Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Shri P.D. Sharma And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1555 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Union of India has filed this writ petition impugning judgment and order dated 11.7.2001 passed by Central Administration Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi thereby allowing OA. 1486/98 filed by the respondent herein. The facts are in narrow compass which may first be recapitulated.

2. When Doordarshan was initially started as part of All India Radio, services of various categories of employees were initially taken on contract basis. These included Sound Recordists and Lighting Assistants. They were not given regular pay-scales which were given to their counter-parts in the Film Division under the same Ministry, namely, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. They approached Supreme Court by filing various Civil Writs, leading case being filed CWP.No. 240/89. These writ petitions were allowed vide judgment dated 12.4.90 which is reported as Y.K. Mehta and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. . The Supreme Court found that although these persons were initially appointed on contract basis subsequently the Staff Artistes were being appointed up to the age of 55-60 years on a time scale like a regular Government servant and indeed, they possessed all the criteria of a Government servant. Relying upon its earlier judgment in the case of Union of India v. M.A. Chowdhary the Court had held that Staff Artistes of All India Radio were holding civil posts under the Government, it held that there was no distinction between the Staff Artistes of All India Radio and those in the Doordarshan. Thus the Court declared these Staff Artistes of Doordarshan as Government Servants. The Court also concluded that they were performing the same duties as performed by their counter-parts in the Film Division and, therefore, they were entitled to the same scales of pay as their counter-parts in the Film Division.

3. After this judgment Government passed order dated 11.5.88 giving the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 to the Sound Recordists in Doordarshan.

4. One Shri A. Rajashekharan who was Senior Engineering Assistant in Doordarshan Kendra, Madras filed OA. 654/89 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench for revision of pay-scale of the post of Engineering Assistant from 425-700 to Rs. 550-900 w.e.f 1.1.78 the date from which the Supreme Court had allowed the revision of pay-scales of Sound Recordists in the aforesaid judgment. He further demanded that on that basis he should be allowed corresponding scale of Rs. 2000-3200 as per 4th Pay Commission's recommendations with effect from 1.1.86. He founded his case on the premise that Engineering Assistants and Sound Recordists in Doordarshan were in the same scale of Rs. 425-750 w.e.f 1.1.73 as per 3rd Pay Commission's recommendations but Sound Recordists in Films Division had been given higher scale of Rs. 550-900. This OA was allowed by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 29.6.90 with the direction to extend the benefit of the order dated 21.12.88 to Engineering Assistant. The Union of India filed SLP against the aforesaid judgment of Madras Bench which was dismissed on 17.1.91. Still dissatisfied, it filed Review Application which too met the same fate and was dismissed by order dated 16.7.1991. Thereafter the petitioners herein approached Madras Bench again and filed Review Application No. 4/92 seeking review of its judgment dated 29.6.90 in OA. 654/89 which was allowed by Madras Bench vide order dated 10.6.92. It was now the turn of Shri Rajashekharan to knock the Apex Court. He filed SLP (C) No. 4307-08/93 and No. 15205-07/92 against the orders of the Madras Bench dated 10.6.92. Supreme Court granted SLP and allowed the appeals vide order dated 25.11.94 thereby setting aside the order dated 10.6.92 of the Madras Bench. As a sequator, the earlier order dated 29.6.90 of the Madras Bench stood restored which had given the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 to the Engineering Assistants in Doordarshan Kendra, Madras from 1.1.78. Now the petitioners herein implemented Supreme Court Order dated 25.11.1984 by issuing OM dated 15.5.1995 revising the pay of Engineering Assistants to Rs. 550-900 from 1.1.78 and Rs. 2000-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.86. The respondents herein are also Engineering Assistants. However, even when such large number of Engineering Assistants like the respondents who had been working as such from dates much earlier than 1.1.78 were not given weightage of service already put in prior to 1.1.78. Irrespective of their dates of appointments their sale of Rs. 550-900 was started as on 1.1.78 without giving weightage of their earlier service rendered by them. These petitioners accordingly filed OA. 1486/98 seeking benefit of OA.654/89 decided by Madras Bench which was upheld by the Supreme Court, as noted above. The Tribunal has allowed this application directing the petitioners herein to give the benefit of earlier service as has been done in the case of Sound Recordists vide para-3 of the petitioners Circular dated 17.7.90 together with consequential benefits, including fitment in the revised pay scales consequent to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission as well as payment of arrears, which shall be limited to para 3 of the aforesaid circular dated 17.7.90. Against this impugned judgment dated 11.7.2001 present writ petition is preferred and the sole contention of the petitioners was that while allowing aforesaid directions the Tribunal ignored its own judgment i.e. of Principal Bench rendered in OA. 3/96 decided on 11.10.99.

