Friday, October 21, 2011

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, O.A No. 381/2010



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ERNAKULAM BENCH

O.A No. 381/2010


Wednesday, this the 19th October, 2011.
CORAM

HON'BLE Dr K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms. K NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. Permanand Kumar,
S/o late Yugal
Kishore Prasad,
Inspectors Post,
Presently working as
Senior Manger
(Business Development) in the cadre
of Assistant
Superintendent of Post Offices
on adhoc basis,
O/o the Postmaster General,
Northern Region,
Calicut.

2. Chandrakanta
Paladhi, S/o Anand Mohan Paladhi,
Inspector Posts
(Business Development),
O/o the
Postmaster General, Central Region,

Ernakulam-18. ....Applicants

(By Advocate Ms K Radhamani Amma with Mr O.V.Radhakrishnan,
Senior)

v.

1. Union of India
represented by
its Secretary,
Ministry of
Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
New Delhi-110
001.

2. Director General
of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New
Delhi.

3. Chief Postmaster
General,
Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram. ....Respondents

(By Advocate Mr Millu Dandapani, ACGSC )
This application having been finally heard on 22.9.2011, the
Tribunal on 19.10.2011 delivered the following:

O R D E R

HON'BLE Dr K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Parity of pay
scale of the Inspector (Posts) at par with that of Inspector of Income Tax, of
Customs and Central Excise as also of the Assistants in the Central Secretariat
Service is the main issue involved in this case.

2. The matter has
been receiving the attention of the Pay Commission right from at least the
Fourth Central Pay Commission and in fact it was at the recommendation of the
Pay Commission that element of Direct Recruitment as applicable to the
inspectors of the CBDT and CBEC etc., had been introduced. In fact ever since
the same was introduced, there has been a common examination for all such posts
conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. Further, in the wake of the sixth pay
commission recommendation, the pay scale of Rs 5,500 - 9000 having been merged
with the higher pay scale of Rs 6,500 - 10,500/- Pay Commission itself has
stated that there has now been parity in the pay scale. While so, as late as in
2009, the Government has revised the grade pay of Inspectors of Income Tax, of CBDT
and CBEC whereby there arose again certain disparity and it is this
part of the disparity that has been agitated in this O.A.
The OA has been contested by the respondents. Pleadings were all exchanged and
finally the matter has been heard.

3. Senior counsel
for the applicants succinctly presented the entire background of the case, the
observations of the IV Central Pay Commission, report of the V Central Pay
Commission and their recommendations relating to the mode of recruitment to the
post of Inspector of Post Offices (I.P for short) as also the pay scale to be
attached to the post, which coincided with the post of Inspectors in other
Departments such as Income Tax, Central Excise and Customs, etc., He had
brought to our notice the revision of pay scale for the post of Inspector of
Post Office vide Annexure A-3 followed by the revision of Recruitment Rules to
the said post, vide Annexure A-4, whereby the element of direct recruitment was
introduced for the first time. This mode of recruitment apart from the mode of
appointment by promotion to the said post of Inspector of Post Office in fact
brought in complete parity of the posts of Inspectors with various other
Departments.

4. Thus, the pay
scale of I.P.O. on the one hand and that of inspectors in other departments
such as Income tax, central excise, customs, custom preventive etc., had been
Rs 5,500 - 9,000/- in the wake of the acceptance of the recommendations of the
V Central Pay Commission. So far so good.

5. It was in
2004 that the Ministry of Finance
(Department of Expenditure) had issued OM dated 21-04-2004 revising the pay
scale of the Income Tax Inspectors, Inspectors of the Department of the Customs
and Central Excise etc., vide Annexure A-5. The revision was from Rs 5,500
-9,000/- to Rs 6,500 - 10,500/-. As
hithertofore, identical pay scales were afforded to the Assistants and P.As in
the Central Secretariat Services as well as Central Secretariat Stenographers
Service (CSSS) as that for the Inspectors of the Income Tax etc., on 25th
September, 2006, the DOPT issued OM No. 2029/2006 -CS II of date whereby the
pay scale of Assistants and P.As in the CSS as well as CSSS had been revised to
Rs 6,500 - 10,500. Annexure A-6 refers.

