The petitioners who are holding the post of Quality Control Assistant in the respondent board has come up before this Court praying to quash Ext.P9 and to declare that they are entitled to up-gradation of their pay scale as recommended by the rubber board and the first respondent, and all other consequential service benefits from 01.12.2004 i.e., the date on which they were absorbed in service of the respondent board.
2. Petitioners are post graduates in Chemistry and they are presently holding the post of Quality Control Assistant in the service of the respondent board. The qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the aforesaid post is Graduation in Chemistry or Diploma in Polymer Technology with three years' experience in a reputed analytical laboratory preferably in the analysis of rubber/water/air and in the case of Diploma holders four years' experience as above. The petitioners allege that the pay scale of similar posts which require more or less same or lesser qualification in the service of the board, is at higher level and the persons who have been regularised along with the petitioners were given a better treatment. It is alleged that though the petitioners possess post graduation in Chemistry as well as the prescribed experience, they are put to a lesser scale of pay.
3. It is further alleged that the fourth respondent, after considering the matter, made certain recommendations to the first respondent stating specific reasons for making the request of up- gradation of scale of pay of the petitioners. Their further case is that persons holding posts with lesser qualification and discharging the duties and responsibilities of the same nature are granted higher pay scale. It was further alleged that the financial implications which might have caused on account of raising of pay scale is also negligible since the pay band is only the same and the hike is only in relation to the grade of pay.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of specific recommendations by the employer, the first respondent has not issued any positive orders in this regard. Therefore, they approached this Court with W.P(C) No.32926 of 2010 which was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the request made by the rubber board within three months. The petitioners allege that the first respondent after examining the matter has specifically recommended for revision as per Ext.P8 and as formal sanction was necessary from the second respondent, it was referred to the second respondent. However, the second respondent has objected to the revision of pay scale by Ext.P9. It is in this context, the petitioners have come up before this Court.
5. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement wherein they admitted that the petitioners were absorbed in regular service of the board in the post of Quality Control Assistant in the scale of pay of ₹3050-75-3950-80-4590 (pre-revised) with retrospective effect from 1.12.2004. They also admitted that shift supervisors were also absorbed in regular service in the scale of pay of ₹4500-125-7000 (pre-revised) with retrospective effect. According to them, most of the shift supervisors were in the aforesaid scale of pay and were having long years of service and, therefore, they have absorbed in the regular service of the board in the same pay scale. However, the absorption/up-gradation of the posts of shift supervisors in the aforesaid pay scale was not approved by the first respondent.
According to them, the scale of pay attached to each post was approved by the Ministry based on the qualification, experience, nature of duties and functions. It is stated that the scale of pay of Quality Control Assistant was ₹3050-4950 (pre-revised) and hence, they were absorbed in regular service with effect from 1.12.2004 in the same pay scale. This also, according to the respondents, was fixed on the qualification, experience and nature of duties and functions. According to them, at the time of absorption, the petitioners have agreed to the terms and conditions, including the pay scale mentioned in the regularisation order.
6. The allegation that the respondent board has requested the first respondent to revise the pay scale of quality control assistants is admitted. According to the respondent, there is no functional justification for up-gradation of the pay scale of the petitioners. They would further admit that the post of Quality Control Assistant is an isolated post having, neither feeder grade nor promotion grade. As per the Modified Assured Career Promotion Scheme, the petitioners who are holding the post of Quality Control Assistant are eligible for financial up-gradation to the grade pay of ₹2,000/-, ₹2,400/- and ₹2,800/- on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service in the grade. They have denied the allegation that shift supervisors possess lesser qualification than that of quality control assistants. According to them, shift supervisors were having long years of service than quality control assistants. They re-iterated the stand that the scale of pay of each post was approved by the Government based on the qualification, experience, nature of duties and functions attached to the post.
7. To this, the petitioners filed a reply affidavit wherein they would allege that the original proposal was to upgrade the pay scale of quality control assistant with that of shift supervisor and the qualification prescribed for that post is only a Diploma in Mechanical or Electrical, whereas the the qualification prescribed for the post of quality assistant is Graduation with 3 years experience. It is further pointed out that the petitioners are post graduates in Chemistry. It is also pointed out that the Central Pay Commission had recommended revision of pay in relation to technical assistants in other institutions and, therefore, treating the petitioners alone, has no justification whatsoever.
8. Arguments have been heard.
9. While the respondents maintained the stand that there is no functional justification in revising the pay scale of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the rejection of the recommendation made by the rubber board for revision of their pay scale is highly unjust, illegal and unreasonable.
10. It was pointed out that the petitioners' case was favourably recommended by the respondent board taking into account all the relevant aspects of the matter. According to the petitioners, the relevant aspects are regarding the qualifications possessed, duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Quality Control Assistant.
11. It was submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed in the Technically Specified Rubber Factory along with other persons and on absorption of all these persons to the rubber board, even the posts which carry the same scale of pay of quality control assistant, the post which the petitioners were holding, was granted higher scale of pay though the qualification prescribed for their initial recruitment was lesser than that of the petitioners.
