Friday, February 7, 2014

CAT DELHI Decision on MACP of Pharmacist

               

                                                  CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                                                                  PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
OA NO.3441/2012
MA NO.2879/2012
Reserved on 20.01.2014
Pronounced on 31.01.2014
HONBLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
HONBLE MR. RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER (J)
1.            All India CGHS Employees Association
   Through its General Secretary Jaidev,
   S/o Late Sh. Kanwal Singh
   R/o House no.H-69, Saket Kunj,
   Rohini, New Delhi.
2.            I.S. Chauhan,
   S/o Mega Singh
   R/o 16/102 East End Appt.
   Phase-I Mayur Vihar Ext. Delhi-96.
3.            Vikas Jain,
   S/o Sh. Janeshwar Dayal Jain
   R/o C-29, Gali No.5,
   West Jyoti Nagar Ext., Delhi-94.
4.            Naresh Bhardwaj,
   S/o Sh. Har Narain Bhardwaj
   R/o 889/31, Ashok Vihar,
   New Court Road, Sonipat, Haryana.                            Applicants

(By Advocate: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj)

VERSUS

1.            Union of India
   Through the Secretary
   Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
   Govt. of India,
   Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.            AS & DG (CGHS)
   Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
   Govt. of India,
   Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3.            Director (CGHS)
   Director General of Health Services,
   CGHS-II Section,
   Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
4.            Director Admn. (CGHS)
   Director General of Health Services,
   CGHS-II Section,
   Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
5.            Additional Director (HQ), CGHS,
   Bikaner House, New Delhi.
6.            Secretary
   Deptt. of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
   Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance
   & Pensions, North Block,
   New Delhi.
7.            Secretary Finance
   Ministry of Finance
   Govt. of India
   North Block, New Delhi.                                                         Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr.Tanveer Ahmed)

:ORDER:
MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
This OA has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure-A/1) issued by Director General of Health Services, CGHS revising the grant of financial upgradations under the MACP scheme in lower grade pay scale.  The impugned order also directs recovery of excess payment.
2.            Facts of the case are that DOP&T had issued an office memorandum regarding clarifications on the subject Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) dated 18.07.2001 (Annexure-A/3) inter alia to clarify on the issue as to whether placement/appointment in the higher scales of pay based on the recommendations of the pay commissions or committee set up to rationalize the cadres be reckoned as promotion/upgradation or not. DoPT in this OM clarified that where all the posts are placed in a higher scale of pay, with or without a change in designation; without requirement of any new qualification for holding the post in the higher grade, not specified in the Recruitment Rules for the existing post, and without involving any change in responsibilities and duties then placement of all the incumbents against such upgraded posts was not to be treated as promotion/upgradation. Subsequently, when the 6th Pay Commission Report was being approved, the government had referred the matter relating to the demands made with respect to the pay scales of certain common category posts including that of Pharmacists to a Fast Track Committee (FTC). One of the items referred to the FTC related to the pay scales of common category posts of Pharmacists. The Committee recommended that while entry grade of Pharmacists in Central Government would remain at the grade pay scale of Rs.2,800/- in the pay band of PB-I, they shall on completion of two years service in the entry grade be granted non-functional upgradation to the next higher grade having grade pay of Rs.4200/- in the Pay Band PB-II. The recommendations made by the FTC were considered by the Central Government and the recommendations of the FTC were accepted with respect to the pay scales of common category posts  of Pharmacists and w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the following pay structure was approved:-
S.No.      Designation      Pre-revised pay scale   Pay structure approved on the recommendation of Fast Track Committee                      Remarks            
1.            Pharmacists                   4500-7000                                                      Grade pay of 2800 in PB-1           
2.            Pharmacists Grade-II   5000-8000       4200 in PB-II   Pharmacists-II & Pharmacists-I will be merged and       redesignated as pharmacists (non-functional grade).      
3.            Accordingly, office memorandum dated 18.11.2009 (Annexure-A/5) on the subject of implementation of recommendations of FTC with the aforenoted pay structure of Pharmacists cadre (common category) was issued. Since the OM had used the word promotion from the Pharmacists (Entry Grade) to the next higher grade of Pharmacists (NFG), the error was rectified vide OM dated 02.06.2010 by the Department of Expenditure clarifying that the word promotion be read as placement(Annexure-A/6). The applicants contention in the OA is that the grant of grade pay of Rs.4200 after two years of service in the grade pay of Rs.2800 was not linked to promotion and hence could not be treated as promotion. Later, vide order dated 16.07.2010, the decision was communicated that the impugned order dated 18.11.2009 were to be effective from 01.01.2006. 
4.            One of the applicants made a representation (Anneuxre-A-8) drawing attention to the subsequent letter dated 11.11.2011 issued by the respondent-Directorate proposing to revise the grant of first, second and third financial upgradations under the MACP from Rs.4600, Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 respectively to a lower grade pay of Rs.4200, Rs.4600 and Rs.4800 respectively. The representation stated that since it had been clarified that the recommendations of the FTC were a part of Sixth Central Pay Commission, hence such placement after two years of service could not be considered as promotion or financial upgradation under MACP.

