Delhi High Court
Miss Vinod Khanna And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 February, 2019
$~1.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision:07.02.2019
% W.P.(C.) No. 8206/2018
MISS VINOD KHANNA AND ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Jaswinder Kaur, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mrs. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with
Mr. Tushar Mathur, Advs. for R-1 to
R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to assail the
order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi, (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2782/2016. The
Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application preferred by the
petitioners wherein the primary dispute raised by them was with regard to
their re-designation as, and the fixation of their pay scales as, Data Entry
Operators (DEO) Grade "B" with effect from 01.01.1986 in terms of O.M.
dated 11.09.1989.
2. We may observe that the petitioners have been re-designated as DEO
with effect from 11.09.1989, and the narrow dispute relates to the anti dating
of the re-designation and grant of pay scale to DEO from 01.01.1986.
3. The petitioners were working with the Central Water Commission
(CWC) as IBM Operators. With advancement of technology, the work that
the petitioners were earlier performing did not survive. Their nature of
responsibilities/ work changed, and the issue arose with regard to the re-
designation of all such employees as DEO.
4. The Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of
India issued an office memorandum on 11.09.1989 on the subject of
rationalization of pay scales of Electronic Data Processing posts. A perusal
of the said office memorandum shows that the Fourth Central Pay
Commission made recommendations suggesting that the Department of
Electronics should examine and suggest re-organization of existing
Electronic Data Processing posts, and prescribe uniform pay scales and
designations in consultation with the Department of Personnel.
5. Consequently, a committee was set up by the Department of
Electronics in November, 1986. After examining the recommendations
made by the said committee, the Government decided to introduce the pay
structure as contained in O.M. dated 11.09.1989. The said office
memorandum, inter alia, contained the following clauses:
"6. The pay structure given in para 1 above is applicable to
EDP posts as such and not to the cadres of Clerks, Telephone
Operator, Telegraphist, Office Assistant, Stenographers, etc., who
may be utilized partly or wholly for EDP work. Where there is a
doubt if any post falls in the category of EDP posts, references
may be made direct to National Information Centre (NIC),
Ministry of Planning, New Delhi, for clarification.
7. As regards, the recommendations of Committee for pay scale of
the post of System Analyst and above, it has been decided to leave
it to user Ministries/ Departments/ Organisations to determine
pay scales in consultation with Financial Advisor, keeping in
view level of posts, duties and responsibilities, recruitment
qualifications etc. relevant to the post." (emphasis supplied)
6. The CWC decided to re-designate the posts of IBM Operators as DEO
Grade ""B" with effect from 11.09.1989. It appears that some of the
employees of the CWC were aggrieved and preferred O.A. No. 560/1999
wherein they sought grant of EDP pay scales from 01.01.1986.
Consequently, an order was issued on 25.01.2001 re-designating those
applicants as DEO Grade "B" with effect from 01.01.1986. Pertinently, the
petitioners were not amongst those who were re-designated as DEO from
01.01.1986. Only in the year 2007, some of the petitioners sought to raise a
similar claim by preferring O.A. No. 2568/2008. After a couple of rounds,
they preferred the aforesaid Original Application in 2016 to press their
claim.
7. The Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application by observing
that the petitioners were not working as DEO prior to 11.09.1989. The
Tribunal also observes that the qualifications under the Recruitment Rules
for the post of IBM Operators and DEO are different and distinct.
8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioners are entitled to seek parity, firstly, with the other employees of
CWC, who were granted relief vide order dated 25.01.2001 passed by the
CWC, and also with other employees of the Government, who are
performing the same nature of duties and shouldering the same
responsibilities as the petitioners, and who have been granted re-designation
from 01.01.1986. In this regard, she places reliance on the decision of this
Court in W.P. (C.) No. 5296/2000, Udai Pal & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., decided
on 22.09.2011.
9. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the
respondent is that the office memorandum dated 11.09.1989 itself makes it
clear that it was left to the user Ministries/ Departments/ Organisations to
decide on the aspect of the pay scales in consultation with the Financial
Advisor, keeping in view level of posts, duties and responsibilities,
recruitment qualifications etc. relevant to the post.
10. So far as the CWC is concerned, it has taken its decision to grant the
re-designation to the petitioners as DEO Grade "B" with effect from
11.09.1989.
11. He points out that so far as the decision of this Court in Udai Pal
(supra) is concerned, the same was premised on the recommendations made
by the 4th Central Pay Commission, which have expressly been set out in the
said decision. However, no such recommendation was made by the 4 th
Central Pay Commission in respect of autonomous organizations such as the
CWC.
12. Having heard learned counsels and perused the record, we find no
merit in the present petition. The CWC is an autonomous body and, thus, it
was for the CWC to determine as to how the recommendations of the
Committee referred to in the office memorandum dated 11.09.1989 were to
be implemented. It was for the CWC to determine whether to implement the
said recommendations; the class of employees in respect of whom and the
manner in which the recommendations were to be implemented and; the date
from which the same were to be implemented. It goes without saying that
such decisions have significant financial ramifications and this explains why
the OM dated 11.09.1989 left the decision to be taken by the user Ministries/
Departments/ Organisations in consultation with the financial advisor.
13. Merely because the recommendations may have been implemented
from 01.01.1986 in respect of railway employees, is no ground to implement
the same with effect from 01.01.1986 in respect of the petitioners. The
petitioner constituted a separate class, and cannot be placed in the same class
as the Railways. Moreover, in respect of the Railways, a specific
recommendation was made in the 4th Central Pay Commission.
Undisputedly, that cannot be said about the CWC. So far as the office order
dated 25.01.2001 issued by the CWC is concerned, it is evident that the
same was issue in compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.
No. 560/1999 on 17.05.2000. The petitioners were not parties in those
proceedings and they sought to raise their claim for anti dating their re-
designation from 01.01.1986 about 17 years later.
14. The cause of action arose in favour of the petitioners in 1989 when
they should have agitated their grievance. Thus, on merits as well as on
account of bar of limitation, we are of the view that the petitioners are not
entitled to any relief.
15. Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
FEBRUARY 07, 2019
N.Khanna
