Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Hari Ram Shukla And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1137 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. This writ petition is preferred by the Union of India against judgment and order dated 15.9.2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 804/98. The said OA was preferred by the respondents herein who are visually handicapped persons and are engaged as Cane weavers in Engineer-in-chief's Branch ( EIO3 ). Kashmir House, DHQPO, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi for more than two decades. The grievance of the respondents in the said OA was that consequent upon the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission they had been

placed in the pay scale of Rs. 900-1150/- but were not considered for upgradation in the skilled Grade having pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. The learned Tribunal, in

the impugned Judgment traced out the history of pay-scales granted to industrial workers (to which category the respondents herein also belong) starting from 3rd Pay Commission and found that although in comparable categories exercise was done by constituting Anomalies Committee for re-evaluating the jobs in the semi-skilled categories and they were upgraded, insofar as the respondents were concerned no such upgradation or promotional avenues were made available. The tribunal noted the contention of the respondents herein to the effect that although their category had been made eligible for promotion to the grade of upholsterer but it was totally illusory as passing of the trade test for such promotion was mandatory and subordinate units of the petitioner herein had never permitted blind canemen to undertake such tests with the result for more than a decade no one belonging to the category of canemen had been promoted to the rank of upholsterer.

2. The learned Tribunal after careful

consideration of the material placed before it and in its detailed analysis observed:

A. It had not been clearly established by the petitioners herein that the issue of placement of canemen into the skilled category was examined by the

Committee of Experts.

B. Even Anomalies Committee had not taken decision in the matter thereby denying the claim of the respondents herein.

C. It was illogical on the part of the petitioners to contend that the category of canemen cannot be placed into skilled category only because the initial Recruitment Rules prescribed minimal qualification of 8th Class without any trade certificate.

3. According to learned Tribunal cane weaving was a job involving skill which had to be acquired and there was considerable scope for improving upon the skill with experience and also otherwise. All the respondents herein possess qualifications much higher than the prescribed qualifications, as they were all matriculates and also holders of certificates issued to them by recognised training institutes. Following this logic they had better claim for upgradation.

4. Recruitment Rules for canemen had remained unchanged for almost three decades.

5. The petitioners herein had not refuted the claim of the respondents herein that their's was the only category which had not been considered for upgradation.

6. In Tndian Railways the canemen had been put in

the skilled grade wayback in November, 1992.

7. The Tribunal also took note of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 418 in support of the plea that in such a situation principle of 'equal pay for equal work' stood attracted. It also pointed out that it was necessary to create promotional avenues for the respondents herein as the same was must in any organisation to provide incentive for efficient work and optimal output. The Tribunal, in this respect took stock of the various judgments of the Supreme Court where creation of such promotional avenues was emphasised, namely, Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secy. Home (Police) Deptt., Govt. of Bihar , Council of Scientific & Industrial Research and Anr. v. Mr. K.G.S. Bhatt and Anr. 1989 (2) SCALE 395 and Zia-Ud-Din v. Delhi Admn. Admn. and Anr. 1 (1990) ATLT (CAT ) 445.

8. In the circumstances, the OA filed by the respondents was disposed of with following directions: "In the background of the very detailed discussion in the above paragraphs and the principles upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal, we fail to see any force in the contentions of the respondents, and are inclined to dispose of the OA with a direction to the

respondents to review the matter keeping in view the above observations and provide opportunities to Canemen in their set-up on par with the opportunities available to Caneman in the Indian Railways. They are further directed to ensure compliance within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shal1 no order as to costs"

9. It may be mentioned that the pitiable condition of respondents herein being visually handicapped who were neither granted upgradation nor provided with promotional avenues was also adverted to by the Tribunal in the following words: "That just a small number of 20 Canemen, all blind, cannot be created justly can and should be a matter of eternal regret for a civilized society, and more so when we know that the desired small step taken to dispense justice in this case cannot by any stretch of imagination upset the existing pay structures of inter-related categories in any significant manner".

10. The aforesaid direction to the petitioners herein to review the matter and provide canernen appropriate opportunities which were available to their counter-parts in the Indian Railways was not palatable to the petitioners who have challenged the same by filing the present petition.

11. Before us Mr Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners made same submissions which were advanced

before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the petitioners had provided promotional avenues to them i.e. as per Recruitment Rules. Category of Canemen to which they belong, was made feeder category for promotion to Upholsterer (skilled) and through this route they could achieve, even higher levels as applicable to industrial cadre by opting for Carpenter category, Further, it was contended, the plea of the respondents to place them in the skilled category on the ground of their higher qualification was not acceptable as no such qualification prescribed for Canemen at the stage of induction in accordance with Recruitment Rules. It was also submitted that the Expert Body of Executives did not find Canemen good enough to be fit into the skilled category and it was not for the court to substitute its opinion for that of the Expert Body.