6. At the
time the above
upward revision took
place, the recommendations of
the VI Central Pay Commission were not published. Later on, the recommendations
of the Pay Commission included merger of the pay scales of Rs 5,500 - 9,000/-
and Rs 6,500 - 10,500/-. This would automatically bring in parity of pay scale
of the Inspectors of Post Office and other Departments. The logical corollary
to the merger as aforesaid is that for the next higher post i.e. Assistant
Superintendent of Post Offices it would be the next higher pay i.e. Rs 7,450 -
11,500/-.

7. On 13-11-2009,
the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) issued
another OM whereby posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs 6,500 -
10,500 as on 01-01-2006 and which were granted the normal replacement pay
structure of grade pay of Rs 4,200/- in the pay band PB 2 will be granted grade
pay of Rs 4600 in the pay band PB 2 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale
of Rs 7450-11500 w/e/f/ 01-01- 2006. And, if a post already existed in the
pre-revised scale of Rs 7450- 11500, the posts being upgraded from the scale of
Rs 6500 - 10500 should
be merged with the post in the scale of Rs 7450 - 11500/-.

8. As stated
earlier, the pay scale of Income Tax Inspectors, Inspectors of Customs and
Central Excise etc., had undergone an upward revision from Rs 5,500 - 9000to Rs
6,500 - 10500 vide OM dated 21-04-2004. Thus, the above enhancement of grade
pay from Rs 4,200 to Rs 4,600 gave an edge to the inspectors of Income Tax,
Central Excise, and others in respect of whom the provisions of OM dated 21st
April, 2004 applied. In fact, even for the Assistants and the PAs of the
Central Secretariat Services as well as Central Secretariat Stenographers
services, the above provision would apply since in their case also, the pay
scale stood revised upwardly at Rs 6,500 -10,500 as on 01-01-2006. In so far as
the Inspector of Posts is concerned, their pay though would be in the PB2
(9,300 - 34,800), the grade pay would be only Rs 4,200 as against Rs 4,600 in
respect of their counterparts in the other departments.

9 The above
difference in the grade pay of inspector of post offices resulted in the
Inspectors of Post Offices to claim pay parity with their counterparts.
Justification for the same were, according to them, adequate right from the
modes of recruitment as also functional responsibilities. For example, the
Assistants, the S.I. in CBI, the Asst. Enforcement Officer, the Inspector of
Income Tax, the inspectors of Central Excise, the Inspector (Preventive
Officer), Inspector (examiner) and the Inspectors of Posts are all having the
same common Combined Graduate level examination conducted by the Staff
Selection Commission and in fact for the year 2006 exam, the cut off marks for
various posts varied from 423 (Inspector Central Excise) at the lower side to
508 (Asst. Enforcement Officer) at
the higher side. For Inspector of
posts the cut off marks were 433 which is more than that of for Inspector
Central Excise. Annexure A-14 refers. Further, according to the applicants, the
post of Inspector of Post Offices is a base level managerial post with onerous
functional responsibilities of a large magnitude. In their internal note, the
Ministry of Communication & Information Technology of the Department of
Posts, the administrative ministry itemized the justifications vide Annexure
A-21. The note was approved at the higher level of Member (P) and the Secretary
of the Department of Posts. The matter was, however, dealt with, at the level
of Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, who had opined as under, vide
note dated 25-01-2010:-

"Further, the post of Inspector (Posts) cannotbe compared
with the
post of Assistant of CSS/Inspectors and analogous
posts in
CBDT and CBEC. The hierarchical
structure in
respect of
Inspector (Posts) is not comparable to that of
Assistants
of CSS/Inspectors and analogous posts in CBEC
and CBDT.
Only Group B posts in the Department of Posts
are comparable to
those of Group
B posts in

CSS/CBEC/CBDT. Superintendent (Posts) has been placed
in the
grade pay of Rs 4,800 in pay band PB 2 and grade
pay of Rs
5400 in pay Band PB 2 after completion of 4 years
service at
par with CBEC/CBDT. The Sixth CPC has

specifically recommended the grade pay of Rs 4600 in the
pay band
PB 2 for Assistant Superintendent (Post Office). In
the
circumstances, it has not been found feasible to agree to
the proposal
for upgradation of the grade pay of Inspector
(Posts)
from Rs 4200 to Rs 4600 in the pay band PB-2."