5. OA.3/96 was filed by the Association of Radio and T.V. Engineering Employees (Recognised) which was registered association of Engineering Assistants, Senior engineering Assistants and assistant Engineers of Radio and Television Engineering Staff, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The grievance made in the said OA was identical to the present case, namely, the Association on behalf of its members had claimed weightage of service already put in by them prior to 1.1.78 which had not been taken into consideration for fixing the pay and giving annual increments for the said period while placing them in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 w.e.f. 1.1.78. This benefit of weightage was claimed on the basis of para 3 of OM dated 17.7.90 issued by the petitioners herein in respect of Cameramen and Sound Recordists. The Tribunal also noted the judgment of Madras Bench. In fact this judgment was referred to by the Government in its counter-affidavit on the basis of which it was submitted that the Engineering Assistants were also given the same benefit w.e.f. 1.1.78 as was given to Sound Recordists by the Supreme Court in Y.K. Mehta's case (supra). The Tribunal dealt with the judgment of the Madras Bench by observing as under:

"6. Perusal of the letter dated 23.5.95 (Annexure A-1) by which the pay scales of the members of the applicants association were revised in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 25.11.94 upholding the C.A.T., Madras Bench decision in OA-654/89 dated 29.6.90, indicates that the benefit of new pay scales have been granted to the engineering assistants w.e.f. 1.1.78 and 1.1.86. It is not in dispute that the Madras Bench of CAT granted the revised pay scale from the aforesaid dates. It has also been mentioned in this letter that the engineering assistants who held and are holding the grades during the respective period, are entitled to the benefit of scale of pay as a result of this revision and refixation from the aforesaid dates i.e. 1.1.78 and 1.1.86".

6. Although in para-7, the Tribunal noted that the applicants in para-4.19 of the said OA made vague averments it also noted that besides it had not been stated as to why such Engineering Assistants who are working prior to 1.1.78 are entitled for weightage of service when no such direction has been given either by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal or by the Supreme Court in their respective judgments. Further in para-9 the Tribunal concluded that there did not appear to be any reason to give the benefit of revised pay scales to such members prior to the aforesaid dates. (i.e. 1.1.78 and 1.1.86 on the basis of length of services rendered by them prior to the aforesaid dates). The categorical findings, therefore, of the Tribunal were that such benefit was not to be extended as it was neither given by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal or by the Supreme Court nor was their any reason to extend the benefit of weightage of service prior to 1.1.78.

7. May be the Tribunal mentioned in the opening portion of para-7 that averments made by the applicants in para 4.19 of the OA were vague. May be the Tribunal also in the last portion of para-9 of its judgment observed that if there was any mistake in fixation of their pay in terms of relevant rules in respect of any member of the association, such a person could approach the Tribunal with specific material and details for redressal of such grievance. However, this liberty was given only if there was any mistake in fixation of their pay in terms of relevant rules. Insofar as question of giving prior weightage of service prior to 1.1.78 is concerned, the Tribunal did not find any merit while deciding OM.3/96 by order dated 11.10.99 and, therefore, dismissed the said OA.

8. In the judgment which is impugned in this writ petition, the Tribunal has merely rested its decision on the order dated 29.6.1990 of the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal for giving the respondents herein the weightage of the service prior to 1.1.78 for fixing the pay in the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900, although in the earlier judgment of the same Bench it was held that the Madras Bench did not confer any such benefit, namely, weightage of past service.

9. It is now trite law that a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal cannot take a view contrary to a view expressed by earlier Bench. It is bound by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench rendered earlier. In case it differs from the decision of the earlier Bench, the only course open to it to is to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. This was not done. In fact there is no discussion even about the judgment dated 11.10.99 passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Principal Bench in OA.3/96. Significantly in the judgment dated 11.10.99 the earlier Bench took cognizance of the judgment of Madras Bench as upheld by the Supreme Court, but stated that apart from giving benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 w.e.f 1.1.78, no such weightage of service rendered prior to 1.1.78 was given by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal or the Supreme Court.

10. In view thereof, we have no option but to set-aside the impugned judgment and remit the case back to the Tribunal with direction to have fresh look into the matter keeping in view its earlier judgment in OA.3/96 dated 11.10.99 and in case there is still difference of opinion then to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for appropriate decision.

11. This writ is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no orders as to costs.