JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Union of India has filed this writ petition
impugning judgment and order dated 11.7.2001 passed by
Central Administration Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi thereby allowing OA. 1486/98 filed by the
respondent herein. The facts are in narrow compass
which may first be recapitulated.
2. When Doordarshan was initially started as part of
All India Radio, services of various categories of
employees were initially taken on contract basis.
These included Sound Recordists and Lighting
Assistants. They were not given regular pay-scales
which were given to their counter-parts in the Film
Division under the same Ministry, namely, Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting. They approached Supreme
Court by filing various Civil Writs, leading case being
filed CWP.No. 240/89. These writ petitions were allowed
vide judgment dated 12.4.90 which is reported as
Y.K. Mehta and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
. The Supreme Court found that
although these persons were initially appointed on
contract basis subsequently the Staff Artistes were
being appointed up to the age of 55-60 years on a time
scale like a regular Government servant and indeed,
they possessed all the criteria of a Government
servant. Relying upon its earlier judgment in the case
of Union of India v. M.A. Chowdhary the Court had held that Staff Artistes of All
India Radio were holding civil posts under the
Government, it held that there was no distinction
between the Staff Artistes of All India Radio and those
in the Doordarshan. Thus the Court declared these
Staff Artistes of Doordarshan as Government Servants.
The Court also concluded that they were performing the
same duties as performed by their counter-parts in the
Film Division and, therefore, they were entitled to the
same scales of pay as their counter-parts in the Film
Division.
3. After this judgment Government passed order dated
11.5.88 giving the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 550-900
to the Sound Recordists in Doordarshan.
4. One Shri A. Rajashekharan who was Senior Engineering
Assistant in Doordarshan Kendra, Madras filed OA. 654/89
before Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench
for revision of pay-scale of the post of Engineering
Assistant from 425-700 to Rs. 550-900 w.e.f 1.1.78 the
date from which the Supreme Court had allowed the
revision of pay-scales of Sound Recordists in the
aforesaid judgment. He further demanded that on that
basis he should be allowed corresponding scale of
Rs. 2000-3200 as per 4th Pay Commission’s
recommendations with effect from 1.1.86. He founded
his case on the premise that Engineering Assistants and
Sound Recordists in Doordarshan were in the same scale
of Rs. 425-750 w.e.f 1.1.73 as per 3rd Pay
Commission’s recommendations but Sound Recordists in
Films Division had been given higher scale of
Rs. 550-900. This OA was allowed by the Madras Bench of
the Tribunal vide order dated 29.6.90 with the
direction to extend the benefit of the order dated
21.12.88 to Engineering Assistant. The Union of India
filed SLP against the aforesaid judgment of Madras
Bench which was dismissed on 17.1.91. Still
dissatisfied, it filed Review Application which too met
the same fate and was dismissed by order dated
16.7.1991. Thereafter the petitioners herein
approached Madras Bench again and filed Review
Application No. 4/92 seeking review of its judgment
dated 29.6.90 in OA. 654/89 which was allowed by Madras
Bench vide order dated 10.6.92. It was now the turn of
Shri Rajashekharan to knock the Apex Court. He filed
SLP (C) No. 4307-08/93 and No. 15205-07/92 against the
orders of the Madras Bench dated 10.6.92. Supreme
Court granted SLP and allowed the appeals vide order
dated 25.11.94 thereby setting aside the order dated
10.6.92 of the Madras Bench. As a sequator, the
earlier order dated 29.6.90 of the Madras Bench stood
restored which had given the benefit of pay-scale of
Rs. 550-900 to the Engineering Assistants in Doordarshan
Kendra, Madras from 1.1.78. Now the petitioners herein
implemented Supreme Court Order dated 25.11.1984 by
issuing OM dated 15.5.1995 revising the pay of
Engineering Assistants to Rs. 550-900 from 1.1.78 and
Rs. 2000-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.86. The respondents herein
are also Engineering Assistants. However, even when
such large number of Engineering Assistants like the
respondents who had been working as such from dates
much earlier than 1.1.78 were not given weightage of
service already put in prior to 1.1.78. Irrespective
of their dates of appointments their sale of
Rs. 550-900 was started as on 1.1.78 without giving
weightage of their earlier service rendered by them.
These petitioners accordingly filed OA. 1486/98 seeking
benefit of OA.654/89 decided by Madras Bench which was
upheld by the Supreme Court, as noted above. The
Tribunal has allowed this application directing the
petitioners herein to give the benefit of earlier
service as has been done in the case of Sound
Recordists vide para-3 of the petitioners Circular
dated 17.7.90 together with consequential benefits,
including fitment in the revised pay scales consequent
to the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission as well
as payment of arrears, which shall be limited to para 3
of the aforesaid circular dated 17.7.90. Against this
impugned judgment dated 11.7.2001 present writ petition
is preferred and the sole contention of the petitioners
was that while allowing aforesaid directions the
Tribunal ignored its own judgment i.e. of Principal
Bench rendered in OA. 3/96 decided on 11.10.99.
