Saturday, October 15, 2011

OA NO.318/2009 --on --12- 03-2010





1. Sri G.Srinivasan,
S/o V.Gopal,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as PHO (mcm),
MES Staff No.198251,
Office of Garrison,
Engineers (AF),
Hebbal, Bangalore,
Residing at No.45,
Nagena Palya, M.S.Nagar Post,
Bangalore – 560 033.

2. Sri M.Anbazhagan,
S/o late Manickam,
Aged about 44 years,
Working as DES (mcm),
MES No.198245,
Office of Garrison
Engineers (M),
Hebbal, Bangalore-6.
Residing at No.1551/02,
6th Cross, Kanakanagar Layout,
Lingarajapuram Extension,
Bangalore – 560 084.

3. Sri L.Srinivasa,
S/o Laxmaiah,
Wireman (elect HS),
Aged about 47 years,
G E (AF), Hebbal,
MES No.198252,
While Field Post,
Bangalore – 560 066.

4. N.Ramesha,
Aged 43 years,
S/o late Narasimhaiah
MPA (FGM HS), MES No.198337.
GE (AF) Hebbal,
Bangalore 6
Residing at No.11/2,
Hosakerehalli Road,
Opp: Agromase Limited,
Ganapathi Nagar,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore 560 026.
- 2 -

5. N.Gopinath,
S/o late G.Narayanan,
Aged 46 years, MES No.198234,
Wireman (Elect HS),
GE (AF) Hebbal,
Bangalore 6
Residing at No.15,
E.No.5th Street,
Old Madras Road,
Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008.

6. C.Shankarappa,
Aged 48 years,
S/o late H.Channappa,
DES (MCM), MES No.198233,
GE (AF), Hebbal,
Bangalore – 6,
Residing at No.132/12.
III Floor,
MES Key Personal Quarters,
Command Hospital Air force,
Agaram Post,
Bangalore – 560 007.

7. R.Srinivasan,
Aged 43 years,
S/o late C.G.Raju Naidu,
MPA (MCM), MES No.198339,
GE (AF), Hebbal,
Bangalore 560 006,
Residing at No.132/2,
MES Quarters,
Command Hospital (AF)
Agaram Post,
Bangalore -560 007.

8. Fyrose Pasha
Aged 44 years,
S/o Abdul Basheer,
Electrician (HS),
Appointed as Lineman,
GE (AF) Hebbal HQTC
Bangalore 560006
MES No.198222,
Residing at No.131/3,
MES Quarters,
Command Hospital (Air Force),
Agaram Post,
Bangalore – 560 007 ...Applicants

(By Advocate Shri Vishnu Bhat)


- 3 -

1. Union of India,
Represented by its
Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
New Delhi – 110 011.

2. Chief of the Army Staff,
Army Headquarters,
New Delhi 1110 011.

3. Engineer in Chief,
Army Headquarters,
New Delhi 110 011.

4. Chief Engineer,
Southern Command,

5. Commander Works,
Engineer (AF) (North),

6. Chief Engineer(AF),
No.DG Area MES Road,
Bangalore – 560 022.

7. Garrison Engineer(Air Force),
Hebbal, Bangalore – 560 006. ...Respondents

(By Additional Central Government Standing Counsel Shri S.Prakash Shetty)



This application is filed under the Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. This case arises out of non-application of an appropriate pay scale of Rs.950-1500 per month to the 8 applicants from the date of their recruitment as professionals working with different designation as skilled workers.

2. Briefly the case is that the 8 applicants were selected and recruited as Electricians/MCM during the year 1987-88 as skilled workers. Even though they were to be fitted in the regular pay scale of Rs.950-1500, they were to
- 4 -
remain on probation for 2 years. During this time they were appointed to the pay scale of Rs.800-1150. Only on completion of the said probation period they were given the skilled grade of Rs.950-1500. It is further the case of the applicant that in other Defence Establishments, employees similarly placed are being straight away placed in the pay scale of rs.950-1500 on being appointed under skilled category.

