Permanand Kumar - ADDITIONAL REJOINDER STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANTS TO THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH OA No. 381 of 2010


Permanand Kumar and another : Applicants
Vs
Union of India and others : Respondents


ADDITIONAL REJOINDER STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANTS TO THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS


1. The averments made and contentions raised in the Reply Statement filed on behalf of the respondents in so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the facts stated hereunder are incorrect, untrue and hence denied.


2. With reference to the averments in paragraph 2 it is submitted that it is not correct to say that the applicants made misleading statements in the rejoinder statement. It is submitted that the applicant stated only true and correct facts in the rejoinder statement and the averments to the contrary are emphatically denied. It is submitted that it is evident from Paragraph 10.43 of Annexure R-1 4th CPC recommendations, the higher pay scale for Inspector of Posts was considered on the basis of arduous nature of duties attached to the post of Inspector of Posts. However, the 4th CPC recommended the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300 for the reason that there was no direct recruitment in the cadre of Inspector of Post at that time. But the 4th CPC recommended that as and when the direct recruitment is introduced in the cadre of IPO, the Government may examine the pay scale which would then be suitable for these posts. The 4th CPC found parity of employment with the Inspectors of other Departments like Central Excise, Customs etc. Therefore, there is no question of recommending the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 by the 4th CPC as the same was left to the Department at the time of introducing direct recruitment to the cadre of Inspector Posts. The averments to the effect that the 4th CPC did not equate the Inspector Posts with analogous posts in other Central Organisation like CBDT/CBEC is opposed to facts and hence stoutly denied. It is submitted that on the basis of the recommendation of 4th & 5th CPC the direct recruitment element was introduced at the level of Inspector Posts. It is a fact that in Annexure A-4 Recruitment Rule the scale of pay is shown as Rs.5500–9000. However, it is worthy to note that as on the date of issuance of Annexure A-4 Recruitment Rules, the pay scales of Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS were also Rs.5500-9000.


3. With regard to the averments in paragraph 3, it is submitted that 6th CPC in Para 7.6.14 upgraded the pay scale of Inspector of Posts to Rs.6500-10500 to maintain parity among Inspectors in CBDT/ CBEC and Assistant in CSS, which was recognised by the 5th CPC. Since 6th CPC recommendations were implemented with effect from 01.01.2006, the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500 was granted to Inspector of Posts with effect from 01.01.2006 only and not from an earlier date. The respondents have admitted that the 6th CPC had recommended the upgradation of the pay scale of Inspector Posts to Rs.6500-10500 to remove the disparity. Even after admitting the fact, the respondents are again trying to continue the disparity which was recommended to be set right by the 6th Central Pay Commission. The scale of pay prior to 01-01-2006 is immaterial for the reason that the pay revision was effected with effect from 01-01-2006 and as on 01-01-2006 the Inspector of Posts and other equated categories are in the same pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. Therefore, the Inspector of Posts are entitled to the grade pay of Rs. 4600/- granted to other equated categories. It is not the case of the applicants that they are first to be equated with the other categories and to grant the Grade Pay of other category, but it is the specific case of the applicants that they are equated with the Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and Assistants of Central Secretariat Service and therefore, they are entitled to the same Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- granted to the other equated categories.


4. With reference to the averments in paragraph 4 and 5, it is submitted that the respondents have admitted that the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC & 6th CPC and accepted by the Government for Inspector Posts, Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS were the same. It is submitted that 6th Central Pay Commission in the Para 3.1.3 recommended to maintain parity with the similarly placed personnel employed in field offices and the Secretariat. In the recommendation it was clearly mentioned that this parity would need to be absolute upto the grade of Assistants and beyond that, it may mot be possible or even justified to maintain complete parity because the hierarchy and carrier progression would need to be different taking in view of functional consideration and relativity across the board. A true extract of the Para 3.1.3 of 6th CPC is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-20. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government and was acknowledged in Para 4 of Annexure A-11 OM dated 16.11.2009. The averment to the effect that by the issuance of OM dated 13.11.2009 and 16.11.2009, the grade pay of officials in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 underwent a change i.e to grade pay of Rs 4600 is not correct as the Assistants in the Central Secretariat were in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 as on 01.01.2006 as evidenced by Annexure A-6. The Department of Posts submitted proposal to the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance for extending the benefit of OM dated 13.11.09 and 16.11.09 clearly stating that pay scale of Inspector Posts was Rs.6500-10500 as on 01.01.2006 and that the parity agreed to in the pay scales of Inspector Posts with Assistants(CSS) and Inspectors CBDT/CBEC has been disturbed. It was categorically mentioned that Inspector Posts were holders of pay scale of Rs.9300-34800(Pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500) in the light of recommendation of 6th CPC in para 7.6.14 placing Inspector Posts at par with Assistants and Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and as such they are entitled to the revised grade pay of Rs.4600 at par with Inspectors CBDT/CBEC and Assistants. A photocopy of the Proposal made by the Department and the reply given by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, furnished under the Right to Information Act as per letter dated 14-09-2010 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-21. From Annexure A-21, it is evident that the combined proposal was made by the Department of Posts for Grade pay of Inspector Posts, Assistant Superintendent of Posts and Superintendents of Posts demanding Grade pay of Rs.4600, Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 respectively, whereas the justification was only for Inspector Posts. The averments of the Respondents that the proposal was not agreed to by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance for the reason that Inspector Posts were not in the Pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 01.01.2006 is opposed to facts. In the reply given against the proposal, the Department of Expenditure has stated that prior to 01.01.2006, the Pay scale of Inspector Posts was Rs.5500-10500 and not as on 01-01-2006 as is evident from the reply in Annexure A-21.


