Chandigarh: Tribunal gives relief to Central tax dept contract employee
Tribune news service
Chandigarh , August 26
Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has directed Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), Chandigarh, to grant a minimum of the pay scale of the Group ‘D’ post and Dearness Allowance (DA) to an employee who was appointed on a contractual basis in the department.
The Bench observed that based on the rule of parity, the applicant was also entitled to get the same benefit as was granted to the others at similarly situated positions.
In the application, filed through advocate KB Sharma, applicant Balwinder Kumar said he was initially engaged as a frash by Jalandhar CGST Assistant Commissioner in 2003 and was paid wages directly by the department. He said he had been working continuously with the department since 2003 and had completed more than 10 years of service working against the sanctioned post, however, he had not been granted the benefits given to other similarly situated employees.
He said while the other similarly placed employees were receiving the minimum pay scale of Group ‘D’ posts and a DA of Rs 18,000, he was being paid Rs 8,200 only.
He served a legal notice on January 23, 2018 to the department, requesting a minimum pay scale of Group ‘D’ employees by extending him benefit of judgment on similar matters by the Tribunal. But the respondents rejected the case of the applicant vide order dated June 24, 2020. The respondents, while contesting the claim of the applicant, said he was not directly engaged and paid by the respondent department.
The respondents further submitted that the order dated June 7, 1988 was not applicable to the applicant as the order related to casual workers, whereas the applicant had never been appointed/engaged/recruited and paid directly by the respondents.
They said the applicant had been paid by the contractor to whom the services of housekeeping, multitasking, cleaning, etc had been outsourced and the applicant was not working against any sanctioned or vacant post. The payment was made to, the contractor for the services provided.
After hearing of the arguments Suresh Kumar Batra, member (j) of the Tribunal said that on the rule of parity, the applicant was also entitled to get the same benefit as had been granted to the others. The denial of the same relief to the applicant was arbitrary and a discrimination towards him. The respondents have not placed on record copy of any agreement or contract to support their contention that the applicant had not been directly engaged by the department, rather he had been appointed by contractor Sanjay Kumar, In the absence of any documentary evidence to this effect, the plea of the respondents was not acceptable and liable to be rejected.
Since the applicant has been working with the respondents as frash for more than 10 years, therefore, the claim of the applicant deserves to be considered, said the Tribunal, adding that in view of the discussion hereinabove and the legal preposition, the impugned order dated June 24, 2020 was quashed and the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the applicant in terms of the discussion and grant similar benefits to him as were granted to his co-employees, along with all consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Dept rejected applicant’s first plea
- Balwinder Kumar said he was initially engaged as a frash by Jalandhar CGST Assistant Commissioner in 2003 and was paid wages directly by the department. But even after more than 10 years of service on the same post he had not been granted the benefits given to other similarly situated employees.
- He said while the other similarly placed employees were receiving the minimum pay scale of Group ‘D’ posts and a DA of Rs 18,000, he was being paid Rs 8,200 only.
- He served a legal notice to the department on January 23, 2018, requesting a minimum pay scale of Group ‘D’ employees but it was rejected by the respondent.
- The department claimed the applicant was not directly engaged and paid by it.