5. OA.3/96 was filed by the Association of Radio and
T.V. Engineering Employees (Recognised) which was
registered association of Engineering Assistants,
Senior engineering Assistants and assistant Engineers
of Radio and Television Engineering Staff, Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting. The grievance made in
the said OA was identical to the present case, namely,
the Association on behalf of its members had claimed
weightage of service already put in by them prior to
1.1.78 which had not been taken into consideration for
fixing the pay and giving annual increments for the
said period while placing them in the pay scale of
Rs. 550-900 w.e.f. 1.1.78. This benefit of weightage
was claimed on the basis of para 3 of OM dated 17.7.90
issued by the petitioners herein in respect of
Cameramen and Sound Recordists. The Tribunal also
noted the judgment of Madras Bench. In fact this
judgment was referred to by the Government in its
counter-affidavit on the basis of which it was
submitted that the Engineering Assistants were also
given the same benefit w.e.f. 1.1.78 as was given to
Sound Recordists by the Supreme Court in Y.K. Mehta’s
case (supra). The Tribunal dealt with the judgment of
the Madras Bench by observing as under:
“6. Perusal of the letter dated 23.5.95
(Annexure A-1) by which the pay scales of
the members of the applicants association
were revised in pursuance of the judgment
of the Supreme Court dated 25.11.94
upholding the C.A.T., Madras Bench
decision in OA-654/89 dated 29.6.90,
indicates that the benefit of new pay
scales have been granted to the
engineering assistants w.e.f. 1.1.78 and
1.1.86. It is not in dispute that the
Madras Bench of CAT granted the revised
pay scale from the aforesaid dates. It
has also been mentioned in this letter
that the engineering assistants who held
and are holding the grades during the
respective period, are entitled to the
benefit of scale of pay as a result of
this revision and refixation from the
aforesaid dates i.e. 1.1.78 and 1.1.86”.
6. Although in para-7, the Tribunal noted that the
applicants in para-4.19 of the said OA made vague
averments it also noted that besides it had not been
stated as to why such Engineering Assistants who are
working prior to 1.1.78 are entitled for weightage of
service when no such direction has been given either by
the Madras Bench of the Tribunal or by the Supreme
Court in their respective judgments. Further in para-9
the Tribunal concluded that there did not appear to be
any reason to give the benefit of revised pay scales to
such members prior to the aforesaid dates. (i.e.
1.1.78 and 1.1.86 on the basis of length of services
rendered by them prior to the aforesaid dates). The
categorical findings, therefore, of the Tribunal were
that such benefit was not to be extended as it was
neither given by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal or by
the Supreme Court nor was their any reason to extend
the benefit of weightage of service prior to 1.1.78.
7. May be the Tribunal mentioned in the opening
portion of para-7 that averments made by the applicants
in para 4.19 of the OA were vague. May be the Tribunal
also in the last portion of para-9 of its judgment
observed that if there was any mistake in fixation of
their pay in terms of relevant rules in respect of any
member of the association, such a person could approach
the Tribunal with specific material and details for
redressal of such grievance. However, this liberty was
given only if there was any mistake in fixation of
their pay in terms of relevant rules. Insofar as
question of giving prior weightage of service prior to
1.1.78 is concerned, the Tribunal did not find any
merit while deciding OM.3/96 by order dated 11.10.99
and, therefore, dismissed the said OA.
8. In the judgment which is impugned in this writ
petition, the Tribunal has merely rested its decision
on the order dated 29.6.1990 of the Madras Bench of
Central Administrative Tribunal for giving the
respondents herein the weightage of the service prior
to 1.1.78 for fixing the pay in the pay-scale of
Rs. 550-900, although in the earlier judgment of the
same Bench it was held that the Madras Bench did not
confer any such benefit, namely, weightage of past
service.
9. It is now trite law that a Coordinate Bench of the
Tribunal cannot take a view contrary to a view
expressed by earlier Bench. It is bound by the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench rendered earlier. In
case it differs from the decision of the earlier Bench,
the only course open to it to is to refer the matter to
a Larger Bench. This was not done. In fact there is
no discussion even about the judgment dated 11.10.99
passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Principal Bench
in OA.3/96. Significantly in the judgment dated
11.10.99 the earlier Bench took cognizance of the
judgment of Madras Bench as upheld by the Supreme
Court, but stated that apart from giving benefit of
pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 w.e.f 1.1.78, no such
weightage of service rendered prior to 1.1.78 was given
by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal or the Supreme Court.
10. In view thereof, we have no option but to
set-aside the impugned judgment and remit the case back
to the Tribunal with direction to have fresh look into
the matter keeping in view its earlier judgment in
OA.3/96 dated 11.10.99 and in case there is still
difference of opinion then to refer the matter to a
Larger Bench for appropriate decision.
11. This writ is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
There shall be no orders as to costs.