5. With regard to the averments in paragraph 6, it is submitted that 5th CPC had given equal scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 to Inspector Posts and Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC. Ministry of Finance as per Annexure A-5 OM dated 21.04.2004 had upgraded the pay scale of Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC to Rs.6500-10500, whereas no such upgradation was given to Inspector Posts. Against this disparity, some Inspector Posts of Karnataka Circle approached Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore Bench and filed OAs No. 424/2006 and 211/2007 and the above O.A’s were disposed of by Order dated 27-07-2007. In paragraph 4 of the above Order dated 27-07-2007 the Hon’ble Tribunal has categorically observed that


“ After hearing the counsel for the parties at length we note that the first respondent (Department of Posts) has not made any effort to ascertain the circumstances under which the pay scales of officers under CBDT and CBEC including the post of Inspectors has been revised. No reasons are also forthcoming in the Annexure A3 order for revising the pay scales of Inspector of Income Tax. It was for the first respondent(DOP), before taking the decision on the representations made by the Inspector of Posts seeking parity, to ascertain from the CBDT the circumstances under which the pay scales of Income Tax Inspectors were revised from Rs.5500-9000 recommended by V Pay commission and sanctioned by the Government, to Rs.6500-10500. This does not appear to have been done.”


It is submitted that as the 6th Central Pay commission was already constituted to set right the anomalies and had not given its report, Hon’ble CAT had directed the applicants/respondents to produce a copy of the Order along with the representation to be made before the 6th CPC for information. A true copy of the Order of the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore Bench in O.A No. 424/2006 and connected case dated 27.07.2007 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-22. Accordingly the matter was taken up before the 6th CPC and the anomaly was set right by the 6th CPC by recommending pay parity to Inspector Posts with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC. The fact that the pay scale of the Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC were upgraded to Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 21-04-2004 is not all a ground for discriminating the Inspector of Posts after recognising parity with the other analogous posts. The averments to the contrary are emphatically denied.


6. With reference to the averments in paragraph 7 and 8, it is submitted that the role and responsibilities of the cadres of Inspector Posts, Inspector CBDT/CBEC and Assistant in CSS were considered by expert bodies namely the 5th & 6th CPC and recommended parity with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC. In the reply given by the Ministry of Finance against the proposal of Department of Posts, it was stated that Inspector Posts were in the pay scale of Rs.5500-10500 prior to 01.01.2006 hiding the fact that as on 01.01.2006, the pay scale was upgraded to Rs.6500.10500, which has been accepted by the respondents in Para 8. The contention of the respondents that the granting of Grade pay of Rs.4600 to the inspector Posts would mean that the Inspectors and Assistant Superintendent have to be kept in the same Grade Pay Rs.4600 OR to revise the Grade pay of ASP, which would have a chain reaction on PS Group ‘B’, Junior Time Scale & Senior Time Scale and which tend to disturb the horizontal and vertical relativity is whimsical. Even if the Grade Pay of both Inspector of Posts and Assistant Superintendent of Posts Office are in the same Grade Pay that by itself would not create any difficulty for the reason that in other Departments also the grade pay of feeder category and promotion post are allowed as one and the same as given in the illustrations furnished by the applicants in the rejoinder statement. The respondents have admitted that the illustrations given with respect to two promotional posts in the same grade pay are correct. Hence, The Inspector Posts and ASPOs may be placed in the same grade pay of Rs.4600 and this will not have any cascading effect of any other cadre of the DOP and other Central Govt. Organisations. The All India Association has already given the consent to place Inspector Posts and ASPOs in the same grade pay Of Rs.4600 as per their letter dated 24-06-2010. A photocopy of the above letter dated 24.06.10 submitted to the 2nd respondent-Director General, Department of Posts by the General Secretary, All India Association of Inspectors and Assistant Superintendent Posts is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-23. Therefore, it will not lie on the mouth of the respondents to contend that since the ASPO’s are in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- that grade pay cannot be granted to the Inspector Posts and the said contention is entirely untenable.