10. On a further
reference from the administrative Ministry, the Ministry of Finance, vide their
note dated 08-03-2010 opined as under:-
The
proposal has been considered in this Department. In
this
connection, the administrative Department is intimated
that
neither on the basis of functional justification offered by
the
Department of Post, nor on account of any pre-existing

relativities, is it feasible for his Department to agree to the
proposal
of Department of Post to upgrade the pay scale of
Inspectors
(Posts). Accordingly, Inspectors (Posts) may be
placed in the revised pay structure
of grade pay of Rs 4200
in the pay
band PB-2.

11. As nothing
concrete could be achieved in respect of pay parity, the applicants herein have
come up before the Tribunal through this OA seeking the following reliefs:-
i) To declare
that the applicants are legally eligible and entitled to
grant of the
revised pay structure of Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in
the Pay Bank PB-2 which were granted by
way of normal
replacement pay
structure of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in the Pay
Bank PB-2 in
terms of Annexure A-9 Office Memorandum dated
13.11.2009
and denial of it to the applicants is arbitrary,

discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution
of India.
ii) To issue
appropriate direction or
order directing the
respondents
to grant the applicants 1 and 2 the revised pay
structure of
Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the Pay Bank PB-2 as he
has been granted to Inspectors in
CBDT/CBEC and Assistants
in Central
Secretariat Service recruited through Combined
Graduate
Level Examination Scheme A by the Staff Selection
Commission
with effect from their date of entitlement with
consequential
benefits including arrears of pay and allowances
within a time
frame that may be fixed by this Tribunal.

12. The senior
Counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following decisions in support
of the case of the applicants:-
(a) AIR 1973 SC
1088
(b) (2006) 9
SCC 406
(c) AIR 1984 SC
1221
(d) (1993) 1
ASCC 182
(e) (1995) Supp
(3) SCC 528
(f) (1995) 5
SCC 628.

13. Counsel for the
Respondents had referred to the reply and other documents filed. None of the
facts have been disputed. The only contention of the respondents is that it
cannot be stated that the posts of Inspector of Post Offices and those of the
other Departments are identical in all respects.
Para 7 of their counter reads as under:-
"7. It is submitted that there is no comparison
between the
Inspector
Posts and Inspectors in CBDT as far as their hierarchy is
concerned. In
Department of Posts, the Inspectors are elevated to
Higher Selection Grade which is designated
as Assistant

Superintendents which is now a Group B Gazetted post carrying a
Grade Pay of
Rs.4600 and from there to Postal Superintendent
Service
Group-B carrying a grade pay of Rs.4800. However, in the
CBDT/CBEC,
there is no such intermediary higher grade post and
they are
elevated to Superintendents Customs and Central Excise
or ITO
carrying a grade pay of Rs.4800.
The applicants are
conveniently
ignoring this crucial difference and are trying to
establish
similarity on par with the Assistants working in Central
Secretariat
Service, Armed Force Headquarters Services, Indian
Foreign
Service B and Railway Board Secretariat Service and
Personal
Assistants in Stenographer Services which is not correct.
Here also,
the Assistants in their hierarchy is elevated to the rank of
Section
Officer who is placed in Rs.4800 and there is no
intermediary
promotion post between Assistants and Section
Officers of
the Central Secretariat Service. The nature of duties
assigned to
Assistants is also quite different from the duties
assigned to
Inspector (Post). This point also establishes that there
is no
comparison between Central Secretariat ;Service and those of
Inspectors of
Department of Posts and the O.A is liable to be
dismissed as
devoid of merits, on these grounds alone."

14. Again, as regards
the considered view of the Department of Posts which in all its sincerity took
up the matter with the Ministry of Finance, the respondents had tried to dilute
their support by stating that the same was only in the nature of
recommendations!

