DILSHAD AHMED Vs. U.O.I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR .Dilshad Ahmed who is working as Machine Assistant in Sports Authority of India, respondent No.2, makes a claim for pay revision from Rs.950-1200 to Rs.1200-1800 (pre-revised) effective from 1986, which was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal initially vide its order dated July 27, 2012 in Original Application No.2421/2012 and later vide its order dated May 10, 2013 in Review Application No.298/2012 in Original Application No.2421/2012. The Original Application No.2421/2012 is a second round of litigation. The initial one being Original Application No.2286/2011 which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated August 10, 2011 calling upon the respondent to consider his representation in accordance with Ministry of Finance decision taken on October 31, 1989 and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The respondent No.2 examined the matter and communicated its decision to the petitioner vide its communication dated April 19, 2012 which is reproduced as under:-

(2.) THE Tribunal initially rejected the case of the applicant at the admission stage itself observing that the claim pertains to the year 1986 by observing that in this case the concept of pay parity is not in consonance with the total identity propounded by the Supreme Court.

(3.) AS both the orders have been challenged before us we have heard the case on merits. During the course of arguments, Mr.Mohd. Mobin Akhtar would attack the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has totally misdirected itself in determining the question of parity. According to him the claim of the petitioner is on the basis of the decision/ instructions contained in the Ministry of Finance O.M dated October 31, 1989 which is based on the acceptance of the 4th Pay Commission. We have seen the office memorandum dated October 31, 1989. A perusal of the same would show that the same relates to the printing staff and the said order also contemplate different posts of Machine Assistant and the posts have been classified as unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, highly skilled (grade ­II), highly skilled (grade­I) etc. Different pay scales have been prescribed depending upon the classification of posts. We have seen the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not considered the matter from the perspective it has been agitated before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us to the pleadings filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Parity with the Machine Assistant (Offset) in the Ministry of Urban Development is not an issue. The issue which requires consideration is whether the nature of duties performed by the petitioner is skilled or highly skilled. This job is primarily of the administration by the persons who have the expertise, knowledge of duties and level of responsibilities etc. This Court would not like to venture into a realm in which it does not have such an expertise. We are conscious of the fact that this aspect has not been considered by the respondents at least in the communication dated April 19, 2012 but we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner relates back to the year 1986 when the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission were implemented. 27 years have gone by. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to agitate the issue of revision of pay scale effective from 1986. It is a case where the petitioner has not approached the Judicial Forum at appropriate time. The submission of the counsel for petitioner that he has been agitating the issue with the department would be inconsequential in the facts of this case. We find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.