The bench was hearing the plea of laboratory technicians of Ishapore Metal and Steel Factory who were denied the upgraded pay scale from 2006 on the grounds that they did not possess the qualifications introduced under the 2005 recruitment rules.
Appointed in 2014, new rules in 2005
The writ petitioners were working as laboratory technicians in the metal and steel factory at Ishapore.
By a communication of October 2014 issued by the director general of ordinance factories, their pay scale was then in pay band Rs 5,200 to Rs 20,200 (grade pay Rs 2,800), which was revised to pay band Rs 9,300 to Rs 34,800 (grade pay Rs 4,200).
The revision was made effective for the post of lab technicians with effect from January, 2006.
Story continues below this ad
It was placed on record that before making available the revised pay scale, the various units and ordnance factories were required to ensure that the laboratory technicians strictly possess the newly introduced requisite qualification for appointment as per the statutory rules and orders of August 2005.
It was pointed out that the petitioners were appointed much prior to the coming into force of the August 2005 recruitment rules, and at the time of their appointment, the candidatures were assessed based on the requisite qualification prescribed in the 1979 recruitment rules.
The petitioners did not possess the subsequently introduced requisite qualification for appointment under the recruitment rules 2005, and have thus been deprived of the benefit of pay revision with effect from January 2006.
However, the petitioners’ representation for the grant of the revised pay scale was rejected by the works manager of their unit at Ishapore in June 2015. Subsequently, the petitioners moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their plea, and finally, they approached the Calcutta High Court.
Story continues below this ad
‘No difference in duty performed’
- The letter of 2014 depriving the petitioners of the upgraded pay scale is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- The Centre has not placed on record any material to show that there is any distinction whatsoever in the work being performed by the present petitioner and those who may have been subsequently appointed upon possessing the enhanced requisite qualification.
- The Calcutta High Court noted that there is no material to show that any hierarchical distinction has been created under the 2005 rules based on the new qualifications prescribed for the direct recruitment of laboratory technicians.
- The position of higher qualification, requisite for appointment under the said recruitment rule, therefore, does not justify the treatment of those appointed to the same post of laboratory technicians under the previous appointment rule.
- The distinction is not unjustifiable, nor does it reveal any occasional object sought to be achieved by such distinction.
- The high court directed the authorities to grant the revised pay scale of pay band Rs 9,300 to Rs 34,800 with grade pay of Rs 4,200 to the petitioners with effect from January 2006, with consequential benefits.
- The December 2023 order of the tribunal is unsustainable and is to be set aside.
‘Revision to be implemented automatically’
The petitioners’ counsel, among others, advocate N P Biswas, argued that the qualification for appointment as laboratory technicians was enhanced after the coming into force of the 2005 recruitment rules.
The job requirement of the petitioners vis-à-vis those appointed on the same post after 2005 continued to be the same, he added. The pay and emoluments were also uniform between the petitioners and those subsequently appointed, based on the requisite qualifications prescribed in the year 2005, and even thereafter.
Biswas also pointed out that such a revision was to be implemented automatically for the petitioners who are incumbents of the same post. There is no scope for examining the suitability of the present petitioners based on a qualification requisite for direct recruitment to their post introduced much after their appointment, in the year 2005, he added.
‘Revised pay scale not applicable’
On the contrary, representing the state, advocate Ajay Chaubey submitted that the order of the director general in October 2014 clearly mandates the grant of benefit of revision to lab technicians possessing the qualification requisite for direct recruitment as per the 2005 recruitment rules.
Story continues below this ad
Chaubey also highlighted that the officials of the unit where the present petitioners were serving sought clarification in this regard, whether the petitioners can be extended the benefit of the revised pay scale with effect from January 1, 2006.
The higher authorities, however, have turned down such a request, which is apparent from the communication of March, .2016 issued by the director general, he added.
