The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary vs. Sidheshwar Kumar Jha

Facts

The Union of India, through various departments of the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), is the petitioner. The respondent, Sidheshwar Kumar Jha, a Skilled Worker Grade-II, sought the pay scale of a Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II. The respondent relied on a decision by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench, which was implemented by MSME via an order dated January 21, 2014. This order extended the pay scale of Instructors (upgraded to Highly Skilled Worker Grade-I) based on the CAT, Madras decision. The petitioner argued that the respondent had not produced any material showing a policy decision by the competent authority to upgrade Skilled Worker Grade-II posts to Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II. The petitioner also contended that the promotional hierarchy clearly shows that Skilled Worker Grade-II is a distinct post from Instructor (Skilled Worker Grade-I), and the post of Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II with the claimed pay scale does not exist in MSME.

Held

The Court held that the respondent is not entitled to the pay scale of Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II solely based on the decisions of CAT, Madras and CAT, Patna. The Court found that the respondent had not produced any material to demonstrate a policy decision by the competent authority to upgrade or redesignate Skilled Worker Grade-II posts to Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II. The Court noted that the promotional hierarchy within MSME clearly delineates Skilled Worker Grade-II and Instructor (Skilled Worker Grade-I) as distinct posts with different pay scales, and the post of Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II with the claimed pay scale does not exist in MSME. Consequently, the CAT, Patna Bench, committed an error by extending the benefit without verifying the existence of the post and the relevant policy decisions. The Court set aside the order dated January 1, 2019, and stated that the respondent, being in the cadre of Skilled Worker Grade-II, is not entitled to the benefits of the CAT, Madras Bench decision unless they enter the next cadre of Instructor. The writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent, while holding the post of Skilled Worker Grade-II, is entitled to the pay scale attached to the post of Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II, considering the absence of a policy decision for such upgradation or redesignation within the MSME. 2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, erred in extending the benefits of the CAT, Madras Bench decision to the respondent without examining the existence of the Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II post in MSME and the specific promotional hierarchy. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to provide any material evidence of a policy decision by the competent authority to upgrade Skilled Worker Grade-II to Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II. They argued that the promotional hierarchy, as evidenced by Annexure-6 Series, shows distinct posts and pay scales, and the post of Highly Skilled Worker Grade-II with the claimed pay scale is not in existence within MSME. They relied on the stated promotional hierarchy and the absence of a policy decision. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent relied on the order dated January 21, 2014, issued by MSME, which implemented the decision of CAT, Madras Bench. This order extended the pay scale of Instructors (considered upgraded to Highly Skilled Worker Grade-I) to similarly placed individuals. The respondent also relied on the decision of CAT, Patna Bench, which had taken note of the CAT, Madras decision.