15. He had also referred to the details as
contained in the additional reply and second additional reply.

16. Counsel for the
respondents relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in (a) (2007) 7 SCC 472
and (b) (2005) 6 SCC 764.

17. Arguments were
heard and documents perused. At
the very outset, while dealing with the subject the Tribunal keeps in mind the
dictum of the Apex Court both defining and confining the extent of judicial
interference in matters of fixation of pay scale, as contained in the case of
Union of India v. S.Thakur, (2008) 13 SCC 463 which is as under:-
"There
is no dispute nor there can be any, to the principle
that
fixation of pay and date from which the benefit of
revised pay
scale would be admissible is the function of the
executive
and the scope of judicial review of such an

administrative decision is very limited. However, it is equally
well
settled that the courts would interfere with the
administrative
decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay
parity as
well as the date from which the revised pay
scales
would be made applicable if it is found that such a
decision
is unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a
section of
the employees."

18. It has also,
in an earlier case of K.T. Veerappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 406,
been stated as under:-

"There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle
as settled
in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat
Personal
Staff Assn. that fixation of pay and determination
of parity
in duties is the function of the executive and the
scope of
judicial review of administrative decision in this
regard is
very limited. However, it is also equally well
settled
that the courts should interfere with administrative
decisions
pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when
they find
such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and

prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in
ignorance
of material and relevant factors."

(Also see Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells
Corporation v. G.S. Uppal,
(2008) 7 SCC 375)

19. Again, in
State of Bihar v. Bihar Veterinary Association, (2008) 11 SCC 60, the Apex
Court has held as under :
"For
finding out whether there is complete and wholesale
identity,
the proper forum is an expert body and not the
writ
court, as this requires extensive evidence. A

mechanical interpretation of the principle of equal pay for
equal
work creates great practical difficulties. The courts
must
realise that the job is both a difficult and time-
consuming
task which even experts having the assistance
of staff
with requisite expertise have found it difficult to

undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a
complex
matter which is for the executive to discharge.
Granting
of pay parity by the court may result in a
cascading
effect and reaction which can have adverse

consequences."
(emphasis in original)

20. In yet another
decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal
Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72, the observation of the Apex Court is as
under:-
"In
the context of the complex nature of issues involved,
the
far-reaching consequences of a decision in the matter
and its
impact on the administration of the State

Government, courts have taken the view that ordinarily
courts should not try to delve deep into
administrative
decisions
pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is
not to say
that the matter is not justiciable or that the
courts
cannot entertain any proceeding against such

administrative decision taken by the Government. The
courts
should approach such matters with restraint and
interfere
only when they are satisfied that the decision of
the
Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial
to a
section of employees and the Government while
taking the
decision has ignored factors which are material
and
relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case
where the court
holds the order passed by the
Government
to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction
should be
given to the State Government or the authority
taking the
decision to reconsider the matter and pass a
proper
order. The court should avoid giving a declaration
granting a
particular scale of pay and compelling the
Government
to implement the same. As noted earlier, in
the
present case the High Court has not even made any

attempt to compare
the nature of
duties and

responsibilities of the two sections of employees, one in
the State
Secretariat and the other in the Central

Secretariat. It has also ignored the basic principle that
there are
certain rules, regulations and
executive

instructions issued by the employers which govern the

administration of the cadre."

21. While
exercising the jurisdiction, what the Tribunal or Court has to look into in
respect of fixation of pay scale has been spelt out by the Apex Court in the
case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC 635, wherein
it has been stated as under:-
The court
has to consider the factors like the source and
mode of
recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the nature
of work,
the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability,

experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other
words, the equality clause can be
invoked in the matter of
pay scales
only when there is wholesale identity between
the
holders of two posts.

