Delhi High Court
Technical Executive Officers A vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 October, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.10.2018
+ W.P.(C) 12926-27/2006
TECHNICAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS A ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shanker Raju and Mr.Nilansh
Gaur, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kanish Rana for Mr.Anuj
Aggarwal, ASC for R-2 and R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL)
1. The petitioner association's grievance is that the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by its impugned order rejected the claim
made for parity of pay scales as between various cadres of the Motor
Vehicle Department in the NCT of Delhi (Motor Licensing Officers
(MLOs), Motor Vehicle Inspectors (MVIs), Road Safety Inspectors (RSIs)
and Driving Test Inspectors (DTIs). It was argued that the pay scales of
these cadres, were identical with those granted to public employees holding
similar or identical posts in the Motor Vehicle Department in other States
and Union Territories till the point of time after 01.01.1973 when the pay
scales were revised by virtue of the 3rd Pay Commission's recommendations.
The petitioner complains that the point of parity in respect of all these four
cadres, within the Union Territory of Delhi in its Motor Vehicle Department
is that all such officials are given remunerations in lower pay scales than
their counterparts in the rest of the country. It is contended that the work
performed by these employees in the concerned cadre in the Motor Vehicle
Department in Delhi is closely similar, if not entirely identical, with those
such counterparts in such other States and Union Territories. The petitioner
association relied upon a chart, which is produced along with the written
note/synopsis filed by the counsel. The tabular statements are reproduced as
below:
Registering/Licensing Authority (ARTO/MLO)
Group 'B' 2nd Pay 3rd Pay 4th Pay 5th Pay 6th Pay
Officers of Commission Commission Commission Commission Commission
states with
designation
Gujrat 350-575 650-1200 2200-4000 8000-13500 15600-39100
(ARTO) GP 5400
Tamil Nadu 350-575 650-1200 2200-4000 8000-13500 15600-39100
(ARTO) GP 5400
Maharashtra - 650-1200 2200-4000 7450-11500 15600-39100
(ARTO) upto GP 5400
30/11/2008
10000-15200
w.e.f.
1/12/2008
Orrisa 350-575 650-1200 2200-4000 8000-13500 15600-39100
(ARTO) GP 5400
Uttar 350-575 650-1200 2200-4000 8000-13500 15600-39100
Pradesh GP 5400
(ARTO)
Lakshdeep - - 2200-4000 10000-15200 15600-39100
(UT) GP 6600
Delhi 375-650 650-960 2000-3200 6500-10500 9300-34800
(MLO) GP 4600
MVI/HOI (Inspecting Authority)
nd
Group 'C' 2 Pay 3rd Pay 4th Pay 5th Pay 6th Pay
Inspectors Commission Commission Commission Commission Commission
of states
with
designation
Gujrat 325-475 550-900 2000-3200 6500-10500 9300-34800
GP 4600
Tamil Nadu 325-475 550-900 2000-3200 6500-10500 MVI Gr.-I
9300-34800
GP 5100
MVI 9300-
34800
GP 4600
Maharashtra 325-475 2000-3200 5500-9000 9300-34800
upto GP 4600
30/11/2008
7450-11050
w.e.f.
1/12/2008
Orrisa 325-475 550-900 2000-3200 6500-10500 9300-34800
GP 4600
Uttar 325-475 550-900 2000-3200 6500-10500 9300-34800
Pradesh GP 4600
Lakshdeep 550-750 2000-3500 6500-10500 9300-34800
(UT) GP 5400
Delhi 325-475 550-750 1600-2660 5000-8000 9300-34800
GP 4200
AMVI/DTI/RSI/DI (Inspecting Authority)
ND
Group 'C' 2 Pay 3rd 4th 5th 6th Pay
Asstt. Commission Commission Commission Commission Commission
Inspectors
of states
with
designation
Gujrat 270-435 425-600 1640-2900 5500-9000 9300-34800
GP 4200
Tamil Nadu 270-435 425-600 1640-2900 5500-9000 9300-34800
GP 4400
Maharashtra - - 1640-2900 5000-8000 9300-34800
Upto GP 4300
30/11/2008
5500-9000
w.e.f.