5.            The impugned order dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure-A/1) was issued, revising the grant of financial upgradation made vide letter dated 16.07.2010 as also recovery of excess payment. Applicants have cited a series of judgments of the Honble Supreme Court & others in which recovery orders have been held to be unjustified. These judgments are cited in para 4.27 of the OA.
6.            The following reliefs have been sought in this OA:-
i) The impugned order dated 11.11.2011 issued by Director General of Health Services, CGHS revising the grant of financial upgradations under the MACP scheme in lower grade pays and directing recovery of excess payment made may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal.
ii)            The impugned order dated 19.09.2012 issued by Director CGHS revising the grant of financial upgradation under ACP/MACP scheme in lower grade pays as per letter dated 11.11.2011 and directing recovery of excess payment in installments may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal.
iii)           All consequential benefits may be granted to the Applicants.
iv)           Any other relief, which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the Applicants.
v)            Cost of the proceedings be awarded in favour of the Applicants and against the Respondents.
7.            Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In para 4.1, respondents have stated as under:-
4.1          In reply to Para 4.1 of the O.A. it is submitted that the clarification under para 35 of the DoPTs O.M. dated 18.07.2011 is relevant for grant of financial upgradation under ACP Scheme. Whereas the present O.A. has been filed against the orders dated 11.11.2011 issued by the Directorate which is regarding the grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. The grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- only on completion of two years of service has been delinked from vacancies. Therefore, it cannot be said that all posts are placed on a higher scale. Further, as per DoPTs O.M. dated 18.07.2001, the rationalization/restructuring in favour of the creation of a number of new hierarchical grades in the rationalized set up and some of the incumbents with pre-rationalized set up are placed in the hierarchy of restructured set up in a grade higher than the normal corresponding level taking into consideration their length of service in existing pre-structured/pre-rationalized grade, then this will be taken as promotion/upgradation. Therefore, the contention put forth by the applicants is not valid.
8.            Respondents have further stated that the grade pay of Rs.4200/- from Rs.2800/- having been granted on completion of two years of service in respect of Pharmacists as per recommendations of FTC would be treated as 1st Financial upgradation under MACP Scheme and, therefore, 2nd and 3rd MACP should be granted in the grade pay of Rs.4600/- and Rs.4800/- respectively. This is because every financial upgradation granted consequent to recommendations of whichever committee will be offset against one financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. Accordingly, when the grant of grade pay of Rs.4200/- is made on expiry of two years and the entry grade for Pharmacists would be treated as a financial upgradation for the purpose of MACP. It has also been contended that not to treat the financial upgradation on the basis of the FTC recommendation as MACP would be a misplaced view, specially when DOP&T has clarified that every upgradation of grade pay will be offset against one financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. Hence, although the upgradation from Rs.2800/- to Rs.4200/- may not be treated as promotion, yet, however, it would be treated as financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.
9.            Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of applicants. Applicants have reiterated their contentions in the OA, highlighting that the word Upgradation has to be replaced by the word Placement. It has been stated that respondents are wrongly using the word upgradation/promotion, which is not applicable in the present case of applicants who have only been given placement in the higher pay scale after two years of service.

