Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy v. Amit Kumar Sharma

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

3. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. NO. 1213/2019. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondents and has consequently directed the petitioners to grant them appropriate pay scale alongwith the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- as is being paid to employees of the Central Government holding identical posts.

4. In support of the petition, Mr. Sunil Narula, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the petitioner/ Central Council for Research in Homeopathy(CCRH) is an Autonomous Organisation and therefore the service conditions of its employees is different from employees working under the Central Government. He submits that respondents, being employees of autonomous organization, which is governed by its own Memorandum of Association, Rules and By-laws, cannot seek the pay scales granted to similarly situated employees working under the Central Government. In support of his plea, he seeks to place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in The State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Bhagwan & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 7682-7684 of 2021.

5. He further submits that any decision to enhance the pay scale of the respondents to bring it at par with the Central Government employees can be taken by the petitioners after obtaining specific approval from the Ministry of Finance and Expenditure. As the respondents’ representation in this regard, which was duly forwarded to the Ministry of Finance and Expenditure, already stands rejected, they cannot be granted parity of pay with the Central Government employees. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Aanchal Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, supports the impugned order and submits that once the By-laws of the petitioner itself provide that the payscales and allowances payable to employees of the CCRH would be same as that payable to similar employees of the Central Government, the petitioners cannot now be permitted to urge that approval from the Ministry of Finance and Expenditure was required for stepping up the pay of the respondents to bring it at par with the Central Government employees. She further submits that respondents are being discriminated against as Doctors, Nurses and Pharmacists working in the petitioner organisation are receiving the same payscale as is being paid to employees of the Central Government. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we may begin by noting hereinbelow the relevant extracts of the impugned order.

8. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid findings of the learned Tribunal, we find that under the impugned order, the claim of the respondents has been allowed only on the basis of Clauses 44 and 47 of the petitioner’s By-laws. These clauses have been duly reproduced in the impugned order and clearly provide that the pay scale and allowances of the employees of the petitioner organization would be at par with the payscale of the Central Government employees. When the Bylaws of the petitioner organization in itself unambiguously provide that the payscale, allowances and other service conditions of its employees will be same as that of similarly placed Central Government employees, the petitioner cannot be permitted to urge that being an autonomous organization, it is not bound to extend the same pay scale to its employees. In our view, when the By-laws itself clarify that the pay-scale and allowances payable to the Central Government employees are to be mutatis mutandis applied to the petitioner’s employees, the petitioner cannot be permitted to urge that it must take prior approval from Ministry of Finance and Expenditure in this regard.

9. We may also note that there is no denial by the petitioner to the respondents’ specific plea that all other categories of employees in the petitioner organization including Doctors, Pharmacists and Nurses are being paid at par with similarly placed Central Government employees. We, therefore, find no reason as to why the same treatment should not be met out to the respondents as well.

10. We have also considered the decision in Bhagwan & Ors. (supra)but find that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Bhagwan & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court rejected the claim of employees of an autonomous Organisation seeking similar pay scales as was being granted to employees of the Central Government by holding that matters regarding pay fixation are essentially policy decisions, involving financial implications and therefore, ought not to be interfered with by Courts. In the present case, the By-laws of the petitioner organization, by which it is bound, in itself provides that the payscale and allowances of its employees will be at par with the Central Government employees. It is thus evident that the learned Tribunal has not granted any equivalence to the employees of the petitioner with that of the Central Government but has merely directed the petitioner to abide by its By-laws, which it is an admitted position, continue to hold the field.

11. In the light of the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.