01/12/2008
Orissa 270-435 425-600 1640-2900 5500-9000 9300-34800
GP 4200
Utter 260-350 425-600 1640-2900 5500-9000 9300-34800
Pradesh GP 4200
Delhi DTI 205- 380-560 1320-2040 4000-6000 5200-20200
280 425-600 1350-2200 4500-7000 GP 2800
RSI 205- 425-700 1400-2300 4500-7000 5200-20200
280 GP 2800
DI - 5200-20200
GP 2800
Ministerial Staff (Non Technical)
Name of Post Pay Scale in Pay Scale in Pay Scale Pay scale in 6th
4th CPC 5th CPC upgraded CPC
(redesignated
Junior Accounts 1640-60- 5500-9000 6500-10500 9300-34800
Officer 2300-75- w.e.f. GP 4800
2900 08/10/2009 re-
designated as
AAO
Superintendent/Gr..I 1640-60- 6500-10500 8000-13500 on 15600-39100
(DASS) 2300-75- completion of 4 GP 5400 vide
2900 years of regular Service I Branch
service orders No.56
dated
03/02/2015.
Gr.II (DASS)/Head 1400-2300 5500-9000 Pay Scale 9300-34800 GP
Clerk 9300-34800 4600
GP 4200 notified/upgraded
vide Services I
Branch orders
No.57 dated
03/02/2015 w.e.f.
01/01/2006
UDC/Gr.III 330-560 4000-6000 5200-20200 9300-34800 GP
Stenographers GP 2400 4200
notified/upgraded
vide Services I
Branch orders
No.58 dated
03/02/2015 w.e.f.
22/06/2011.
2. The petitioner association had earlier approached the Tribunal
complaining that its representations were not considered. The earlier
application to the Tribunal (OA No.1529/2002) was disposed of with
directions to the respondent i.e. the Government of NCT of Delhi and also
the Central Government to consider the matter fully and indicate their
response. Pursuant to these directions on 30.04.2004 the Government of
NCT of Delhi rejected the claim for relief inter alia stating as follows:
7. Otherwise also, on comparison of the nature of duties
and jobs performed by RTOs/ARTOs/Inspectors
(Regional Transport Officer/Assistant Regional
Transport Officer/inspectors) with that of the
MLOs/MVIs/Inspectors etc. of the Transport Department,
GNCTD (i.e. members of the Association) it is observed
that the scope of the same is much wider in the case of
the former than in the latter. For instance, an RTO in
other States is called "Regional transport Officer' and the
functions he performs are as under:
i) Issuance of driving licenses and renewals thereof
ii) Registration of new vehicles and transfer of ownership
of vehicles
iii) Ensuring rules and regulations on roads.
iv) Maintenance of high-way-traffic
v) Enforcement of various provisions of Motor Vehicle
Act
vi) Conducting Public awareness programmes by way of
various campaigns and safety drives
vii) Preparation of Challans in respect of erring drivers
and vehicles
viii) Checks on over loaded vehicles
ix) Impounding of vehicles founding violating of rules
x) Issuance of permits to stage carriages, national
permits to commercial and tourist vehicles, issuance of
permits to Taxi/Autos etc.
xi) Inspection of Vehicles
8. Of course, in the discharge of above functions, he is
assisted by a couple of ARTOs and Inspectors, but,
nevertheless, he performs multifold functions, whereas a
'Motor Licensing Officer' (commonly called MLO) of the
Transport Department of GNCT of Delhi, performs only
limited functions, in as much as he is basically a
Licensing Officer, in the sense that he is responsible for
only in respect of the functions mentioned at Sr. No. (i) &
(ii) above. He is not at all responsible for maintenance
of highway-traffic or enforcement activities of various
other kinds. Even in the discharge of his limited
aforesaid functions, he is assisted by Motor Vehicle
Inspectors (MVIs /HQIs etc.). Moreover, activities of the
Transport Department; of Delhi are highly decentralized
in as much as whole of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi has been divided into 9 zones, (each headed by an
MLO) who is assisted by a couple of inspectors (MVI/
HQI etc.); besides, there is a separate full-fledged
Enforcement wing manned by Enforcement
Officers/Inspectors/Sub Inspectors/Asst. sub
Inspectors/Constable etc.; for pollution control, we have
Pollution control Officers/Pollution Level Test Inspectors
etc. As regards certification of fitness of commercial
vehicles, there is another Unit called Auto Rickshaw Unit
and Vehicle Inspection Unit at Burari. In other words
nature and scope of duties of MLOs/MVIs etc. of the
Transport Department of Delhi is much less in
comparison to that of RTOs/ ARTOs/Inspectors of other
States of the country.
