Namrata Singh & Ors. vs All India Institute Of Medical ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 560 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Judgment Reserved on : February 01, 2013
                             Judgment Pronounced on: February 06, 2013

+                 W.P.(C) 8347/2011

      NAMRATA SINGH & ORS.                       ..... Petitioner
             Represented by: Mr.Sanjiv Bahl, Advocate with
             Mr.Vikrant Arora, Mr.Eklavya Bahl, Advocates.

                        versus

      ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
      SCIENCES & ORS.                              ..... Respondents
               Represented by: Ms.Sneha Singh, Advocate for R-1.
               Mr.Kailash Golani, Advocate for R-2 & R-3.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The writ petitioners, 14 in number, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1903/2010 praying that All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) be directed to pay salary to them in pay scales equivalent to those of Dieticians and Senior Dieticians working under the Central Government as per the pay scales recommended by the 4th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. January 01, 1996.

2. Some applicants before the Tribunal who are writ petitioners before us were working as Assistant Dieticians and some as Dieticians with AIIMS and suffice would it be to state that Asstt.Dieticians were claiming

entitlement to receive pay in the scale in which Central Government was placing Dieticians, and the Dieticians working in AIIMS were claiming equivalent scales in which Senior Dieticians were being placed by the Central Government.

3. The basis of the claim was that whereas Asstt.Dieticians recruited by AIIMS required same Educational Qualifications as also experience as was required for appointment as Dietician under the Central Government where the post of Asstt.Dietician does not exist. Alleging further that the nature of work performed was similar, claim was predicated on equivalence between the post of Asstt.Dietician under AIIMS and that of Dietician under the Central Government. Equivalence between Dietician working under AIIMS and Senior Dietician under the Central Government was claimed on the principle of parity being Asstt.Dieticians being promoted as Dieticians in AIIMS and Dietician appointed under Central Government being promoted as Senior Dieticians, each having three years regular service in the feeder cadre.

4. Vide impugned order dated March 24, 2011 the Tribunal has declined to grant relief holding that the claim made in the year 2010 would be barred by limitation, and for which we may note that though not recorded by the Tribunal, w.e.f. January 01, 2006 the entire field has changed inasmuch as the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations were implemented from the said date with large scale cadre restructuring and merger of pay scales into pay bands with differential grade pays. Thus, we would have appreciated pleadings with reference to the rules of the game and the play field with reference to what existed post January 01, 2006 and indeed with respect to a claim before the judicial fora made in the year 2010 it would be impressible

to grant back wages on the differential of pay scales for a period preceding three years reckoned backwards because this would be the limitation period to institute a suit.

5. We thus make a caveat: if the writ petitioners could make out a case with respect to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission before the Tribunal the issue could be revisited by the Tribunal in the context of the fact that on an entirely cause of action a claim was being made for the first time.

6. Thus, the reason of the Tribunal to hold that the instant claim was hit by limitation is prima facie correct.

7. The Tribunal has also held against the writ petitioners on merits and thus in the context of the recommendations of the Pay Commissions recommendations w.e.f. January 01, 1996, we have to consider whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct.

8. The Tribunal has opined that issues of equivalence have to be determined on various parameters and not as a mechanist. The Tribunal has noted that the lowest post in the cadre of Dieticians under AIIMS was that of an Asstt.Dietician and the higher posts in the ladder were that of > Dietician > Sr.Dietician > Chief Dietician and that under the Central Government the lowest entry level post was that of Dietician > Sr.Dietician > Chief Dietician. Thus, the Tribunal has concluded that if claim was allowed it would amount to jumping the ladder.

9. The Tribunal has noted, and in our opinion correctly, the law declared by the Supreme Court in the opinion reported as (2006) 9 SCC 321 State of Haryana & Ors. v. Charanjeet Singh & Ors. followed with approval in the opinion reported as (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 696 State of Punjab & Anr. v.

Surjeet Singh & Anr..State of Punjab & Anr. v. Surjeet Singh & An. The Tribunal has corrected spotted a subtle shift in the principle of law applicable which hithertofore was 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' to 'Equal Pay for Equal Work of Equal Value'. The later view brings out with clarity the hithertofore distinct additional factor to be factored in the decision making i.e. not only the quantitative but even the qualitative nature of the work.

10. For academic purposes we may record that the chain of decisions pronounced by the Supreme Court when equivalence in pay scales were sought by Assistants and Stenographers working under the subordinate offices of the Central Government with Assistants and Stenographers working in the Central Secretariats of the various Ministries under the Government of India, the Supreme Court declined relief noting that the qualitative work in the context of levels of secrecy to be maintained at the Central Secretariat being non-existent in the subordinate offices under the Central Government, this itself was a good ground to deny parity. The first decision on the point is the one reported as AIR 1988 SC 1291 Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.

11. Whereas AIIMS is a statutory body without any transfer liability of the employees, the health department of the Central Government has Hospitals all over the country with transfer liability. The petitioners have not challenged the different level at which the hierarchical structure commences in the cadre of Dieticians under AIIMS and the Central Government and thus we can presume that there are good reasons for AIIMS to commence the cadre posts at a level one notch below from where the cadre posts

commences under the Central Government. There has to be a presumption of validity in a government decision and the one who challenges the same has to lay the foundation.

12. Thus, with reference to the existing pleadings we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal and thus would commend ourselves to dismiss the writ petition but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 06, 2013 skb