Judgment:
K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The applicants in this O.A presently working as Income Tax Inspectors (ITI) are classified as Group-B Officers as per notification dated 09.04.2009 of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPandT). The Group-B officers are authorised to travel by air to cities in the North Eastern Region and Sikkim under the LTC Scheme. Availing of this facility, the applicants made a trip to Gangtok (Sikkim). Aggrieved by the memorandum dated 18.11.2010 at Annexure A-16 by which the LTC claim of the applicants was limited to II-nd AC fare by rail from Kochi to Kolkatta and back classifying the post of ITI as Group-C post on the basis of Annexures A-13, A-14 and A-15 letters, the applicants have filed this O.A. for the following reliefs:
(i) Call for the records connected with the case;
(ii) Declare that the post of Inspector of Income Tax under the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance is a Group-B Central Civil post, by virtue of Annexure A-2 and A3 orders;
(iii) Declare that the applicants are entitled to get all the benefits granted to the Group-B Central Government employees under Annexure A-1 O.M. dated 02.05.2008;
(iv) Declare that Annexures A-13, A-14, A-15 and A-16 are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law and set aside the same;
(v) Declare that the applicants are not liable to refund the LTC advances availed by them for undertaking the journey to the North Eastern Region;
(vi) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The applicants contended that the classification made by the Finance Minister on 31.08.2007 cannot override the classification done by the DoPandT on 09.04.2009. No proposal was sent to the DoPandT to treat the classification of ITI as Group-C differently within three months of the O.M. dated 09.04.2009. After cadre restructuring in 2001, the Recruitment Rules, 1969 became redundant and is not followed by the Income Tax Department. It is not necessary to amend the Recruitment Rules for ITI to get the status of Group-B officers. The Stenographer Grade-I and the Office Superintendent, the feeder category for promotion to the post of ITI, are themselves Group-B officers. The entitlement of LTC claim is solely based on the Grade Pay after the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 came into force. The persons in the feeder category to the post of ITI are provided with air fare. Even in the appointment order at Annexure A-4 promoting officers to the grade of ITI clearly specifies the post as Group (NG) post. Believing Annexure A-1 notification dated 02.05.2008 relaxing the CCS (LTC) Rules, 1988, for travel by air to North Eastern Region, the applicants have undertaken the journey to Gangtok and now the respondents are estopped from denying the benefit of air fare after completion of the journey.
3. The respondents contested the O.A. It was submitted by them that the approval of the Finance Minister on the decision to keep the post of ITI as Group-C was taken, as upon upgradation of the pay scale from Rs. 5500-9000 to Rs. 6500-10500, there was no change in the duties of ITI or any higher responsibilities. In the Railways, the posts carrying the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- are classified as Group-C only.
4. In the rejoinder statement filed by the applicants, they submitted that after the order F.No.A-26017/10/2000-Ad.IX dated 05.03.2003, for the purpose of FR 22 and 23, stating the post of ITI in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 5500-9000 involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post of Office Superintendent and Stenographer Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000, the pay scale of ITI was upgraded to Rs. 6500-10500 on 21.04.2004. The Rule 3(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules clearly states that the CCS (CCA) Rules will not apply to the Railway servants. Therefore, comparison of ITI with the Railway servants is illegal and unjust.
5. We have heard Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. S. Jamal, learned ACGSC appearing for the respondents and perused the records.
6. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions we render the following findings.
7. The competent authority to classify the posts in Government of India is DoPandT. The Income Tax Department can classify its employees with the approval of the DoPandT. The DoPandT has classified a central civil post carrying the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800 as Group-B as per Annexure A-2 notification dated 09.04.2009. As per Annexure A-3 dated 17.04.2009, it was open to the Income Tax Department to classify the post of ITI differently by sending a specific proposal with full justification to the DoPandT for approval. It is not the case of the respondents that they have done so. The respondents are at liberty to classify the post of ITI as they would like, with the approval of the DoPandT.
8. In the instant case, by virtue of the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800, the post of ITI held by the applicants are classified as Group-B. But the Income Tax Department has retained the post of ITI as Group-C relying on the approval given by the Finance Minister to their proposal on 31.08.2007, vide Annexure A-15. This is illegal on two counts.
(i) The Finance Minister is not the competent authority to decide the classification of officers. The respondents have not stated that their proposal to retain the post of ITI as Group-C post though approved by the Finance Minister, was approved by the DoPandT;
(ii) Even if the DoPandT had approved their proposal to keep the post of ITI as Group-C post, it goes out of existence with the issuance of Annexure A-2 notification on 09.04.2009.
9. It is submitted by the respondents that the upgradation of ITI to the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 did not involve a change of duties and responsibilities. But the record shows that the very upgradation to the pay scale of Rs. Rs. 6500-10500 was on the basis of their statement that the post of ITI involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post of Office Superintendent and Stenographer Grade-1. If such upgradation was done without any change in their duties, it only means that the duties and responsibilities of the ITI such as they were, of a higher nature which merited upgradation and, therefore, on upgradation, the question of any change in duties does not arise.
10. The comparison of ITI with those Railway servants carrying Rs. 4600/- as Grade Pay is inappropriate in as much as they are not covered under CCS (CCA) Rules. The anomaly of Office Superintendent and Stenographer Grade-I who are Grade-B officers, getting promoted as ITI Group-C is not explained by the respondents.
11. The field of this O.A. is clearly held by notification S.O.946(E) dated 09.04.2009 (Annexure A-2) and Office Memorandum F.No. 31011/4/2007- Estt(A) dated 02.05.2008 (Annexure A-1). We are of the considered view that when they are read together, it is quite clear that the applicants are entitled to travel by air to Gangtok (Sikkim) on LTC. Therefore, the applicants are not liable to refund the LTC advance availed by them for undertaking the journey to Gangtok. Hence the O.A. is allowed as under.
12. Annexures A-13, A-14, A-15 and A-16 are set aside. No recovery in regard to the journey on LTC to Gangtok should be made from the applicants. No order as to costs.