Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 911 (MP)

Pranay Singh Solanki v. Union of India

2016-10-06

S.C.SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : Mr. S.C. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioners before this Court are the employees of Bank Note Press, Dewas, which is owned and controlled by the Government of India, in fact, it is an Institution under the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd., 2. The petitioners No.1 to 6 were appointed on the post of Junior Machine Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.5200 - 20200 + Grade Pay Rs.1900 and petitioners No. 7 to 10 were appointed on the post of Senior Machine Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.5200 - 20200 + Grade Pay Rs. 2400/-. They have been confirmed on their respective posts by order dated 11/2/2014. The petitioners No.1 to 6 have been further promoted to the post of Senior Machine Assistant in the regular pay scale of Rs. 5200 - 20200 + Grade Pay 2400. Their promotion orders are also on record. 3. Petitioners' grievance is that certain persons who are appointed on the post of Mazdoor and later on promoted as cook and further promoted to the post of Junior and Senior Machine Assistants without holding qualification of the post, have been granted higher pay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated before this Court that to the extent their promotions are concerned, even though they do not hold the qualification for the post of Junior and Senior Machine Assistant, the petitioners are not challenging their promotion orders, however, they are aggrieved by grant of higher pay scale to the persons who were working as Mazdoor and later on promoted as cook and further promoted to the post of Junior and Senior Machine Assistants. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has straightway drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 2/5/2014 which provides for grant of higher grade pay to senior and junior machine assistants to the tune of Rs.2800/- and Rs.2400/-, respectively. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has straightway drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 2/5/2014 which provides for grant of higher grade pay to senior and junior machine assistants to the tune of Rs.2800/- and Rs.2400/-, respectively. However, there is a rider to the aforesaid grant and paragraph 3 of the same order provides that the benefit of higher grade pay will be given only to those employees who were in service employees, meaning thereby, who were initially appointed in Bank Note Press, Dewas prior to formation of the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd., His contention is that the Grade Pay is attached to a post and once a decision has been taken to grant grade pay to a particular post, it has to be the same for all the employees working in an organisation. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued before this Court that the aforesaid document dated 2/5/2014 has rightly been issued by the Bank Note Press, Dewas. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Mazdoors were promoted to the post of Cook and later on promoted to the post of Junior Assistant and Senior Machine Assistant even though there were not having qualification for the post in question. It has been stated that in order to grant benefit of higher pay scale to the employees working in Bank Note Press, Dewas who were employees of Bank Note Press, Dewas since inception have been granted benefit of higher grade pay in order to resolve the anomaly of grade pay on account of recommendations of 5th Pay Commission. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued before this Court that the petitioners and the employees who were initially appointed under the Bank Note Press, Dewas formed two classes of employees and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioners can claim parity with those employees who were continuing in Bank Note Press, Dewas prior to establishment of the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd., Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. In the present case, the undisputed facts reveal that the petitioners No.1 to 6 were appointed as Junior Machine Assistant with a fixed grade pay of Rs.1900/-. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. In the present case, the undisputed facts reveal that the petitioners No.1 to 6 were appointed as Junior Machine Assistant with a fixed grade pay of Rs.1900/-. They were appointed in the year 2008. Petitioner Nos. 7 to 10 were appointed as Senior Machine Assistants and they were granted grade pay of Rs.2400/-. All of them were confirmed later on. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 were later on promoted to the post of Senior Machine Assistant in the regular pay scale of Rs.5200 - 20200 + Grade Pay Rs.2400/-. The dispute arose only on account of issuance of memorandum dated 2/5/2014. The same reads as under : Bank Note Press, Dewas, Office Order date 02.05.2014 Based on the recommendation of Unit Level Committee, I am directed to convey the approval of Competent Authority for implementing the Resolution of Anomalies as per the Minutes of Understanding dated 27.2.2013 of V CPC. Read with Clause No. 25 of memorandum of Settlement dated 15.9.2008 and in compliance of SPMCIL's Letter No. CHO(HR)/8/24/2012/6706 dated 27.12.2013 in respect of the employees of Printing in Bank Note Press Dewas as per the details given below.Section Printing S. No. Existing Designation Pre-Revised Pay Scale Existing Pay band and Grade Pay In Service employees as on 23.12.13 Pay scale w.e.f. 01.11.2008 Grade Pay w.e.f. 01.11.2008 IV CPC V CPC VI CPC. 1 Retoucher 1400-2300 5000-150-8000 PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 4200 0 Rs.9300-34800 4200 2 Sr. Operator 1400-2300 5000-150-8000 PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 4200 36 Rs.9300-34800 4200 3 Jr. Operator 1350-2200 4500-125-7000 PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 2800 42 Rs.9300-34800 4200 4 Sr. Machine Assistant 1320-2040 4000-1000- 6000 PB-1 Rs.5200- 202000 2400 58 Rs.5200- 20200 2800 5 Jr. Machine Assistant 950-1500 3050-75- 3950-80-4950 PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 1900 1 Rs.5200- 20200 2400 6 Bindary and printing Assistant 825-1200 2750-70- 3800-75-4400 PB-2 Rs.5200-20200 1800 0 Rs.5200- 20200 1900 7 Attendant (P and P) 800-1150 2650-65- 3300-70-4000 PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 1800 9 Rs.5200-20200 1800 8 Mazdoor (Printing) 750-940 2550-55- 2660-60-3200 PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 1800 9 Rs. 5200- 20200 1800 146 1. The Employees holding substantive Gr. Pay Rs.1900/- after 1.11.2008 and who have completed 20 years of service in the Unit may be given Grade Pay Rs.2000/-. 2. The benefit of enhanced Grade Pay is effective from 1.11.2008. 5200- 20200 1800 146 1. The Employees holding substantive Gr. Pay Rs.1900/- after 1.11.2008 and who have completed 20 years of service in the Unit may be given Grade Pay Rs.2000/-. 2. The benefit of enhanced Grade Pay is effective from 1.11.2008. It may also be extended to the employees subsequently promoted after 1.11.2008 to a similar post till the date of notification i.e., 23.12.2013 issued by the SPMCIL for rationalization of Cadre. However, MACP cases which have already been decided and settled earlier shall not be reopened. 3. Pay fixation shall be done only in r/o in service employees as on 23.12.2013 as per rule w.e.f. 1.11.2008 and arrears paid thereof in case of promotions earned after 01.11.2008 the pay fixation and arrears thereof shall be payable from the date of Promotion. 4. The employees in the existing Grade pay of Rs.1800/- who were holding the erstwhile pay scale of Rs.825-1200 in the IV CPC. will be upgraded to the Grade pay of Rs.1900/- irrespective of the stretch as on 23.12.2013 where ever applicable. Asstt. Manager (HR) 9. Clause 3 provides that only in respect of in service employees, they will be receiving grade pay for the post of Senior Machine Assistant @ Rs.2800/- and for Junior Machine Assistant @ Rs.2400/- w.e.f. 1/11/2008. An attempt has been made before this Court to justify two types of grade pay to a particular post. 10. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties is of the opinion that once it has been admitted in the return that the employees whether they were appointed by the Bank Note Press, Dewas or whether they were appointed by the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd., are performing the same job and they are having the same duties and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination for a particular post there can be two pay scales and two grade pays. Not only this, the petitioners stand on better footing. They are holding qualifications for the post of Senior and Junior Machine Assistants. Their appointments and promotion is in consonance with the recruitment Rules, they are admittedly senior to other employees in the cadre, who were working on the post of Mazdoor, Cook etc., and only on account of length of service, they have been granted designation of senior and junior machine assistant. Their appointments and promotion is in consonance with the recruitment Rules, they are admittedly senior to other employees in the cadre, who were working on the post of Mazdoor, Cook etc., and only on account of length of service, they have been granted designation of senior and junior machine assistant. The net result is that the petitioners who have been appointed on the post of Junior Machine Assistant were given grade pay of Rs.1900 whereas the persons who does not hold a qualification and who have reached the level of Junior Machine Assistant from the post of Mazdoor and cook are being granted grade pay of Rs.2400/-. Persons who does not have qualification were getting grade pay of Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 1/11/2008, the action of the respondent is certainly contrary to the recruitment Rules. No statutory provision of law has been brought to the notice of this Court which provides for grant of lesser pay to a person who holds the qualification and who has been appointed through a process of selection. Clause 3 of order dated 2/5/2014 is not only discriminatory and arbitrary, but it has created an unreasonable classification and it is a class legislation which is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. A similar problem arose in respect of grant of pay scale to the employees of the State of Madhya Pradesh and a classification was made by the State Government in respect of the employees appointed through M. P. Public Service Commission and employees who were promoted to a particular post by clearing departmental examination / on the basis of recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee. The Division Bench of this Court, presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, the then Chief Justice, in the case of Jugal Kishore Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2015 (2) MPHT 152 (D.B.) in paragraphs 6 to 9 has held as under : 6. In view of these findings, the persons like petitioners cannot be discriminated in the matter of grant of revised pay scale (Rs.2200-4000/-) merely on the basis of their sources of recruitment, specially when they were also discharging the similar duties as were assigned to those who were appointed on direct recruitment basis. 