THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No. 482 OF 2009 Date: 06th June, 2011 Between: M. Nageshwara Rao and 4 others … Petitioners And Ajay Srivastav Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No. 482 OF 2009 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioners seeking to punish the respondent for Contempt of Court, for willfully and wantonly disobeying the orders dated 17.09.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.501 of 2007 in W.P.No.403 of 2007. The facts of the case in brief are: The petitioners are Deputy Technical Officers working in Security Printing Press, Hyderabad (for short, SPP). They filed Writ Petition No.403 of 2007 seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not implementing the scales of pay duly rectifying the anomaly in respect of Assistant Technical Officers (for short, ATOs) and Deputy Technical Officers (for short, DTOs) as implemented in respect of the other employees under the control of the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 29.06.2006 and 12.07.2006, as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious, malafide, contrary to FR.22 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also filed W.P.M.P.No.501 of 2007 seeking direction to the respondent to implement the pay scales duly rectifying the anomaly in respect of the petitioners, viz., ATOs and DTOs with immediate effect and to pay the differences of emoluments. This Court admitted the said writ petition and ordered notice on 05.01.2007. Thereafter, by order dated 15.11.2007, interim direction was granted as prayed for, and the same was made absolute by order dated 17.09.2008. The petitioners submit that till today the respondent authorities did not implement the same, resulting in heavy financial loss to the petitioners, and consequently the subsequent Pay Revision Commission orders were also not implemented, and thus the action of the contemnors is willful disobeyance amounting to Contempt of Court and is liable to be punished under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent authorities have not passed any specific order for rectifying the anomaly that took place in the 5th CPC in respect of ATOs and DTOs, and therefore, the respondent authorities are liable for punishment for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that a detailed counter has been filed stating that the petitioners’ case does not come within the purview of anomalies. However, considering the case of the petitioners, the difference of amount as per 5th CPC has been already paid to the petitioners and therefore, there is no point of non-compliance on the part of the respondent. It is further stated that there is no anomaly in the pay scale attached to the posts of ATOs and DTOs in the 5th Pay Commission Pay Scales (Central Government) as alleged in the contempt case, since both the cadres were placed in two distinct pay scales, viz., 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 respectively. But there is a disparity in pay scales attached to the cadre of Foreman and ATOs. The cadre of Foreman is a subordinate cadre to the ATO cadre and it was placed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and the higher cadre of ATO was placed in 5000-8000 in the 5th Pay Commission Pay Scales under Part-C recommendations. At that stage, the cadre of Foreman is borne on Industrial Establishment and the cadre of ATO and DTO are borne on Classified Establishment i.e non-Gazetted Group ‘C’ establishment. The subject issue is raised by the applicants because there is a promotional channel from the cadre of Foreman to the cadre of ATO and then to the cadre of DTO in the notified Recruitment Rules. The methods of recruitment for the above two cadres and the other conditions are as under:- Assistant Technical Officer (a) The vacancies arised in the said cadre are to be filled at 75% by Direct Recruitment and 25% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. (b) For Promotion: Foreman (Printing)/Camera Operator are eligible with 3 years regular service. D e p u t y Technical Officer: (a) The vacancies arised in the said cadre are to be filled by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation/transfer basis. (b) For Promotion: Assistant Technical Officer with atleast 5 years regular service in the grade. It is also stated that, in the above two statements the cadre of Foreman (on Industrial Establishment) and ATO (on Group ‘C’ non- Gazetted cadre) were placed initially in the identical pay scales of Rs.4500-7000 under Part-A of 5th CPC recommendations. The disparity in the pay scales of Foreman (Rs.5500-9000) and ATO (Rs.5000-8000) was arised only due to implementation of Part-C pay scales as per the orders passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The sanction for the recommendations was conveyed by the Ministry vide letter No.1/3/99-Cy.1(SPP), dated 10.12.2001 and the same were implemented vide orders dated 11.12.2001. The disparity in the pay scales in the Foreman (on Industrial Establishment) and ATO (on non-Gazetted Group ‘C’ establishment) was brought to the notice of the Ministry in time by the respondent’s office. The Ministry vide their letter dated 23.06.2000 had informed that the case was referred to the Anomalies Committee; whereas Coordination Division of Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide their O.M.No.22/56/2000-Coord dated 18.07.2000 had informed that the Department of Anomaly Committee of the Ministry of Finance is required to receive anomalies only through the Leader (Staff Side) of the Departmental Council of the Ministry of Finance and advised to route the anomaly through the Leader of Staff Side and for this purpose, a Departmental Anomaly Committee vide O.M.No.12/35/98-Coord dated 16.02.2000 was also constituted by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue; and that the applicants had not submitted individual representations to the Leader (Staff Side) of the Departmental Council of the Ministry of Finance for redressal of their grievances. But the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance had noticed the disparity in the pay scales of Foreman (cadre being operating on Industrial Establishment) and ATO (cadre being operating on Group ‘C’ non-Gazetted Establishment) and submitted the case to the 6th Pay Commission for rectification of disparity in the pay scales. The 6th CPC, in their recommendations at Para No.7.15.9, had observed that presently post of Foreman (Printing) is in a higher scale of Rs.5500-9000 vis-à-vis its promotion post of ATO that exists in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. This anomaly has been created as the Central Administrative Tribunal directed upgradation of pay scale of Foreman (Printing) from the pay scale of 4500-7000 to that 5500-9000. The Commission, in any case, has recommended merger of the scales of Rs.5000-8000, 5500-9000, 6500-10500. This will place the post of Foreman and ATO in an identical scale. The post should therefore be merged. The next higher post of DTO in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 shall consequently be upgraded to 7450-11500 corresponding to the revised pay band PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with the grade pay of Rs.4600. The recommendations made by the 6th CPC were accepted by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (Implementation cell) vide Gazette Notification dated 29.08.2008 and O.M.No.1/1/2008-IC dated 29.08.2008. The orders of the Ministry were implemented at SPP, Hyderabad vide Office Order No.SPP/AI/CPC/2008-09/3643 dated 11.09.2008. It is also averred that the difference of pay scales i.e. arrears from 01.01.2006 to 30.08.2008 were also drawn and paid to the petitioners, along with other employees working in SPP, Hyderabad, after deduction of Income Tax at source as per the rules. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioners have not made any representation to the Anomaly Committee to consider the anomalies in pay scale as per the 5th Pay Commission. But, however, having noted certain anomalies that have arisen in 5th Pay Commission in respect of other cadres, the matter was considered by the Anomaly Committee and certain anomalies have been rectified. As far as the petitioners are concerned, the difference of pay scales from 01.01.2006 to 30.08.2008 were paid to the petitioners along with other employees working in SPP, Hyderabad after deducting Income Tax at source as per rules. Therefore, there is no violation of the orders passed by this Court as contended by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, no doubt it is averred in the counter affidavit that the difference in pay scales were drawn by the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2006 to 30.08.2008, but no specific orders were passed by the respondent for rectifying the anomaly, and therefore, the respondent has not complied with the orders passed by this Court. The case of the petitioners is that there are certain anomalies in respect of the pay scales with regard to the 5th Pay Commission recommendations. But for the purpose of considering the anomalies in pay scales that had arisen in 5th Pay Commission, a committee was constituted known as Anomaly Committee, which had considered the anomalies. As far as the cadre of the petitioners is concerned, there are no such anomalies noticed by the authorities. The petitioners have not made specific representation through proper channel, but have straightaway filed this writ petition. However, complying with the orders passed by this Court, the petitioners were paid the difference of pay scales. No reply has been filed disputing that fact. Therefore, subsequent to the order passed by this Court, the case of the petitioners appears to have been considered and necessary payments with regard to the difference of pay scales were made. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to say that the respondent has not complied with the orders of this Court in the matter, and hence, no orders need to be passed in this Contempt Case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 06th June, 2011 KSM