Delhi High Court
Brahm Prakash vs Delhi Transport Corporation Thro ... on 26 August, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 26.08.2014
% W.P.(C) 5443/2014
BRAHM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through : Sh. Anil Mittal and Sh. Anuj Kumar
Ranjay, Advocates.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION THRO CHAIRMAN
..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Latika Chaudhury and Ms.
Gunjan Bansal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition to assail the order
dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/
Tribunal) in O.A. No.2737/2012. The Tribunal has dismissed the
application of the petitioner on the ground that the same suffers from laches
and limitation, and is also without any merit.
2. The claim made by the petitioner in his original application was
primarily to seek fixation of his pay in the same pay scale as payable to
Welder with effect from 01.10.1985, and for arrears of salary with interest.
W.P.(C.) No.5443/2014 Page 1 of 6
3. The petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Assistant
Welder in the pay scale of Rs.248-6-296-7-345 on 13.09.1985, and was
appointed to the said post on 01.10.1985 on temporary basis. He was
subsequently regularised on 03.10.1986.
4. The case of the petitioner was that certain persons had been appointed
as Welder in the year 1982-83, who had been placed in the pay scale of 380-
12-500-560, although they were not qualified from the ITI. His further case
was that from the very beginning he was assigned the duties of a Welder, as
there was no distinction between the duty of a Welder and an Assistant
Welder.
5. In 1991, when the recommendations of the 4th CPC were made
applicable to the respondent DTC, the petitioner was placed in the pay scale
of Rs.825-15-980-20-1200, which corresponded to the pre-revised pay scale
of Rs.225-308. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to be placed in
the pay scale corresponding to the revised pay scale of Rs.1400-2300, which
corresponded to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.380-12-500-15-560, (which
was being paid to the Welders). This was on the basis that the Welder and
Assistant Welder were doing the same job.
6. The petitioner preferred W.P.(C.) No.1953/2007 before this Court,
which was transferred to the Tribunal and registered as T.A. No.671/2009.
Vide order dated 13.11.2009, the said T.A. was disposed of by directing the
respondent to consider the case of the applicant for upgradation and revision
of pay scale in skilled category. Since the said order was not complied with,
the petitioner preferred C.P. No.600/2010. Along with its reply to the said
W.P.(C.) No.5443/2014 Page 2 of 6
contempt petition, the respondent filed an order dated 24.09.2010 before the
Tribunal holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay scale or
designation of a Welder. The said contempt petition was disposed of on
30.09.2010, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated
24.09.2010. In consequence thereof, the petitioner preferred O.A.
No.2737/2012.
7. The case of the petitioner was that he is a skilled worker being
qualified from ITI; he has been doing the same job as carried out by a
Welder; persons with lower qualifications were appointed as Welder and
granted pay scale higher than that of the applicant, and; he is entitled to the
same pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work. He contended
that he could not have been placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.825-1200,
which corresponded to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.225-308, when he
was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.248-345. This had resulted in reducing
his pay scale, which is impermissible in law.
8. The respondent opposed the petition by contending that prior to
24.01.1984, there was only one post of Welder in the pay scale of Rs.380-
560. On the said date, the Central Government introduced a three tier
system in repair and maintenance department of the DTC. Consequently,
the following categorisation of posts were laid down in a three tier system to
provide promotional avenues to all employees, taking into consideration the
policies framed by the government or department:
i) Grade I - Highly Skilled
ii) Grade II - Skilled
W.P.(C.) No.5443/2014 Page 3 of 6
iii) Grade III - Semi Skilled
9. As per the three tier system, an Assistant Welder is promoted to the
post of Welder on the basis of seniority cum fitness. The pay scale of these
categories were revised with effect from 01.06.1983, and Assistant Welders
were given the pay scale of Rs.225-308 in place of Rs.248-345.
10. Upon implementation of the 4th CPC, the Assistant Welders were
placed in the pay scale of Rs.825-1200 and Welder Grade II were placed in
the pay scale of Rs.975-1660. The respondent denied that the job of an
Assistant Welder and that of a Welder are the same.
11. The Tribunal raised the issue of limitation. The Tribunal held that
though the petitioner was granted the revised pay scale of Rs.825-1200 with
effect from 01.01.1986 on 03.04.1991, he raised the grievance about the
same for the first time by making a representation only on 31.01.2007. The
Tribunal relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in D.C.S. Negi v.
Union of India & Ors., SLP (CC) No.3709/2011 decided on 07.03.2011;
Union of India v. Ratan Chandra Sammanta, JT 1993 (3) SC 418; Union
of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59; State of Haryana & Ors. V.
Miss Ajay Walla, JT 1997 (6) SC 592, and; Harish Uppal v. Union of
India, JT 1994 (3) SC 126, and held that the cause of action had arisen when
the petitioner was allegedly granted a lower pay scale as Assistant Welder,
and that he had initiated action more than 21 years thereafter. The Tribunal
held that the cause of action had arisen some time in 1985 and 1991, but the
petitioner neither approached the respondent nor any other appropriate
forum, or the Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. The
W.P.(C.) No.5443/2014 Page 4 of 6
petitioner did not even explain the inordinate delay in filing the
representation, or the writ petition. The Tribunal also rejected the petitioners
contention that the limitation had started to run on 24.09.2010, when the
order rejecting the petitioners claim was passed by the respondent.
12. On merits, the Tribunal rejected the petitioners claim since his
appointment had been made after the introduction of the three tier system,
whereunder the post of Assistant Welder was assigned the pay scale of
Rs.248-345, and the post of Welder was a promotional post from the post of
Assistant Welder.
13. The claim for pay parity with that of the Welders was rejected by the
Tribunal by observing that the principle of equal pay for equal work was not
applicable. The Tribunal relied upon, in this regard, a decision of the
Supreme Court in S.C. Chandra &Ors. v. State of Jharkand, (2007) 8 SCC
279, wherein, it had been, inter alia, held that there should be wholesale and
complete identity in respect of the work between the two groups before the
said principle of equal pay for equal work could be invoked. The Tribunal
held that the petitioner had not produced any material to substantiate his plea
that the Assistant Welder and Welder performed the same duties and
functions, and discharged the same responsibilities.
14. The petitioner has once again sought to urge his claim for revision of
his pay scale to that admissible to Welder before this Court. However, even
before this Court, the petitioner has not been able to establish any legal basis
for his claim. Having accepted the appointment offered to the post of
Assistant Welder in the pay scale of Rs.248-345, the petitioner could not
W.P.(C.) No.5443/2014 Page 5 of 6
have subsequently, after more than 22 years of appointment, sought the
higher pay scale of Welder. The petitioner has claimed that he is a qualified
person from ITI and on that account he deserves to be fixed in the pay scale
as admissible to Welder. However, he has failed to point out any rule,
which states that the acquisition of the said qualification, per se, entitles the
employee to the pay scale of a Welder. Since the petitioner was appointed
as an Assistant Welder, he cannot claim the pay scale of a Welder - which is
a promotional post, merely on the ground that he had qualification even
higher than that prescribed for Welder.
15. Though the petitioner has sought to contend that he is doing the same
job as that done by a Welder, however, he has failed to establish on record
that the responsibilities assigned to a Welder and an Assistant Welder is the
same. He does not deny that the post of a Welder is a promotional post from
that of an Assistant Welder. The petitioner has also not explained the
inordinate delay in raising his grievance after nearly 27 years of his
appointment as an Assistant Welder in the pay scale granted to him.
16. For the above reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the order
of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
AUGUST 26, 2014
sr
