YOGENDRA NARAYAN CHOWDHURY AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

             YOGENDRA NARAYAN CHOWDHURY AND ORS.                                         A
                                            v.
                           UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                NOVEMBER 30, 1995

                 [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]                                   B

           Se1Vice Law :

            Military E11gi11eeri11g Se1Vic<>-Mazdoors-Classiftcatio11 011 the basis of
     Ill Pay Commission Reporl-Vnskilled-Semi Skilled-Skilled a11d Highly C
     skil/ed-Mazdoors-l'assi11g of test by-Fitme11t i11to skilled categ01y-Rever-
     sio11 to semi skilled category a feeder post to skilled category-Held valid.

           Constitution of India, 1950:

           Arlicle 136-Special leave Petition-Dismissal in limine-ffeld does D
     not operate as res judicata.

           Pursuant to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission the
'r   Mazdoors working in the military engineering department were classified
     into four categories viz: (i) unskilled; (ii) semi skilled (iii) skilled and (iv)   E
     highly skilled. The pay scales for these categories respectively were (i) Rs.
     196-232; (ii) Rs. 200-290; (iii) Rs. 260-400 and (iv) Rs. 330-480. Some of the
     Chowkidars and Mazdoors who passed the test were initially classified into
     skilled category and were given fitment in that scale. Later they were
     reverted to semi skilled category and given fitment accordingly. Directions
     were also issued to recover the arrears paid to them. These orders were             F
     challenged before different Benches of the Central Administrative
     Tribunal. The Cuttack Bench upheld the reversion to semi skilled category
     but directed not to recover the arrears. On the other hand a Calcutta
     Bench of the Tribunal held that the reversion was bad and conseqnently
     directed restoration of their category into the skilled category. On appeal         G
     decision of Calcutta Bench was dismissed i11 limine by this Court. In the
     meanwhile another Bench of Calcutta Tribunal followed the view taken by
     Cuttack Bench and upheld the reversion but set aside the order of recovery
     of arrears. Hence. these appeals.

           Dismissing the appeals, this Court                                            H
                                         17
    18                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A          HELD : 1. These cases do not warrant interference. It is not in           •
    dispute that semi-skilled is a feeder post for the skilled category. After
    passing the test, Mazdoors are necessarily to be fitted first into semi·
    skilled category so that after putting required length of service and other
    considerations, they would become eligible for promotion into skilled
    grade. Obviously, realising this mistake they were later correctly given
B
    fitment into the category of semi-skilled and the appropriate scale of pay
    was assigned. It is not a case of reversion but one of proper fitment. Under
    these circumstances, the view of the first Bench of the Calcutta CAT is
    clearly erroneous in law and the view of the latter Bench of the Calcutta
    and of the Cuttack Bench are correct. [19-G-H, 20-A·C]
c
         2. The dismissal of Special Leave Petition in limine without assigning
    reasons does not operate as res judicata.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9312 of
    1995 Etc.
D
          From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.91 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Calcutta, in O.A. No. 946 of 1987.

            A.S. Nambiar and Mrs. Sarla Chandra for the Appellants.

E           K.N. Shukla, S.D. Sharma and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Respon-
    dent"

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           In these appeals the only question is whether the appellants-motor
F   pump attendants - are semi-skilled or skilled workers as determined in the
    Government circular dated May 11, 1983. After the III Pay Commission,
    mazdoors working in the military engineering have been classified as
    unskilled and their scale of pay is Rs. 196-232, semi-skilled Rs. 200 to 290;
    skilled Rs. 260 to 400 and highly skilled grade II Rs. 330-480, highly skilled
    grade I Rs. 380-560. As a consequence of fitment, all the unskilled maz-
G   doors, chowkidars who passed the test, were initially classified into skilled
    category and later it was discovered that it was a wrong classification.
    Consequently, directions were issued to fit them in the semi-skilled
    category and direction to recover the arrears paid during the period of
    1984 to 1986 was also given. Some of the persons came to challenge these
H   orders before different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In
                           Y.N. CHOWDHURY v. U.0.1.                           19

     the Cuttack Bench, the same categories of persons filed 0 .A. 382/87. The A
     Tribunal held that they being unskilled are to be classified as semi-skilled
     since they had passed the test and the semi-skilled is a feeder post to the
     skilled category, namely, Rs. 260-400. Accordingly, while upholding the
     reversion, directed not to recover the arrears.
                                                                                    B
           O.A. No. 796/87 was filed before the Administrative Tribunal, Cal-
     cutta Bench. In the first instance, the Bench had held that the reversion
     was bad and consequently directed restoration of their category into skilled
     category. When the matter was challenged by way of Special Leave Peti-
     tion, that was dismissed in limine. In the meanwhile, another Bench of
     Calcutta Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order, following the          c
     Cuttack Bench, upheld the reversion but set aside the order of recovery of
     arrears. Thus these appeals ·hy special leave.

             Shri Nambiar, the learned senior counsel for the appellants con-
     tended that the appellants having passed the prescribed test became skilled D
     and that, therefore, they were properly fitted into the grade of Rs. 260-400
     in the year 1984 and their reversion to semi-skilled category i.e., Rs.210-290
     is illegal. He further contends that the decision of the first Bench of CAT,
     Calcutta is proper and this Court had put seal of :lpproval and that
     therefore the view of the latter Bench and that of the Cuttack Bench are
     clearly illegal. We find no force in the contention.                           E

           The Calcutta Bench in the first instance obviously proceeded on the
     wrong premise, namely, they passed the test and hence become skilled
     category workmen and also while holding those posts their performance
     was not found to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, the orders were held to have F
     been vitiated by error of law. That is wholly misconceived view. The only
     relevant question to be considered is whether the Chowkidars and maz-
     doors working as motor pump operators and having passed their tests,
..   would be fitted into the semi-skilled category or skilled category. It is not
     in dispute that semi-skilled is a feeder post for the skilled category. Once
     they had passed the test, they are necessarily to be fitted into semi-skilled G
     category so that after putting required length of service and other con-
     siderations, they would become eligible for promotion into skilled grade.
     Under these circumstances, the necessary consequence would be that they
     wmJd be fitted into the category of semi-skilled, consequent to the recom-
     mendation of the III Pay Commission. Obviously, realising this mistake the H
    20                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A latter Bench had held to fit them into the category of semi-skilled and            "
    assign the appropriate scale of pay. Being semi-skilled, their scale of pay
    indisputably is Rs. 210-260. Accordingly, their fitment is correctly assigned
    as semi- skilled and it is not a case of reversion but one of proper fitment.
    Under these circumstances, the view of the first Bench of the Calcutta
    CAT is clearly erroneous in law.
B
          It is settled law that even the dismissal of Special Leave Petition in
    limine without assigning reasons does not operate as res judicata. Under
    these circumstances, we are of the view that the view of the latter Bench

C
    of the CAT, Calcutta and of the Cuttack Bench are clearly consistent with.
    the above reasoning. Therefore, we do not find that these are fit cases           ..
    warranting interference. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                   Appeals dismissed.




                     •




                                                                                    ...I