9. It is also observed that the case of the petitioners had
been duly considered by the IV and V Central Pay
commission and Ministry of Finance of Govt. of India
and since no recommendations whatsoever had been
received by this department from the aforesaid higher
authorities, it is safely presumed by the department that
the case of the petitioners had been duly considered but
rejected.
10. In view of the above reasons viz. non
recommendation of higher pay scales to the members of
the Association by the Central pay Commission and the
difference in the scope and nature of their duties vis- a-
vis. those of their counter parts in other States, the
department is constrained to hold that there is no merit
in the representations dated 30.12.1996 and 30.4.2002
of the Technical Executive Officers' Association; the said
representations are, therefore, rejected.
11. Here it may not be out of place to mention that a
similar representation was received by the Department
from officers of its Enforcement Branch, also and the
same was forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India, who in turn after consultation with their
integrated Finance Division vide I.D. Note No. F.
4267/AS 8bFA (H) dated 27.2.2004 rejected the said
representation on consideration as above.
12. This issues with the prior approval of the
Commissioner-cum- Secretary (Transport), Govt. of NCT
of Delhi.
3. Mr. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the Tribunal
failed to address the relevant facts and relied upon the materials placed
before it - in the form of the tabular statements indicating the pay scales
granted to various cadres in the different States (Uttranchal, Gujarat, Utter
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu etc.). It is contended that the
petitioner association had relied upon the relevant material such as the
conditions of service, the nature of duties that had to be performed by the
members of the association, belonging to different cadres within the
Government of NCT of Delhi, the onerous nature of the responsibilities - for
which purpose reliance was placed upon certain statistics sourced under the
Right to Information Act. Learned counsel emphasized that the work
performed by the officials in these four cadres were compared favourably
with the work performed by their counterparts in other States. For this
purpose he again relied upon the replies furnished to the queries under the
RTI Act.
4. It was urged that the decisions of the Supreme Court have consistently
emphasized that equal pay for equal work is now a facet of non-
discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. Counsel stated that the
petitioner's members have been denied pay parity despite the increasing
volume of traffic and the increased workload, in Delhi. By way of
illustration, it was pointed out that the strength in the cadre of MLOs at the
relevant time in Delhi when the representations were made, were 14 as
against a heavy work load; whereby about 40 lakhs registrations/licences
were issued. It is submitted that according to the information available,
Delhi handles traffic volumes which are more than the sum total of what is
dealt with by all the other metropolises together. Counsel, therefore,
emphasized that non consideration of vital information by the CAT is
entirely erroneous and on a fair application of the principle of equal pay for
equal work and the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed i.e. the pay
parity with their counterparts w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
5. The respondents urged that the duties of the Motor Vehicle Officers in
the various cadres of other states and UTs are not similar to that performed
by officers in Delhi. It is argued in this regard that RTO and ARTO of
Transport Department of other States perform multifarious functions which
include issuance of driving licence, registration of new vehicles, transfer of
ownership ensuring compliance of rules and regulations on roads,
maintenance of highway traffic and conducting public awareness drive by
way of campaigns etc. On the other hand the employees in the Motor
Vehicles Departments in Delhi such as MLOs perform limited functions i.e.
confined to issuance of driving licence and registration of new vehicles.
Learned counsel highlighted that even in this limited function the MLOs are
assisted by MVIs, RSIs and DTIs in their work. Furthermore, the MLOs
may optionally be deployed for maintenance of highway traffic; however,
there is no compulsion for them to perform such duties ordinarily.