3. It is further their case that many of their similarly affected colleagues approached C.A.T., Madras Bench under OA Nos.950/1995, 368/2001, 252/2001, 991/2002 while some more similarly affected colleagues approached the C.A.T., Bangalore Bench under OA Nos.111/1991, 663/1991, 50/92 and 80/92 all seeking the remedy that they should be put in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 right from their date of employment. The distinction between their services as probationers and their services as confirmed staff should be done away with. It is further the claim of the applicants that some of the earlier stated orders of the C.A.T., Bangalore Bench were brought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11486 and 11487 of 1996 and Hon'ble Apex Court inter alia directed the authorities to refix the original pay scales of these employees in accordance with law after examining their grievances. On such reexamination these specific people were all granted the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 with consequential benefits from the date of their appointment.

4. The learned Counsel for the applicants then went on to further point out that in the year 2002-2003 11 more persons similarly situated like the applicants represented to the respondents to grant the pay scales of Rs.950-1500 right from the date of appointment and failing to get the redressal from the respondents they approached this Tribunal in OA No.461/2005 in which this Tribunal order dated 20-12-2005 directed the respondents to consider their
- 5 -
representation in the light of the Rules and above quoted judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The said order in OA No.461/2005 has been complied with by Respondent-1 of the present case vide Annexure A9. Thereafter, more employees of Military Engineering Service working in different offices at Bangalore requested for similar benefits and on not getting any result, approached this Tribunal in OA No.77/2007 and some more in OA No.297/2007. Once again this Tribunal in their order dated 11-1-2008 and 1-8-2008 respectively directed the Respondent-1. Hence it is the case that the present OA be allowed.

5. In reply to the above, the learned Counsel for the respondents only submitted that as per the Engineer-in-Chief's Branch Integrated HQ of New Delhi letter No.9027089/EIC dated 11 Jan 1985 as amended vide their letter No.90270/MCM/EIC dated 21 Mar 1989, individuals who are directly recruited to skilled categories are to be given the semi-skilled category's pay scale of Rs.800-1150 and after two years on completion of their probationary period they are to be brought out to the skilled pay scale of Rs.950-1500. He further pointed out that there was no discrimination in fixation of pay in respect of the applicants since the applicants are provisionally placed in the scale of Rs.800-1150 during the prescribed probationary period based on Govt. Order. Any review required in this regard shall be either through views of amendment of Govt. Orders o by compliance of court verdicts. In this case none of the option are available and hence the applicant pay fixation initially granted can not be reviewed. The learned counsel for the respondents claim that the orders earlier passed by this Tribunal in other applications were relevant and applicable only to those applications and cannot be made applicable to the present case. But he did not elaborate exactly how the two sets of cases differed.

- 6 -
6. On hearing both the learned Counsel and after going through the records of this Tribunal in earlier OAs, we have no doubt that the application stands. The respondents are directed that the 8 applicants asking to extend them the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 per month from the date of their initial appointment and consequential benefits be granted. We are of the view that the present 8 applicants are entitled for extending these benefits which were also granted in OA No.77/2007 and OA No.297/2007. We direct the respondents to settle their claims within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, on considering the outcome of 4 applications filed with C.A.T., Madras Bench during 1995 to 2002, 4 applications filed with C.A.T., Bangalore Bench during 1991-92, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11486 and 11487/1996, and the 3 orders passed by C.A.T., Bangalore during 2005 to 2008 we cannot but opine that Respondents-1-4 will be well advised to have a thorough look at the Rules followed in their different establishments regarding making a distinction of pay scales during the period of probation and during the subsequent period. We direct that Respondents-1-4 should specifically review the position obtaining from the letter of Engineer-in-Chief Branch integrated HQ at New Delhi letter No.9027089/EIC dated 11-1-1985 as amended vide their letter dated 21-3-1989 and carry out the necessary corrections in view of the Hon'ble Supreme court. We direct Respondents-1-4 to complete these exercises within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order and report this Tribunal. We feel it necessary that they undertake these exercises so that more such similarly placed employees are not required to seeks redressal on an individual basis thus expending their own time and the time of several concerned parties. Their administrative action should be reported by Respondents 4 and 5 to this Tribunal within 3 months. OA is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.



No comments:

Post a Comment