motor
mechanic. The tribunal failed to consider that not only were the posts
distinct from each other, but they fell under the two different
departments of the Central Government. Though the 5 th and 6th pay
commissions recommended higher pay scales for the motor mechanic
working with the Archaeological Survey of India, no such
recommendations were made in respect of vehicle mechanic/electrician
1007WP-260.13-Judgment 9/9
working with the petitioner-college or for that matter working in the
department falling within the Ministry of Home Affairs. In this
background, the tribunal could not have directed the petitioner to grant
the benefit of higher pay scale to the respondent No.1 after holding that
the recommendations made by the pay commissions for the post of
motor mechanic working in the Archaeological Survey of India should
be applied to the post of vehicle mechanic/electrician working with the
National Civil Defence College. Since it is not the case of the respondent
No.1 that similar recommendations were made by the pay commissions
in respect of the post of vehicle mechanic/electrician, working in the
Ministry of Home Affairs and that such recommendations were accepted
by the government, the tribunal could not have directed the petitioner
to grant similar pay scale to the respondent No.1.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The original
application filed by the respondent No.1 stands dismissed. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