6. It is also stated that besides the work of the transport department
Delhi is decentralized and the NCT is divided into 13 Zonal offices, STA
Branches, Vehicle Inspection Unit etc. Furthermore, Delhi has a full-
fledged enforcement wing unlike other States where such duties are
combined in the office of the RTOs. As regards certification of fitness of
commercial vehicles, there is another Unit called Auto Rickshaw Unit and
Vehicle Inspection Unit. The work of issuance of Stage Carriage and
National Permits is dealt with by the State Transport Authorities. It was
thus urged that the parity or identity in nomenclature does not automatically
translate into parity in duties or the onerous of the functions actually
performed.
7. Section 213 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to the extent it is relevant
is extracted below:
213. Appointment of motor vehicles officers.--(1) The
State Government may, for the purposes of carrying into
effect the provisions of this Act, establish a Motor
Vehicles Department and appoint as officers thereof such
persons as it thinks fit.
(2) Every such officer shall be deemed to be a public
servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860).
(3) The State Government may make rules to regulate the
discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department
of their functions and in particular and without prejudice
to the generality of the foregoing power to prescribe the
uniform to be worn by them, the authorities to which they
shall be subordinate, the duties to be performed by them,
the powers (including the powers exercisable by police
officers under this Act) to be exercised by them, and the
conditions governing the exercise of such powers.
(4) The Central Government may, having regard to the
objects to the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette,
prescribe the minimum qualifications which the said
officers or any class thereof shall possess for being
appointed as such.
8. As is evident, the petitioners' request for pay parity was rejected by
the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), on the basis of material given
to it. The GNCTD concluded that there was no similarity in the
performance of duties. Mainly, the disparity noted was with respect to
multifariousness of tasks performed by the RTOs - as Motor Vehicle
Officers are described in the other States. Saliently the Government of
NCT of Delhi in the rejection letter of 30.04.2004 noticed that RTOs in
other States, (unlike MLOs in Delhi) not only issue driving licences and
register new vehicles, but also ensure compliance of rules and regulations on
road and are involved in the maintenance of highway traffic and
enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act and also conduct and carry out other
tasks such as conducting public awareness campaigns, preparing challans in
respect of erring drivers and checking overloaded vehicles and impounding
them and issue permits to stage carriages etc. On the other hand, the
employees and the officials of the NCT of Delhi do not perform such varied
and multiple tasks. Even with respect to the job of issuance of licence and
registration of new vehicles, the MLOs are assisted by subordinate staff.
Furthermore, the task of enforcement is largely performed by other agencies;
likewise the duties such as issuance of stage carriage permits etc. are entirely
different and performed by a separate unit.
9. The highlight of the Government of NCT of Delhi's decision,
therefore, appears to be that the multifariousness of the task or duties, which
fall to the RTOs (broadly equivalent to MLOs in Delhi) and the unity of
such responsibility in one office, is absent in Delhi. To this Court, this
aspect is of crucial importance. For a claim of pay parity to succeed, not
only the job description, but also qualifications, broad terms and conditions
and the nature of duties performed are to be similar if not entirely identical.
In this regard it is significant that even with regard to the prescription of
minimum qualification, with respect to the position of MLOs, the State is
empowered to frame the rules in the first instance; Section 213(4) of the
Motor Vehicle Act empowers the Central Government if it chooses to frame
such rules. Therefore, even with respect to the essential qualifications and
other terms, the pattern of employment in each State or Union Territory
appears to be different. The similarity or identity in nomenclature, or the
fact that the statutory post is mandated in the Central enactment per se,
therefore, cannot be translated into a legitimate and successful claim for pay
parity across the country.
10. What this Court is asked now to undertake is a complex task of
comparing not only the duties performed by the employees of the various
States vis-à-vis those performed by the MLOs and other cadres (who are
members of the petitioner association) but also to examine and compare the
recruitment rules, the cadre strength, the educational qualifications and other
terms and conditions - all of which are relevant for considering any claim
for pay parity. This complex task is not for the Court to perform in judicial
review. The Court cannot take upon itself a primary decision making task
which the Constitution enjoins it not to perform.
11. For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that there is no
merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
PRATEEK JALAN, J
OCTOBER 25, 2018
ndn