7. With regard to the averments in paragraph 9, it is submitted that as per Annexure A-11, it was clarified by the Ministry of Finance that in case of upgradation of Posts as a result of recommendation of 6th CPC, the grade pay corresponding to the upgraded post should be given. Ministry of Finance as per Annexure A-9 OM dated 13.11.2009, revised the grade pay corresponding to pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.4600. It is evident from the Para 7.6.14 of 6th CPC and as accepted by the respondents, that the pay scale of Inspector Posts was upgraded to pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f 01.01.2006. Therefore, the Inspector of Posts are entitled to the Grade pay of Rs.4600 with effect from 01-01-2006 as in the case of Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC. Annexure A-19 is attached with the rejoinder statement and the averments to the contrary are denied.


8. With reference to the averments in paragraph Para 10 and 11, it is submitted that the matter related to role, functional responsibilities, hierarchical structures and recruitment rules etc. have already been considered by the 5th & 6th CPC and recommended parity to Inspector Posts with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS. Parity recommended by the pay commission cannot be ignored after accepting the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. As far as the hierarchical structure is concerned, it is worthy to note that Inspector Posts are the feeder cadre for promotion to Superintendent of Posts, similar to those Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and CSS. Inspectors and Assistants are the feeder cadre for promotion to the posts of Superintendent and Section Officer respectively. Even though an Inspector of Post is promoted as ASPOs based on his seniority in the cadre of Inspector, for promotion to the post of Superintendent the feeder post is Inspector of Post and the seniority is reckoned only from the date of promotion/appointment to the cadre of Inspector of Posts and not from the date of promotion as ASPOs. Therefore, the existence of the post ASPOs between the cadre of Inspector and Superintendent is irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential for granting of the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to the Inspector. The same has been agreed to by the Association in Annexure A-23. Moreover, Inspector Posts coming under Group ‘B’ Non gazetted should not be given lesser grade pay than that of Group ’C’ posts which is lower in the hierarchical structure.


9. With regard to the averments in Paragraph 12 it is submitted that it is evident from Annexure A-21 that the combined proposal was sent by the Department Of Posts to Ministry of Finance, for Grade pay of Inspector Posts, Assistant Superintendent of Posts and Superintendents of Posts demanding Grade pay of Rs.4600, Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 respectively, whereas the justification was only for Inspector Posts. The reasons furnished by the Ministry of Finance for rejecting the proposal are also not correct. The respondents are stating that the Inspector Posts cannot be compared with the post of Assistant of CSS / Inspectors and analogous posts in CBDT and CBEC even after admitting the fact that the pay scales recommended by the 5th CPC & 6th CPC and accepted by the Government for Inspector Posts, Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS are the same and Pay scale of Inspector Posts was upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 by the 6th Central Pay Commission to remove the disparity. The respondents are trying to establish the parity among the Group ’B’ posts of the Department of Posts and CBDT/CBEC & CSS, which were at the different scale of pay before the 6th CPC. The pay scale of Section Officers of CSS before the 6th CPC was Rs.6500-10500 whereas the pay scale of Superintendent of Posts was Rs.7500-12000. Further, the averment of the respondents that only Group ’B’ posts in Department of posts are comparable to those of Group ‘B’ posts in CSS/CBEC/CBDT, is against the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission in Para 3.1.3 of Annexure A-20 and accepted by the Government, wherein it is stated that the parity would need to be absolute upto the grade of Assistant and beyond this it might not possible or even justified to grant complete parity. The respondents have admitted that only the expert body like Pay Commission and Nodal Department are competent to take decision on such matters. 5th and 6th CPC had already recommended parity to Inspector posts with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS and therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to raise contentions against the recommendations of the Commission. The averment of the respondents that the above OA is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties is totally misconceived. The above averments is made by the deponent casually without any basis. The deponent failed to note the fact that the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure which is the nodal Ministry is arrayed as the first respondent in the O.A. It is submitted that the Pay Commission is not a necessary party in the O.A. As it is not involved in the lis.


All contentions raised in the Additional Reply Statement are devoid of any force or merit and are liable to be rejected out right. The applicant is entitled to all the reliefs prayed for in the Original Application and the above Original Application is only to be allowed with costs.