12. It is evident from the records placed on board that the post of Shift Supervisor for which lesser qualification was prescribed than that of the post of Quality Control Assistant carried the same scale of pay at the time of absorption to the rubber board. However, the shift supervisor was granted a higher scale of pay. Admittedly, the petitioners are post graduates in Chemistry and are having sufficient experience and qualification in terms of the notification.
13. It is relevant to note that the right of every employee working in a Government organisation to get fair and reasonable pay scale commensurate with their qualification and the duties and responsibilities, attached to that post, is a Constitutional right. It is asserted by the first respondent that qualification of persons holding the post, the duties and responsibilities as well as the technical and special nature of the duties attached to the post are relevant factors for determining the pay scale attached to the post.
14. It is curious to note that the petitioners are grouped in Pay Band I and other posts coming under Band are Driver, Cook etc. The qualification prescribed for these posts is SSLC. This would adversely affect the morale of the persons holding high technical post in the service of the respondent board. It is also relevant to note that the qualification for the post of Quality Control Assistant is Graduation in Chemistry or Diploma in Polymer Technology with three years experience in a reputed analytical laboratory, preferably in the analysis of rubber/water/air and in the case of diploma holders, 4 years experience as above. However, the qualification prescribed for the post of Technical Assistants (Training) or Shift Supervisor is Diploma in Polymer Technology from a recognised institution and Diploma in Engineering, which is lesser qualification than that of the qualification prescribed fo rthe post of Quality Control Assistant. However, the scale of pay attached to the post of Quality Control Assistant is lesser than that of the post of Technical Assistant (Training) or Shift Supervisor. Therefore, it is submitted that the denial of the benefit of revision of pay scale is highly unjust and illegal.
15. The stand taken by the first respondent is that the concurrence of the second respondent was not obtained though the respondent rubber board has recommended for the revision. This Court is of the view that since the case of the petitioners was favourably recommended by the rubber board as well as the first respondent, seeking the concurrence of the second respondent is only an official formality. Since the proposal sent by the rubber board was forwarded to the second respondent after taking into account the entire aspects of the matter, including the eligibility of the petitioners to get revision in their scale of pay, the second respondent ought to have approved the proposal made for revision in the pay scale of the petitioners.
16. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent board who is under the control of first respondent alone can assess the expertise of the persons who hold the posts in their service. Taking into account their qualification, the duties and responsibilities attached the post, the respondent board had made a recommendation for revision. However, the second respondent rejected the same on flimsy reasons. One of the objections raised by the second respondent for revision of pay scale is that the absorption/up-gradation of the post of Shift Supervisor in the pay scale of ₹4500-7000 was done without the approval of the Internal Finance Division of Ministry of Commerce as well as the Ministry of Finance, who is the competent authority in such cases.
17. The next ground is that the absorption/up-gradation of the post of Shift Supervisor in the pay scale of ₹4500-7000 cannot be regularised and hence, it is not justifiable to upgrade the pay scale of Qualify Control Assistant. Yet another reason pointed out was that the post of Technical Assistant (Training) and Scientific Assistant was already in higher pay scale than the post of Quality Control Assistant. But, the reasons pointed out does not appear to be correct since the petitioners' case was duly recommended by the respondent board and also by the first respondent as evident from the note files produced in this writ petition.
18. The petitioners do not challenge the higher pay scale granted to the shift supervisor, but only highlighted the discrimination meted out by them in the matter of up-gradation of their scale of pay. It is also relevant to note that financial implication which was caused due to the revision of pay scale of the petitioners would be negligible since they are only three in number and this fact was also made mention of in the recommendation made by the first respondent.
19. The respondent board has submitted a separate proposal considering the qualifications prescribed for Quality Control Assistant and also the duties and functions attached to the post as evident from Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, the rubber board has stated that there are other posts in the service for which the qualification prescribed is graduation i.e. Scientific Assistant, whereas the post of Quality Control Assistant carries a lesser scale of pay compared to Scientific Assistant. The respondent board has also stated that considering the qualification, experience and nature of work there is an anomaly in the matter of fixation of pay scale of Quality Control Assistant. It was also brought to the notice that the financial implication which may cause due to the up-gradation of pay scale is also very minimal. Crowning all these, the petitioners are holding the post not with any promotional avenues, except their grade pay on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of continuous regular service. This grade pay would not be a bar for revision in the pay scale.
20. On a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, this Court of the definite view that the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for.
In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P9 is quashed. It is hereby declared that the petitioners are entitled for up- gradation of their pay scale as recommended by the first respondent and the rubber board, as evident from Exts.P6 and P8 and all other consequential service benefits from 1.12.2004 which is the date on which they were absorbed in service of the rubber board. The respondents are directed to upgrade the scale of pay of the petitioners in the post of Quality Control Assistant as recommended by the rubber board. Formal orders to this effect shall be passed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
krj Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE /True Copy/ P.A to Judge