THE HONOURABLE MR v. The Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.7.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANW.P.No.19781 of 20021. The Indian Council of Medical Research, Rep. by its Director General, Ansari Nagar, P.B.No.4911, New Delhi-110 029.2. The Tuberculosis Research Centre, Rep. by its Director, Eipdemology Unit, Mayor V.R.Ramanathan Road, Chetput, Chennai-600 031. .. Petitionersvs.1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai-600 104.2. L.Ranganathan3. T.Krishnamoorthy .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, by calling for the recordsrelating to the order dated 23.11.2001 passed in O.A.No.320 of 1999 on thefile of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench (the firstrespondent herein) and to quash the same in so far as it related to thepayment of the arrears of revised scales of pay with effect from 11.9.1989to 31.3.1997 is concerned.For petitioners : Mr.M.T.Arunan, ACGSCFor respondent-2 & 3 : Mr.Karthick RajanORDER(The Order of the Court was made by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla,J)The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, dated 23.11.2001 passed in O.A.No.320 of 1999.2. The second and third respondents herein (the applicants before theTribunal) joined the services of the petitioners as Junior MachineOperators on 24.12.1981 and 11.1.1982 respectively. They claimed that as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 11.9.1989, they were performing the duties and responsibilities as DataProcessing staff. By relying upon the Office Memorandum of the Governmentof India dated 11.9.1989, introducing the pay scale for Electronic DataProcessing Posts, the second and third respondents claimed that they wereentitled to be re-designated as Data Processing Assistants Grade-B in thescale of pay of Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 11.9.1989 with allconsequential benefits such as arrears of pay, etc. They also prayed forsetting aside the orders issued by the petitioners herein dated 23.12.1998and 13.1.1999 respectively, in and by which the claim of the respondents 2and 3 for the above relief was rejected by the petitioners.3. Before the Tribunal, a reply affidavit was filed on behalf of thepetitioners herein, wherein the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated11.9.1989 by the Government of India was admitted. It was contended thatthe nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the respondents 2and 3 were different from the duties and responsibilities prescribed forthe post of Electronic Data Processing Section. It was therefore contendedthat the claim of the respondents 2 and 3 for the relief of re-designationas Data Processing Assistants Grade-B and the applicability of scale ofpay of Rs.2200-3200 with effect from 11.9.1989 was not maintainable.4. In the Original Application, the Tribunal was stated to havepassed two interim orders, dated 8.2.2001 and 11.7.2001. By the earlierinterim order dated 8.2.2001, the Tribunal called for a report from theNational Informatics Centre (for short, NIC), Planning Commission,Government of India, New Delhi, to consider the case of respondents 2 and3 separately and report as to how they should be graded. Based on the saidinterim order dated 8.2.2001, the NIC submitted its report dated10.5.2001. As the report submitted by the NIC did not comply with thedirections of the Tribunal dated 8.2.2001, the Tribunal, by way of anotherinterim order dated 10.7.2001, called for a further report from the NIC.The Tribunal, while calling for such a report, reiterated that the NICshould consider the responsibility entrusted to the applicants before theTribunal and whether they were discharging the same in the 'stricto-sensu'. Thereafter, the NIC submitted its subsequent report on 12.10.2001.In its report dated 12.10.2001, the NIC, after making a detailed study,came to the conclusion that both the respondents 2 and 3 should be treatedas Data Processing Staff and not Data Entry Staff and that they weredischarging their duties and responsibilities as Data Processing Staffwith effect from 11.9.1989. The said report was also accepted by theDirector General of NIC constituted for that purpose.5. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal discloses that afterreceipt of the reports, the Original Application was posted on 12.11.2001and at the instance of the petitioners, it was posted again on 19.11.2001.The Tribunal has recorded in its order as to what transpired on 19.11.2001in the following words:"3. The case was posted before us on 12.11.2001.On that day the learned counsel for the respondentssubmitted that he would submit his arguments after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ perusing the report of the NIC. Hence the matter wasadjourned to 19.11.2001. On that date the learnedcounsel for the respondents submitted that the reportsubmitted by the NIC being an expert opinion afterfollowing the procedure, he cannot have any seriousobjection and the respondents have no hesitation toaccept the same. We have also perused the report and wefind that the NIC had deputed three senior officers tothe institute wherein the applicants are working andthe committee had assessed the duties andresponsibilities entrusted to the applicants and howthey are discharging the same. Thereafter the committeecame to the conclusion that the applicants had to betreated as Data Processing Staff with effect from11.9.1989. Hence it is proper on our part to accept thesame especially when there is no material to come to adifferent conclusion." 