Union of India v. K.M.Abdul Khader & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02. 04.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.No.32730/2003 & WPMP.No.39658/2003Union of India rep.by1. The chief Post Master General Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai 600 002.2. The Post Master General Western Region, Comibatore.3.The Superintendent of Post Offices Tirupur Division, Tirupur 638 602. .. Petitioners-Vs.-1.K.M.Abdul Khader2.The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench. .. RespondentsPRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for theconnected records relating to the order of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench passed in O.A.No.639/2002dated 10.06.2003 and quash the same.For Petitioners : Mr.O.V.Krishnan, ACGSCFor Respondent 1 : Ms.Sumathi for Ms.Anna Mathew2nd Respondent : Tribunal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RK.CHANDRU, J.The Union of India represented by the Chief PostmasterGeneral, together with two subordinate officers have filed thepresent writ petition challenging the order of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal [For short "Tribunal"] in allowingO.A.No.636/2002 filed by the first respondent by order dated10.06.2003.2.The first respondent joined as a Postman in the year 1973and he got retired on reaching the age of superannuation on31.07.1994 as a Sub Postmaster. It was his grievance that he wasnot given the revision of pay scale in respect of certain cadreswhich was made with effect from 10.01.1975. He made arepresentation and the same was rejected by an order date11.02.2000. Therefore, he wanted to set aside the order dated11.02.2000 and for a consequential direction to refix his pay inthe cadre of Mail Overseer in the pre-revised scale of Rs.260-350with effect from 01.01.1975 and consequently fix the pay in thecadre of postal clerk till his retirement. 3.The petitioners disputed the claim of the firstrespondent by stating that in certain categories of position,revision were made only with effect from 01.01.1978 and the newscale of Rs.260-350 which was in the earlier scale of Rs.225-350/225-380 were revised. But this revision was made only witheffect from 01.01.1978 along with the five categories of otherstaffs who were also given the benefit of revised pay scale onlyfrom 01.01.1975 instead of 01.01.1978 based on the Board ofArbitration. That order came to be issued in the year 1983. Onthe basis of this, on a reconsideration of the of the entirematter order was issued in the year 1988 extending the revised payscales to all the eleven categories of staffs with effect from01.01.1975. 4.While introducing retrospectivity certain conditions werealso made and the first respondent was not coming within thestipulated condition. Therefore, the revision was not extended tothe revision made for Mail Overseer with effect from 01.01.1975.It was also stated that the first respondent had moved theTribunal earlier in OA.No.766 of 1986. The same was disposed ofwith a direction to consider his case of stepping up his pay. Thefirst respondent's contention was that in all the elevencategories of staffs, the postman grade is the feeder category andtherefore, there is no reason to make any distinction amongstthem. The Tribunal accepted the case of the first respondent and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the first respondent was working as a Mail Overseer rightfrom the year 1973. Thus on the eligibility criteria he wasentitled to get revised scale of pay. The question ofconditionality attached to the pay revision, the Tribunal heldthat such a condition was not feasible. 5.It was stated by the Government for stepping of pay thatboth senior and junior should belong to the same cadre and thejunior should belong to the categories mentioned in Serial No.3 to11 and the junior should belong to categories mentioned in SerialNo.1 and 2. The Tribunal pointed out that it is an anomaly andit was very artificial to introduce such a revision and that onthe basis on the equal pay for equal work this anomaly should beremoved. It was also held that Sorting Postman, Head Postman andOverseer Postman are all performing the same duties and there wasno reason for the Government not to apply the same logic inrespect of Mail Overseer. On the question of his earlier OriginalApplication, the Tribunal held that there was a new cause ofaction had arisen for him to come to the Tribunal.6.We have heard the arguments of Mr.o.V.Krishnan, learnedcounsel for the petitioners and Ms.Sumathi, learned counsel forthe respondents.7.The contesting respondent had also filed a counteraffidavit justifying the order of the Tribunal. Mr.Krishnanlearned counsel submitted that the order of the Tribunal has addeda new rider created in favour of the first respondent and theTribunal's order was based upon some illogical conclusion. Healso submitted that the distinction was based upon thedepartmental conditions and that the cadre of Mail Overseers wasnot included in the revision of pay scale with effect from01.01.1975. It was pointed out that the fixation of revised payscale was available only to five posts and the Mail Overseer postis not covered and that there were anomalies in the categories ofSorting Postman and Head Mailguard and the remaining categorieswere included and only when the department found in respect of thefirst respondent that his junior I.Thangaraj was drawing a scaleabove the first respondent, a stepping up was done under FR 27that too only with effect from 01.08.1978. 8.Ms.Sumathi, learned counsel for the respondents reliedupon the following two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in1991 Suppl. [2] SCC 565 [The Employees of Tannery and FootwearCorporation of India Ltd. And another V. Union of India andothers] and 1995 Suppl. [3] SCC 528 [Union of India and others V.Debashiskar and others]. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.The first decision relates to two Government Companiesbeing directed to make parity in the scale of pay on the basisthat they were Government owned companies and there should not beany anomaly between the two companies especially when they hadadopted the earlier Pay Commission scales. The second judgmentrelates to the parity of pay scale of the Draughtsmen employed inArmy base Workshop and Draughtsmen in CPWD. In that case, theTribunal found the qualification for appointment of suchDraughtsmen in the Army as well as Draughtsmen Grade II in CPWDwere equivalent and the former was entitled to pay parity. Inthis case the Tribunal never undertook any such exercise and theTribunal by adopting its own logic cannot direct any revision ofpay scale that too, with retrospective effect. In the presentcase, the petitioners have taken a definite stand that the MailOverseers were not included in the original revision and they werealso not a party to Board of Arbitration. Further, when suchanomalies were found in other categories, they were included andthe case of the first respondent was dealt separately and only astepping up was done in his case that too, with a limitedretrospectivity.10.We find that the approach of the Tribunal in granting apositive direction to the department by granting revision of payfrom an earlier date was not supported by any concrete facts, butbased on logic. Such a move is improper and not borne out by thepower of judicial review vested with the Tribunal for grantingsuch direction. Under these circumstances, the writ petitionstands allowed and the order of the Tribunal will stand set aside.However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequentlyconnected miscellaneous petition is closed.ApSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe RegistrarCentral Administrative TribunalMadras Bench, Madras.DM(CO)GKG/11.3.2008 order inW.P.No.32730/2003