12. A perusal of the impugned judgment amply demonstrates that all the aforesaid aspects are dealt with extensively by the learned Tribunal. The same has already been recounted in brief above. The bogie of claim being examined by Expert Body is clearly farce in

view of the categorical findings of the learned Tribunal that the Committee, of Experts or Anomalies Committee did not really examine the issue of placement

of Canemen into the skilled category. The Tribunal also found that the Recruitment Rules had remained unchanged for almost three decades and merely because as per the Recruitment Rules qualification required at the time of induction was 8th Class passed would not mean that persons like the respondents having higher qualification should not be upgraded, more so when cane weaving was a job involving skill and also that they were holders of certificates issued by recognised training institute. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how same category, namely, Canemen was put in skilled grade by Indian Railways which was discharging the same functions. Insofar as promotional avenues to the post of upholsterer are concerned the Tribunal found it illusory when the respondents were not allowed to appear in the Trade Test and, therefore, could not be promoted to the said post.

13. Mr. U.S. Bisht, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal by pointing out that the grievances of the respondents arose due to discrimination done by the petitioners while implementing the recommendations of the Third Central Pay Commission. Some employees organisations including the Indian National defense Workers Federation (INDWF) and All India defense

Employees Federation (AIDEF) had made request to the Pay Commission for appointment of a classification Tribunal for the purpose of classifying various trades on the basis of the Job content and fitting the employees into scales recommended by the Pay Commission. The workers representatives apprehended that if the work of classification was not carried out in a systematic manner, the existing anomalies would be perpetuated as the workers would get fitted into the new scales primarily on the basis of their existing scales which according to them, did not correctly reflect the skills, duties, responsibilities and difficulties involved in the job. Both the Secretary, defense Production, and the Director General of Ordnance Factories also emphasised the need for reviewing the existing categorisation of workshop staff (workshop staff is a generic term which the Pay Commission has applied to Central Govt. Workshops, Production Units or departmentally run establishments). As contained in Vol. I, Chapter 19 Para 18, the Pay Commission observed as follows with reference, to request made by the Employees Organisation to Pay Commission:-

"18. We appreciated the force of the arguments urged in support of the demand for proper classification of workshop jobs, which reinforced our own conclusions based on our examination of

the matter and our first hand impressions of visits to some workshops. We, however, realised that it would not be possible for us to undertake job evaluation, as we had neither the time nor the experience for such work. We, therefore, suggest that Govt might consider the desirability of setting up expert bodies under various Ministries to go into the question of reviewing the existing categorisation of workshop staff serving under them."

14. It is further stated by Mr. Bisht that the Pay Commission had also suggested the correspondence between the then existing scales and the revised scales proposed by the Pay Commission and explicitly stated that the revised scales to the categories be allotted on the basis of correspondence suggested by the Pay Commission. Eventually, however, fitment of the categories, into proposed scales was to be made on the basis of the recommendations of the expert bodies. And in due course, the petitioners accepted the recommendations of the Pay Commission and constituted an expert body known as 'Anomalies Committee' under orders of Ministry of defense for the purpose of 'Fitment of Industrial Workers of MES in Pay Scales recommended by the Third Pay Commission'. Only 12 categories out of 13 categories in this group then in the correspondence scale of Rs. 210-290 were referred to the Anomalies Committee, excluding the category of respondents without ascribing any reasons or

justification. The expert body (Anomalies Committee) unanimously cleared all the 12 categories referred to it, who were in the pay scale of Rs. 210-290, for their fitment in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400. Accordingly, the Ministry of defense Conveyed the sanction of the President of India for upgradation of the 12 categories of jobs uptil then in the pay scale of Rs. 210-290 to the Pay Scale of Rs. 260-400 under the scheme of Fitment of Industrial Workers of MES in pay scale recommended by the Third Pay Commission. On their exclusion the respondents herein made representation. But to no avail. The petitioners neither redressed their grievances, nor gave them any reply.

15. In view of such a peculiar situation the only direction given by the Tribunal to the petitioner herein is to consider the case of the Canemen. Thus, in any case, the matter was relegated to the petitioner for due consideration in the light of observations made in the impugned judgment.

16. In exercise of our limited power under the judicial review, we do not find any illegality, irrationality or perversity in the impugned judgment. We are not inclined to interfere with the same.

17. Before parting we may only point out that despite being visually handicapped, respondents herein do not want to depend on others. They want to make their living by their own efforts. They have not only acquired educational qualifications but professional qualification as Canemen and proficiency in their trade as well. They are trying to compete with non-disabled and in such circumstances they need to be encouraged. Instead, the petitioners have adopted totally callous and insensitive attitude towards these visually handicapped persons, inasmuch as on hyper technical grounds even what is just and legitimately due to the respondents is also denied. The promotional avenues provided in the Recruitment Rules have remained illusory. The effect is that although working for a number of years neither they are treated as skilled nor their posts upgraded nor they have been able to get a single promotion in their career. The respondents who deserved better treatment at the hands of the petitioner are, however, denied even the equal treatment. We hope and trust that the petitioners shall sensitize themselves and acknowledge the rights of these respondents, who are not clamouring for any

undue favor, and provide them their legitimate due without any further delay.

18. The directions of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment should be complied with within two months.

19. The writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.