22. In a more
recent case of Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation v. Mohd. Khursheed
Anwar, (2010) 7 SCC 739, earlier reference to Randhir Singh case was referred
to and the Apex Court has held as under :-
17. In
Dayanand case the Court observed that the ratio of
Randhir
Singh case has not been followed in later
judgments
and held that similarity in the designation or
quantum of
work are not determinative of equality in the
matter of
pay scales and that before entertaining and
accepting
the claim based on the principle of equal pay for
equal work,
the court must consider the factors like the
source and
mode of recruitment/appointment, the

qualifications, the nature of work, the value judgment,

responsibilities, reliability, experience,
confidentiality,
functional
need, etc.

23. Now a plunge
into the subject matter. It would be seen from the pleadings that the matter
has been receiving the attention of the successive Pay Commissions which had
made certain observations/recommendations. These are contained in the
rejoinder, wherein the applicants have highlighted the import of para 7.6.14 a
Annexure A-7 of the Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations and submitted that the
Sixth Central Pay Commission found parity among Inspector of Posts, Inspectors
in the CBDT/CBEC and assistants in the CSSS and to effectuate this parity, the
pay scale of Inspector of Posts was upgraded with effect 01-01-2006. The
applicants had drawn a comparative statement of the pay scale recommended by
the two Pay Commissions, i.e. the 5th and 6th CPC. The same is extracted
below:-

Pay scale Pay scale

recommended by recommenced by
the 5th CPC
and the 6th CPC and

accepted by the accepted by
the

Govt. Govt.
Assistants in
CSS and Rs.5500-9000 9300-34800 with
1 Inspectors in
CBDT/CBEC
GP Rs.4200
Inspector
Posts
Rs.5500-9000 9300-34800
with
2
GP Rs.4200
Central Excise/Customs Rs.6500-10500 9300-34800 with
Superintendent,
Income Tax GP
Rs.4800
3 Officer
Section Officer
in CSS Rs.6500-10500 9300-34800 with
4 GP
Rs.4800
Assistant Supdt.
of Posts 9300-34800 with 9300-34800 with
5 GP
Rs.4800 GP Rs.4600
Supdt. Of Post
Offices Rs.7500-12000 9300-34800 with
6
GP Rs.4800

24. Further, the
applicants in their additional rejoinder annexed relevant extract of Sixth Pay
Commission Recommendations and also various notes exchanged between the
Department of Posts and the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).

25. As regards the
observations of the earlier Pay Commissions, in their Additional reply,
respondents have added certain extracts of the Fourth and Fifth pay Commission
and referred to the same again in their second additional reply. The relevant extracts of the Pay Commission
Recommendations are as under:-

"10.42: Inspectors of
Post Offices in the scale of 425-700 hold
charge of sub
divisions and their duties mainly involve inspection of
sub post
offices and branch post offices.
They also function as
appointing
authority for Group D and extra departmental staff and are
vested with
disciplinary powers in respect of these categories of staff.
The Inspectors
of the RMS have similar duties and responsibilities.
The assistant
superintendents (Rs.550-900) both in post office and
RMS are
employed in Group A and large Group B divisions to assist
in general
administration and for inspection of various offices and
periodical
review of arrangements for mail transmission.

10.43:
Associations of inspectors and assistant superintendents of
post offices
and RMS have requested for better pay scales in view of
the arduous
nature of their duties and the detailed syllabus for the
examination
through which they have to qualify.

10.44: The
Department has proposed merger of the IPO and IRM
cadres and
ASPO and ASRM cadres. It has been pointed out that
the duties and
responsibilities of the two cadres are similar. We find
that the
pattern of recruitment for posts of inspector in other central
government
organizations like customs and central excise and
income tax,
provides for direct recruitment through staff selection
commission at
this level. However, in the Postal department, there is
no direct
recruitment above the level of postal and sorting assistant,
appointment is
not through any competitive examination but is based
on marks
secured in the matriculation examination. In other
government
departments there is generally direct recruitment based
on competitive
examination at clerical level. In
the interest of
efficiency of
service, it is necessary to introduce an element of direct
recruitment at
the level of inspectors/assistant superintendents
through the
staff selection commission, and we recommend

accordingly. If this is done
and the two cadres are merged,
government may
examine what scale of pay will then be suitable for
these posts.
Till this is done, the scales recommended by us in
chapter 8 will
apply.

