LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-70

UNION OF INDIA Vs. A M BAZEER AHAMED

Decided On September 08, 2011
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
A.M.BAZEER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 27 are working as Laboratory Assistants in the Vector Control Research Centre, Pondicherry, which is one of the permanent institutes of Indian Council of Medical Research, established in 1975. It is a centre of excellence for research and training in vector-borne diseases and control and a World Health Organisation collaborating centre for research and training in lymphatic filariasis and integrated methods of vector control. It has been carrying out basic and applied research with the primary objective of finding newer methods and developing strategies for the control of vector borne diseases.

(2.) THE respondents 1 to 27/applicants were originally granted the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 as per the recommendations of the IV Pay Commission and in the V Pay Commission, their pay was fixed at Rs.3050-4590. When the applicants and other similarly placed persons have represented regarding the pay anomaly in fixation of the pay of Rs.3050-4590, the matter was referred to the Pay Anomaly Committee, which has recommended the implementation of the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to the Lab Assistants with effect from 1.1.1996 on par with other categories of employees. THE said recommendation was accepted by the Government and an order was issued on 30.10.2000, granting the revised pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 with effect from 1.1.1996 on par with the counterparts of the applicants working under the control of Indian Council of Medical Research. But, on 30.5.2003, an order was issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research, stating that the pay of the Research Assistant/Statistical Assistant has to be rolled back from the revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. According to the respondents 1 to 27, even though there was no specific direction to roll back the pay of Lab Assistants, it was also rolled back to Rs.3050-4590. THE repeated representations of the applicants to the authorities concerned to get back their benefit, have succeeded, ultimately, with the grant of revised pay of Rs.4000-6000 with effect from 1.9.2005, instead of 1.1.1996. THErefore, the applicants, once again, have requested the Health Department to implement the pay scale, as has been granted earlier, on and from 1.1.1996. THE Health Department, has sent a letter to the Finance Department, dated 19.5.2006, requesting the Finance Department to consider the implementation of the revised pay scale of Lab Assistants with effect from 1.1.1996, but since it has not yielded any positive reply, the applicants have filed O.A.No.7 of 2008 before the Tribunal, praying for implementation of the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 with effect from 1.1.1996 and for payment of arrears. THE third respondent had filed a reply statement before the Tribunal, stating that the Ministry of Finance has not accepted the request for grant of the pay scale with retrospective effect and prayed for dismissal of the O.A. THE Tribunal, by the order dated 24.7.2008, has directed the respondents therein viz. the petitioners 1 and 3 herein to consider and pass speaking order on the representation of the applicants dated 22.5.2006. Pursuant thereto, the third petitioner herein has passed an order dated 9.10.2008, rejecting the representation of the applicants dated 22.5.2006 on the ground that Ministries i.e. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Ministry of Finance have not agreed to grant the pay scale of Rs.4,000-6000 in accordance with the recommendations made by the 5th Pay Commission.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel for the petitioners would argue that fixation of pay scales to different cadre of employees is the function of the Executive/Government and the Courts should not interfere with the same. He has further argued that in the case on hand, the Government has taken a specific stand that the applicants are not entitled to fixation of pay scale with retrospective effect and hence the order passed by the Tribunal, causing interference into such a rejection order passed by the Government is very much unwarranted and would pray to allow this writ petition.