IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19'?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 20
PRESENT Vwuiyu.
THE HONBLE MR.J1JsT1cE..N,_B:UM,Aifz' if
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1cE_
WRIT PETITION _NO.4983i-$1-;'2GQ3 (S':cAfij
BETWEEN:
Smt.IshwariM _. = ~
Aged about . '
W/0 Sri.Sada=ir1anda b " _ " '
Technical Assis.ta'nt;}_.? ~ A
Regional v()ffice. fiyr I*Iéi;e1th"'& Famiiyi Welfare
Goverrimentof Iriciia, ' . '
{Ind E1oor';_E'w.ing, ' j . _
Kendriya Sadan, K0.rain'ar_1ga1a;"
Bangalore 580034, _ "
Resident" at N0.243; " "
V. Sri __5"?_Majn"Rn_a(ii,~
._ Cilarriarajpet," ~ . '_
W,Bang'a].Qre_ 18. ... Petitioner
4 'AND: ..
V' A' '*-Thevssenior Regional Director (HFW),
(by Sri;N Bhat, Adv)
* Fiegiorial Office for Health and Family
Welfare, Government of India,
2*" floor, F Wing, Kendriya Sadan,
Koramangala,
Bangalore 34.
2. The Director General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi 1.10 011..
3. The Union of India,
Secretary, V I__ " . _
Ministry of Health & Fa,rrrE1y'Welfar'e.,
Nirman Bhavan, y
New Delhi 1. 10 011. Respondents
(by Sri.B.V.’1’ilak, ACGSC} _
This Writ:Peti:ti:on 11:} Filed U.n”a§_-;. 226 & 227 of
the C0flStitl1UQI3_ of;–in__dia “pr’a_,ying<_ to qiilash the order of the
Directorate C}'ene_ral"ofIHeal.t;':iL '??~er'vie'es,.V1'u'ir1nan Bhavan, New
Delhi dt.1e.8.2.oo.1 fyide Annze… *
This on for Hearing this day,
N.K1in1ar"J,, ' made the , foi1.owi_n"g_;_
6RDER
fietitioner llll "has preferred this writ petition
passed by the Central Administrative
. Trihunalv_'»tieelfining to quash the letter dated 16.8.2001 by
u""'–._d"\«;hieh was informed that her revised basic pay can be
i §.5s.450OM70()0/- as recommended by the 5"' Central Pay
H/..
-3-
aforesaid pay scale and alter it to the advantage of the
petitioner and therefore, submits that no case for
interference is made out.
5. From the aforesaid materiai on record, it_.is_4riot’i-i:t_1V”‘ H
dispute taking into consideration the ed..uca;tiot1eli’
qualification of the petitioner, namely’l»AClase-._Masters’ disagree
in Statistics, which is the minirnum qualificationjpreseribxed_ ”
L..–/’ .
for the said post; gishe was recruitedi–t,o the ‘post
Assistant in the MinistryV<3f..j£~Iealth"a;r1:d Welfare. It is
an isolated post. No pron:otionai.avenue. isyprovided under
the Rules.' uZéld(=f"~§h'ose ._"circumstar1ces, when the
revision of 1f')a.ystool'<.<'s }')lac€_;"'after the pay commission has
considered the'-.said.p'ostA'tai{ihg into consideration the nature
furjgctiopiXpcrformed';–if«it has recommended the pay scale of
pmbably the respondents were justified in
their"s*tAan(l.'1t.'5'is not disputed that the 5"! CPC did not
consideit. post. They have not made any specific
I »fecotriI–nendation in so far as this post is C0f}.C€I'}f}.€d. In those
__"i:irc§umstances, the Tribunal committed a serious error in
proceeding on the assumption that when the expert body
lg
– 9 –
like 5″‘ CPC has not recommended the higher scale, the 5″‘
CFC has considered the pay scale to be granted to the post of
Technical Assistant held by the petitioner, but ha;d~.l_Vo~niy.x
recommeiided the revised scale of .
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to acijudicate
When the 5″‘ CFC has not
petitioner and has not I’eC0fI]lTi’>{%lr’ICi(?d. up-ay
post specifically, it was obligatory llribunal
to go into the question the “pay scale
recommended by the posts in
different categoriesl qualification is
prescribed payllscale in respect of other
posts keepinglin in the ill?’ CPC. Such an
exercise has notybeen dohelllby the Tribunal, as they were of
‘the exercise has been done by the 5”?’ CPC and
therefore,llthpeyhave no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.
[.)ersor1v.V_\_Av,ll7iio is only a Graduate is now fixed a pay scale
it y”i’iligher:.than that to the post-Graduate. The argument was,
Graduates’ functions are altogether different, whereas
Tl’1€A1′!u1″at€’17l&l__n(‘)fi’lAVI’EEC()I'(i discloses that for the very same post
EX.
.19..
the functioris performed by this post~Graduate is not so.
The petitioner is performing the functions assigne(i’Vto’»::tiie_
said post. She is possessing the I Ciass _
Degree. She has not refused to perform ”
assigned to her by the I’CSpOIld€f1tS.:::’: If
the post where the petitioner’ is worltirzg,
respondents to make use of vsrhere
there is work. In those theyrexrisvingitvscale of
Rs.4500–700() fixed for At any rate,
the validity of into by the
Tribunal on 1: the-4″‘soIegroi:£iid’ =-that’=_the expert body has
considered _ _suIciii ‘Si'{:L1§3.tiO_I’1 and has made a
recormrieridation and “the1fef{_)rti, their jurisdiction is ousuaig.
The said» reasoning is contrary to the factuai reaiities of the
case.” Wi1enA~.p_admittedIy the expert body has neither
C-onsidei’ed’*«tiie post in question nor considered whether it is
a statisticai iifinctiorial post, the Tribunal whose members
speciafised in this particular fieid of service law could
it fi;’ix_t)p10_ their mind taking into consideration the
.’:V’I.’>(3(.F:)l’I1iI1€I1(1£i'[iOI1 made by the 5’51 CPC in respect of other
L/..
– 11 ,
posts, could evaluate a proper pay scale in commensurate
with the educational qualification of the petitioner, the
educational qu.ali{‘:cation prescribed for the said
nature of function she is performing and also .
consideration that a Graduate is paidmrnorexa
post–Graduate in the very same
appropriate pay scale. in our ‘would
of justice. The Tribunal would look into
the observations of 5″‘ paragraph 81.17 in
arriving at an appropriate It is
needless to to be fixed by
the Tribunal_ the minimum pay scale
fixed for aAC.raduate_. scale to be fixed for a post
Graduate geannotibel less than what is prescribed for a
Though nature of work is also a component
beftaken into consideration while fixing the pay
‘ scale,=,_if the ~peLitioner’s work could be made use for better in
‘ ‘~.__any othervrlepartrnent which would enable her to get a higher
it scale, it is open to the authorities to avail her service
E/.
-12-
and fix a pay scale appropriate to her qluaiification and
capability. In that View of the matter, we pass the f0i1(4)\.=.sVIi’1:”_1}§:._V’
ORDER ‘ H’
I] The petition is allowed.
2) The impugned order is heresy setiasitiei i’
3} The entire matter is re111itte(i«”‘o_ae*k to
for fresh considerationuiin._V titer. the
observations it
Parties to bear