Our
Recommendations

62.9 The Fourth
CPC recommended merger
of Postal

Superintendents and Postmasters Services Group B as a common
feeder grade
for promotion to 40% of the vacancies in the Indian
Postal Service
Group A. The combined Postal
Superintendent's
Service Group
B enters at the scale of Rs.2000-3500 as a 100%
promotion
level, of which 75% is earmarked for Assistant

Superintendents (Rs.1640-2900) by promotion, 19% come through
an examination
from among Assistant Superintendents and
Inspectors,
and the remaining 6% by examination of general line
postal
officials in the Higher Selection Grade I (Rs.1640-2900).
Assistant
Superintendents are in turn filled 100% by promotion from
the level of
Inspectors (Rs.1400-2300). In the chapter relating to
Restructuring
of Postal Services, we have already recommended that
Inspectors of
Post Offices and RMS should be merged, upgraded to
Rs.1640-2900,
and filled 33.1 /3 % by direct recruitment from the
Inspectors
grade examination of Staff Selection Commission.
Accordingly,
we recommend that Assistant Superintendents of Post
Offices and
RMS, which level will also consequently be merged,
should be
upgraded to the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3500 and Postal
Superintendent
Services Group B to Rs.2500-4000.
As regards
introduction
of time bound promotion at the end of 6 and 8 years'
service
exclusively for the postal superintendents, in view of the
scheme of
Assured Career Progression, we do not recommend any
further
changes. We are also not in favour of disturbing the present
ratio between direct recruitment and
promotion at the level of India
Postal Service
Group A."

26. From the
perusal of the Recommendations of the Pay Commissions it could be easily
discerned that the Pay Commissions have suggested certain measures relating to
introduction of element of direct recruitment which was conspicuously absent
earlier and without which comparison with the
Inspectors in other Departments/Ministries could not be
made. Once direct recruitment has been introduced, it was to the full
satisfaction of the Pay Commission, which had in fact commented, "The
Commission is recommending the merger of pre-revised pay scales of Rs 5500 -
9000 and Rs 6500 - 10500 which will automatically bring Inspector (Posts) on
par with Assistants in CSS/Inspectors and analogous Posts in CBDT and
CBEC."

The import of this observation of the Pay Commission is that the Pay Commission
was very much interested to ensure pay parity of Inspector (Post) with
Assistants of CSS and Inspectors and analogous posts in CBDT and CBEC. This recommendation of the Pay Commission
is in tune with the observations of the Apex Court in the case of State of West
Bengal v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association, (2010) 5 SCC 225
wherein it has been stated as under:-
"23. It
is now well settled that parity cannot be claimed merely
on the basis
that earlier the subject post and the reference
category posts
were carrying the same scale of pay. In fact, one
of the
functions of the Pay Commission is to identify the posts
which deserve
a higher scale of pay than what was earlier being
enjoyed with
reference to their duties and responsibilities, and
extend such
higher scale to those categories of posts."

27. When the
question of pay scale parity is examined, as stated by the Apex court, the
Court has to make analysis in respect of factors like the source and mode of
recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof,
responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need,
etc. Viewed from this point, first as
to the mode of recruitment. As stated earlier, it was at the recommendations of
the Fourth Pay Commission, element of Direct Recruitment had been introduced
and in fact there has been common examination in respect of inspectors in
various departments, including Inspector (Posts). In fact, the statistics
furnished by
the applicants vide Annexure A-14 which has been rightly
highlighted by the Senior Counsel at the time of hearing, would reflect that
the cut off marks in respect of Inspector (Posts) is more than the cut of marks
of Inspector (Central Excise). Thus, this requirement is fully met with.