7. In view of these findings, the persons like petitioners cannot be discriminated in the matter of grant of revised pay scale (Rs.2200-4000/-) merely on the basis of their sources of recruitment, specially when they were also discharging the similar duties as were assigned to those who were appointed on direct recruitment basis. 7. In fact the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, is not in appropriate manner as Schedule-I of the Rules of 1988 is called in question in this writ petition, saying it to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Inasmuch as, prescription of pay scale to the post as indicated in Item No.5, 6 and 7 of the said Schedule, is alleged. On an examination it is found that only the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1820-3300/- is mentioned against the pay scale prescribed in the aforesaid post shown in Item No.5,6 and 7 of Schedule-I of the Rules, therefore, the same cannot be said to be discriminatory in any manner as the similar pay scale is given to the other post as well. However, it is seen that while making the rules for revision of pay after accepting the recommendations of the Pay Commission, in the year 1990 the Schedules are appended to the Rules called M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 1990. In Schedule-I though the revised pay scale for the pay scale of Rs.1820-3300 is shown to be Rs.2000-3500/- but in Schedule II for Class II gazetted post while stating the very same pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1820-3300/-, a higher revised pay scale of Rs.2200- 4000/- is prescribed with a condition that the same would be applicable to the post on which the recruitment is made 100% or partially by direct recruitment through the Public Service Commission. According to the law laid-down by the Tribunal, duly approved by this Court as also by the Apex Court, such a prescription is arbitrary. For, the source of recruitment cannot be made the basis for grant of different pay scales. Therefore, in our considered opinion, only the said note and the condition appended to the Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 has to be declared as ultra vires and opposed to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We accordingly declare so. 8. As a result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Therefore, in our considered opinion, only the said note and the condition appended to the Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 has to be declared as ultra vires and opposed to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We accordingly declare so. 8. As a result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The condition prescribed in the Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 as against Item No.7 of Schedule-II is declared as ultra vires and is struck down. As a consequence, the petitioners would also be entitled to grant of the revised pay scale of Rs.2200- 4000/- and any further revised pay scale according to such revision, irrespective of the fact whether they were directly recruited or promoted on the post on which the said revised pay scale was made applicable by the State Government. 9. Let the benefit accrued on account of such entitlement be calculated and the pay be revised accordingly and arrears be paid to the petitioners within three months from today, failing which the petitioners will be entitled to interest @12% p.a. for the delayed payment thereafter. 12. This Court, in the light of the aforesaid, is of the opinion that Clause 3 of order dated 2/5/2014 is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the of the Constitution of India. It is accordingly quashed. The petitioners to the extent of junior machine assistant is concerned, will be entitled for a grade pay of Rs.2400/- w.e.f. 01/11/2008. So far as the post of senior machine assistant is concerned, they will be entitled for grade pay of Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 01/11/2008. There cannot be any discrimination between the identically placed employees holding the same post in the matter of grant of grade pay. 13. The respondents are directed to revise pay of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid and the petitioners shall be entitled for all other admissible allowances viz., DA, TA, HRA and overtime, night duty allowances, incentives etc., by revising their pay keeping in view the aforesaid and the respondents are directed to grant benefit of the same and to release the arrears within a period of 90 days from today. 14. With the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.