6. It was on the above basis, the Tribunal ultimately passed ordersdeclaring that the respondents 2 and 3 herein, were working as DataProcessing Assistants Grade-B and that they are entitled to the pay scaleof Rs.2200-3200 with effect from 11.9.1989. After granting such adeclaration, the petitioners herein were directed to grant theconsequential benefits such as re-fixation of pay, etc. and also thearrears from 11.9.1989.7. While assailing the said order of the Tribunal in this WritPetition, the petitioners have confined their challenge only in respect ofthe direction for consequential payment in difference in pay for theperiod from 11.9.1989 to 31.3.1997. The said challenge is made on thefooting that the Office Memorandum of the Government of India dated11.9.1989 by itself would not apply to the petitioners herein and that asfar as the petitioners herein were concerned, they decided to give effectto the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 only from 1.4.1997 and therefore,the Tribunal ought not to have directed the payment of arrears with effectfrom the earlier date, namely 11.9.1989.8. When we consider the above said submission made on behalf of thepetitioners, we are not able to countenance the same for more than onereason. In the first place, we find that in the above referred toextracted paragraph of the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal,after the receipt of the report of the NIC dated 12.10.2001, the result ofthe report, namely that the respondents 2 and 3 herein were reallyperforming their duties as Data Processing Assistants Grade-B from11.9.1989, was tacitly admitted on behalf of the petitioners. When oncesuch an admission on behalf of the petitioners was made with their eyeswide open before the Tribunal, it is too late in the day for thepetitioners to now turn around and state that irrespective of suchcategoric admission, they can still contend that the relief should berestricted from a subsequent date and not from the date when the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government of India issued the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989.9. We we peruse the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989, we find thatin paragraphs 8 and 9, it was directed that the NIC, Ministry of Planning,could be asked to evolve a job assignment for different levels of DataEntry Operators and Programming Staff, which could be adopted by thedifferent Ministries/ Departments with suitable modifications, ifnecessary, to meet any particular requirements and that allMinistries/Departments were requested to initiate action on priority basisand results of review be reported to Implementation Cell, Department ofExpenditure. In paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989, itis specifically stated that all Ministries/Departments having ElectronicData Processing Posts under their administrative control, would review thedesignation, pay scales and recruitment qualification of their posts andrevise the same in consultation with their Financial Advisers to theextent necessary as per pay structure indicated in paragraph I of theOffice Memorandum dated 11.9.1989. It is further stated therein that iffound necessary, revision of pay scale of existing posts should be made.It is also stated therein that the revised pay scale should be operativefrom the date of issuance of the Notification by the concernedMinistry/Department. 10. It was unfortunate that irrespective of such categoricinstructions issued in the Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989, no stepswere taken by the petitioners herein for issuance of appropriateNotification nor made an analysis of the nature of work performed by therespondents 2 and 3 herein or any other personnel who were manning theData Processing post. It is only after the Original Application filedbefore the Tribunal, the Tribunal directed the NIC to make a study andsubmit a report as to the nature of job performed by the respondents 2 and3 in the petitioners' organisation. In such circumstances, when once theNIC who is the authorised body to make a study as to the nature of workperformed by the concerned staff and state as to whether such duties andresponsibilities performed by them was satisfactory enough to hold thatthey can be declared as having performed the nature of duties andresponsibilities of a Data Processing Staff in any particular category,and the said expert body, namely the NIC has submitted a report before theTribunal confirming that the respondents 2 and 3 herein did perform such ajob and the responsibility, befitting to the post of Data ProcessingAssistant Grade-B and that too with effect from 11.9.1989, there is noreason why the Tribunal should not have accepted the said report forgranting the relief as prayed for by the respondents 2 and 3. 11. Therefore, looked at from any angle, we are not able toappreciate the present contention of the petitioners that de-hors thereport of the NIC dated 12.10.2001, confirming the fact that therespondents 2 and 3 herein should be treated as Data Processing Staff andnot Data Entry Staff by virtue of the nature of duties andresponsibilities discharged by them, with effect from 11.9.1989, the sameshould not be granted and that such fixation should be granted only from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1.4.1997.12. Even in the Writ Petition, no document was placed to show thatthere was any study carried out by the petitioners nor was any specificOffice Memorandum issued based on any such study that the grant ofdeclaration of status of respondents 2 and 3 as Data ProcessingAssistants Grade-B was to take effect only from 1.4.1997 and that theirpay scale be fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-3200 only from that day,namely 1.4.1997.13. For all the above stated reasons, we do not find any merits inthis Writ Petition in order to interfere with the order impugned herein.The Writ Petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Inview of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioners herein aredirected to implement the impugned order of the Tribunal, dated23.11.2001, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.cssd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, P.B.No.4911, New Delhi-110 029.2. The Director, Tuberculosis Research Centre Eipdemology Unit, Mayor V.R.Ramanathan Road, Chetput, Chennai-600 031. 3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai-600 104.+ 1 cc to Mr.R.Parthiban Advocate SR.NO.46574+ 1 CC to MR.M.T.Arunan Advocare SR.NO.46368TM(co)RD 9.8.07W.P.No.19781 of 2002