28. Entering to
Managerial Cadre of Department Posts, after selection, through a tough
competitive exam the applicant is appointed as Head of a Sub-Division. For ease of Administration, a Postal Circle
is divided into Divisions and further sub-divided into sub-divisions. The I.P
being the Head of the Sub-Division is the recruiting and appointing authority
for various Gramin Dak Sevaks below GDS BPM of around 30 to 70 Branch Post
Offices (B.P.Os for brevity) placed under his administrative control. He is
responsible for conducting annual accounts and administrative inspections of
all these B.P.Os besides the allotted departmental sub-post offices in his
sub-division.
He needs to make frequent visits to Head Post Offices and
Lower Selection Grade, Higher Selection Grade and time scale departmental post
offices to conduct enquiries, take statistics, make verification of savings
bank claims for settlement, etc.
Moreover, he is the leave granting authority for GDS, Postman, Grade
'D', etc. of his sub-division attached to it for leave reserve purpose. He has
to depute them to needy P.Os so that staff there can be granted leave. He is
not provided with any clerical assistance and hence is left with doing a lot of
clerical work besides discharging his inspection duties. He has to review the
diaries of mail overseers attached to him who are expected to make surprise
visits to the B.P.Os to ensure effective service delivery to the rural populace
which these B.P.Os serve. Since, Post Offices are entrusted with multifarious
duties in the counter, like booking of MOs, RLs, Parcels, Speed Post Mails
besides post office savings bank and postal and rural postal life insurance
work the IP has to carry out checks and balances by him through mail overseers
to avoid any possible malpractices, deficient service delivery etc. to its
customers. He also dons the role of a
Business Development Manager as he is allotted specific
target for canvassing RPLI policies, speed post mail and money orders
increasing the number of SB/RD accounts opened etc. The large scale induction
ICT in Department POs, bestows on him, yet another role of trouble shooter. Selected
I.Ps are sent for training to Computer Institutes, to acquire knowledge of
programming in C++, visual basic etc. other program like oracle, and Microsoft
and Java platforms. They also work as instructors in the 5 postal training
centres in the country, where thousands of Postal Assistants are imparted
induction training for 2= months. The software development lab in Mysore and
Madurai Postal training
centres have managed to develop many software application packages which are successfully
used in P.Os and sold to other countries. The contribution of I.Ps/A.S.Ps it is
stated is invaluable in this field of work. The ICT (Information in Computer
Technology) induction in Department of Post has earned recognition and rewards
from Cabinet Secretariat and other independent assessment bodies. For this, the
I.Ps/A.S.P.Os have played a stellar role. A few of the I.P.Os/A.S.P.Os have
taken the pains to get Law Degree so that, they have the required expertise in
the legal cell. They rightly contend
that they form the backbone of the Department of Posts. Under these circumstances,
there is definitely an element of discrimination while fixing his grade pay as
Rs. 4200/- while those who discharge only clerical duties in the divisional
office or Regional Office in the same Department like Senior Hindi Translators
get a grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. Moreover, the Postal Assistants get the
financial up-gradations insitu, while IP is subjected to rotational transfers.
The I.P on his next promotion as ASP is placed in the feeder category of Postal
Services Group B. On such promotion as Superintendent of Post Offices in Group
B, they are liable for transfer, anywhere in India. Such transfer continues to
happen on their further promotion to Group A if they are promoted after a
minimum service of six years in Group B. It is not uncommon to find quite a few
I.Ps retiring just as Assistant Superintendent of P.Os only due to lack to
substantive vacancies in Group B, delay in holding of DPCs, etc. Therefore, the
applicants feel rightly aggrieved that the upward mobility in career, obtained
through the dint of sheer hardwork does not pay the right dividends, they
deserve.

29. In fact, the
Department of Post, in their note dated 23-02-2010 in File NO. 4-12/2009-PCC to
the Ministry of Finance has explained the technological advancements in the
postal department and the consequential work load to the staff in the following
words -
"The
Postal Department has inducted technology in postal
operation in a
big way and also introduced many new products.
Further the
introduction of Rural Postal Life Insurance in the
year 1995 has
added additional responsibility on Inspectors as
they are given
the task of marketing, promotion of new
products,
monitoring and liaison with the field staff and work as
a bridge
between administration and operative offices. The
Department
proposes to computerize the double handed and
single handed
Post Offices and 65000 Branch Post Offices by
the end of
11th Five Year Plan. The inspector (Posts) have
been provided
adequate training and fully equipped to handle
the computer
operation. In addition to above,
the Rural

Development Ministry has
introduced National Rural
Employment
Guarantee Scheme for providing 100 days of
assured
employment to the rural public and the payment under
the said
scheme are made through post offices to its
beneficiaries.
The Inspector Posts have a clear cut role in
overseeing the
implementation of NREGA and timely payment
to its
beneficiaries. The Department has recently proposed to
equip these
Inspectors with Laptop and Printer for smooth
functioning.