10.          We have heard learned counsel for both parties and have also perused the documents and pleadings on record.
11.          Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of applicants, which are on record.
12.          We have perused the OM at Annexure-A/28 to the written submissions. The subject in the OM reads as under:-
Subject:   Revised pay structure of the common category posts of Pharmacists Cadre implementation of Fast Track Committees recommendation regarding.
13.          It is stated in the OM that the recommendations of the FTC have been considered by the government and it has been decided to accept the same and further the revised pay structure is approved for the common category posts of Pharmacists cadre w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Paras 3 and 4 of the OM are reproduced below:-
3.            Consequently upon the implementation of the above pay structure, promotion from Pharmacist (Entry Grade) to the next higher grade of Pharmacist (Non-Functional Grade) having grade pay of Rs.4200/- will be delinked from vacancies and will become non-functional and time-bound. In the case of Organizations like the Ordnance Factory Board, where all the Pharmacists posts are presently in the grade pay of Rs.2800 in the pay band PB-I, the implementation of the above pay structure will result in the introduction of the new Non-Functional Grade having grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2.
4.            All administrative ministries may initiate action to implement the above revised pay structure in respect of the common category post of Pharmacist Cadre.
14.          It is also seen that vide OM dated 02.06.2010 (Annexure-A/6) a clarification was issued to the earlier OM dated 18.11.2009 to the effect that the word promotion in the second sentence of para 3 of the OM may be read as placement. Relevant portion of the said OM reads as follows:-
   3.         Consequently upon the implementation of the above pay structure, promotion from Pharmacist (Entry Grade) to the next higher grade of Pharmacist (Non-Functional Grade) having grade pay of Rs.4200/- will be delinked from vacancies and will become non-functional and time-bound. In the case of Organizations like the Ordnance Factory Board, where all the Pharmacists posts are presently in the grade pay of Rs.2800 in the pay band PB-I, the implementation of the above pay structure will result in the introduction of the new Non-Functional Grade having grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2.
15.          It is thus noticed that according to the governments decision communicated vide OM dated 18.11.2009, the revised pay structure to be applied may read as Placement in place of Promotion.
16.          Applicants have produced the decision of the Tribunal in OA No.518/2005 (Annexure-A/31 of written submissions) on the reference whether placement of Tracers, working in Ordnance Factories under DGOF, in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 after completion of 7 yearsservice in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4000 is to be treated as promotion while determining the eligibility for financial upgradation under ACP Scheme. After discussing various judgments, the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay dated 11.12.2006 dismissing the Writ filed by the Union of India was noted. The view held by the Honble High Court in that case was that the placement of pay revised in the case of applicants in that case could not be treated as regular promotion and the ACP benefits rightly granted to the applicants could not be withdrawn. The operative portion of the order is reproduced below:-
It appears that by the impugned order dated 9/8/2003 before the Tribunal, the benefits granted under the ACP Scheme were sought to be withdrawn, contending that the upgradations in the pay scale of Draughtsmen, were already granted to the applicants by the order dated 15/9/1998 or the earlier notification dated 9/10/1994 and the said was, in fact, a promotion. The Tribunal held that by placement in higher scale and redesignation under O.M. dated 15/9/1990, the pay was fixed in terms of pay 97 of OM & FR 22(1)(a)(2) and the said did not amount to promotions in as much as there were no higher responsibilities or duties of greater importance assigned. In addition, there was absence of the promotion process either on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority in the said upgradation by OM dated 15/9/1998. The Tribunal concluded, thus the placement of the pay revision granted in pursuance to CPWD Arbitrat on award cannot be treated as regular promotion and ACP benefit rightly granted to the applicant cannot be withdrawn.
17.          This view of the Honble High Court was challenged in SLP by the Union of India, which was rejected.
18.          The Government of India in the Ministry of Finance had issued a clarification on 6th CPC replacement pay to the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13,500 granted on account of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme vide its letter dated 20.05.2011 (Annexure-A/34) of the written submission. It was clarified in para 4 as follows:-
4.            Further, the benefits of ACPS of August 1999 had been allowed till 31.8.2008 and only functional promotion(s) is/are counted for the purpose of Scheme. Besides, there is no provision for counting Non-functional scalefor the purpose of ACP Scheme.
19.          The above clarification categorically provides that non-functional scale cannot be counted for the purpose of the ACP Scheme. The above clarification of the Ministry of Finance, therefore, has to be read with para 3 of the OM dated 18.11.2009 wherein it was clarified that Pharmacists (Entry Grade) on promotion to the next higher grade of Pharmacist (Non-Functional Grade) having grade pay of Rs.4200/- will be delinked from vacancies and will become non-functional and time bound.
20.          The Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.268/2007 has held that when posts are placed in higher scale without a change in responsibilities and duties, then such placement should not be treated as promotion/ Upgradation (Annexure-A/32 of the written submissions).
21.          In view of the aforesaid, we do not agree with the contention of the respondents in their counter reply to the effect that the implementation of the recommendations of the FTC for Pharmacists for upgradation of grade pay of Rs.4200/- from Rs.2800/- on completion of two years of service should be treated as 1st financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. When it has been specifically clarified that word promotion is replaced by the word placement, it can not be held that the grant of grade pay of Rs.4200/- on non-functional and time-bound basis be treated as a financial upgradation under MACP.
22.          Based on the above, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure-A/1) cannot be legally sustained and has to be quashed and set aside. We accordingly do so. With the quashing of the impugned order dated 11.11.2011, the question of any recovery to be made from the applicants would automatically not arise. Respondents are directed to forthwith implement the financial upgradation granted vide Directorate General of Health Services letter dated 16.07.2010 communicating grant of 1st, 2nd and 3rd MACP in the grade of Rs.4600/-, Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/- respectively. Consequential action shall be taken by the respondents accordingly within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
23.          OA is allowed with the aforenoted directions. Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Raj Vir Sharma)                                                                                            (Ashok Kumar)
   Member (J)                                                                                                    Member (A)




No comments:

Post a Comment