IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34515 of 2005(S) -------------------------- OA.136/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.K.ANTONY, LIFT OPERATOR, CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, COCHIN-682 014. 2. S.MOHANAN, LIFT OPERATOR, CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, COCHIN-682 014. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.BALAKRISHNAN GOPINATH SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, COCHIN-14. 2. THE INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KRISHI BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.SAJU XAVIER T., CGC FOR R4 SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, ICAR FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 34515/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CALL LETTERS DATED 14.09.1988 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CALL LETTERS DATED 14.09.1988 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 6.10.1988 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 6.10.1988 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 5.7.1991 PUBLISHED IN SWAMY'S COMPILATION OF PAY REVISION. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION DATED 2.4.1992 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.12.1992 GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.4.1993 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.12.1994 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.10-12/81/ADMN. DATED 16.11.1995 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.2.2000 OF CAT IN OA NO.797/1997. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.5.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.5.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.9.2000 IN O.A.NO.781/2000 OF THE HON'BLE CAT. EXT.P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P16 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.A.NO.136/2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P17 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A.NO.136/2003 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P18 – TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 8.1.2004. EXT.P19 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES APPLICABLE TO THE LIFT OPERATORS IN THE CPWD. EXT.P20 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 11.11.2005 IN O.A.NO.136/2003. EXT.P21 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F NO.15-5/2005/ESTT. DATED 30.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 34515 OF 2005-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 16th January, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the applicants in O.A.No.136/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. They are working as Lift Operators under the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI). They claim the scale of pay applicable to the Lift Operators in Central Government Service. Their claim in this regard was rejected by Ext.P15 order by the competent authority. Challenging that, Ext.P16 O.A was filed. The petitioners claim parity with the Lift Operators in the Central Government Service, based on the principle “equal pay for equal work”. 2. The respondents would submit that the petitioners belong to supporting staff Grade I. There is no separate post of Lift Operator. The post of Supporting Staff Grade I includes various posts like Binder, Khalasi, Helper etc. These posts are inter-changeable also. They will come under Group D posts under the 1st respondent. The scale of pay of Rs.950-1500, WPC 34515/2005 2 the petitioners are claiming, is the scale of pay applicable to Group C posts. So, a Group D employee who happened to work as Lift Operator, cannot claim the salary of a Group C employee, it is submitted. Further, the pay scales applicable to the employees under the Central Government are not automatically applicable to the CMFRI. CMFRI is a unit of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). ICAR decides from time to time the scales of pay of the employees under it and its units, based on the nature of work, its financial capacity, etc. In other words, the scale of pay applicable to the Central Government employees cannot be given to equated or identical categories, it is submitted. 3. The Tribunal accepted the above contentions of the respondents and dismissed the O.A by Ext.P20 order. It was held that the principle “equal pay for equal work” cannot be made mechanically applicable to all situations. We fully agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal. The Group D employees under the 1st respondent, on the ground that owing to exigencies of service they have been posted as Lift Operators, cannot claim a higher scale of pay. 4. The petitioners also challenge Ext.P21 order of the 1st respondent. But, challenge to that order is not permissible, in view of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. First, they have to move the C.A.T. Then WPC 34515/2005 3 only, they can canvass the correctness of that order before this Court, if their efforts before the CAT fail. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. Nm/