30. This Tribunal
need not have to labour more to arrive at the finding that the functional
responsibilities of the Inspector (Posts) are certainly onerous and evidently,
it is on the basis of adequate justification that the successive Pay
Commissions have appreciated the need to revise the pay scale of Inspector
(Posts).

31. The decision of
the Ministry of Finance does not appear to have taken into account the clear
recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission nor for that matter the full
justifications given by the Department of Posts.

32. Thus, when the
Pay Commission opined that by virtue of merger of the pays scales of Rs 5500 -
9000 and Rs 6500 - 10500, the same would "automatically bring
Inspector (Posts) on
par with Assistants
in CSS/Inspectors and analogous posts in CBDT and CBEC, what it meant
was that from hence, Inspector (Posts) would sail in the same boat as his counterparts
in the Income Tax Department or Central Excise or Customs Department or for
that matter the Assistants in the CSS. "The difference in the grade pay is
not one created by the Pay Commission but the same is due
to the fact that as late as in 2009, it is the Government of
India which had raised the grade pay of the pay scale 6500 - 10500 that existed
as on 01-01-2006 vide order dated 13-11-2009, whereby posts which were in the pre- revised
scale of Rs 6,500 - 10,500 as on 01-01-2006 and which were granted the normal
replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs 4,200/- in the pay band PB 2 will
be granted grade pay of Rs 4600 in the pay band PB 2 corresponding to the
pre-revised pay scale of Rs 7450-11500 w/e/f/ 01-01- 2006. And, if a post
already existed in the pre-revised scale of Rs 7450-11500, the posts being
upgraded from the scale of Rs 6500 - 10500 should be merged with the post in
the scale of Rs 7450 - 11500/-. In fact had the above enhancement in the grade
pay been recommended by the Pay Commission, it would not have omitted to
consider such an increase in the
grade pay of Inspector (Posts) as well.

33. Thus, within
the parameters prescribed by the Apex Court in respect of the powers of the
Tribunal in dealing with the fixation of Pay scale the case has been considered
and the Tribunal is of the considered view that there is no justification in
denying the Inspector(Posts) the higher Grade Pay of Rs 4600 when the same is
admissible to Inspectors of other Departments with whom parity has been established
by the very Sixth Pay Commission vide its report at para 7.6.14 extracted
above. The Department of Post also equally recommends the same and as such, at
appropriate level, the Ministry of Finance has to have a re-look in the matter
dispassionately and keeping in view the aforesaid discussion. The ASPOs, as a
result can be granted a grade pay of Rs.4800/- and the Superintendents grade
pay of Rs.5400, as in the case of Superintendents of Central Excise &
Customs.

34. In view of the
above, the OA is allowed to the extent that keeping in tune with the
observations of the Sixth Pay Commission, coupled with the strong
recommendations of the Department of Post and also in the light of our discussion
as above, first respondent, i.e. the Ministry of Finance shall have a re-look
in the matter at the level of Secretary and consider the case of the Inspector
(Posts) for upgradation of their grade pay at par with that of the Inspector of
income tax, of CBDT and CBEC. This will make the grade pay of Inspector (Posts)
at par with that of the promotional post of Assistant Superintendents of Post
Offices, it is expedient to consider and upward revision of the grade pay of
ASPs as well. All the necessary details and statistics as required by the
Ministry of Finance shall be made available by the second Respondent i.e. the
Director General of Posts. It is expected that within a reasonable time, the
respondents shall arrive at a judicious decision and implement the same.

35. No costs.

K
NOORJEHAN Dr K.B.S.RAJAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER