Per: K. V. Eapen, Administrative Member

1. The applicant, at the time of filing this O.A, was working as a Milling Machine Operator in the Fishery Survey of India (FSI), an organisation under the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of India. It is his contention that he should have been granted the financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, from the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 (pre revised) to Rs.5000-150-8000, on par with the pay scales given to other comparable classes of employees belonging to certain other trades in the FSI and other sister organisations.

2. The applicant submits that he was initially appointed as a Machinist in Fishery Survey of India (FSI), on 16.03.1992, in the then scale of pay of Rs.950- 1500 (revised to Rs.3050-4590 with effect from 01.01.1996). The scale of pay of the post was later revised with effect from 01.01.2006, to the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200/- with a Grade Pay (GP) of Rs.1900/-. Meanwhile, applicant had been promoted to the post of Milling Machine Operator on 09.04.2002. He further submits that he is having the qualification of Matriculation passed along with a certificate in the trade of Machinist from the ITI. It is submitted by him that the educational qualifications which are prescribed for posts like Welders/Fitters/Machinists/Carpenters in the FSI as well as other similar organisations under the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries are the same. Further, the initial recruitment scale of pay for all these posts is also the same.

3. The applicant contends that the post of Milling Machine Operator, which is at present only one post, had been created so as to provide for an opportunity of promotion for the Machinists. This was done because the nature of duties attached to the post of Machinist are highly arduous. He submits that when he was promoted to the post of Milling Machine Operator from the post of Machinist, he was granted the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000/- with effect from 09.04.2002. The pay for the post was revised during the 6th Central Pay Commission in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20500/- with a Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/

4. What has aggrieved the applicant is that, in contrast to the above scale of pay/pay band being given to Milling Machine Operators after revision, the category of „Fitters‟ are being granted the first upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 (which is revised to Rs.5200-20200) with a Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-. Further this scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 has also since been upgraded to Rs.5000-8000/-, which in turn corresponds to the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 plus Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, with effect from 01.01.2006.

5. The applicant submits that the above was an anomalous situation affecting the Posts of Machinists as compared to posts like Fitters and other trades in the Integrated Fisheries Project (IFP)/FSI. The same was also the case in the Central Institutes of Fisheries, Nautical and Engineering Training (CIFNET), which is another Organisation/Institute under the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. However, this situation was rectified by this organisation, by granting the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000/- to all the staff working in similar technical trades in posts like Welder/Fitter/Carpenter etc., in the organisation. Subsequently, the scale of pay was also upgraded in that Organisation to Rs.5000-8000/-.

6. The applicant submits that the 2nd respondent, the Director General of the Fisheries Survey of India (FSI), Mumbai after the constitution of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) had submitted a recommendation by way of a Memorandum due to this anomalous situation. In the said Memorandum at paragraph 2.2.2.04 & 06 relating to Welder Gr.I/Milling Machine Operator, a copy of which is produced at Annexure A1, it had been indicated that while the promotional post for Fitters was in the pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000/-, the promotional posts for the other two posts, viz., Welder and Machinist were in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000. It was pointed out that that this was an anomalous situation and it was necessary that the posts of Welder Gr.I and Milling Machine Operator were also upgraded to the pay scale of Rs.4500-125- 7000. However, it appears that the Commission did not agree as no such recommendations were given in this regard in its final report.

7. The applicant further submits that, unlike his organisation the FSI, the CIFNET had intervened in the case of Fitters as there is a similar situation. There had been a promotional avenue in that organisation (CIFNET) to the post of Sr. Fitters for Fitters then to the scale of pay of Rs.3200-4900. Hence, they were being granted the benefit of 1st financial upgradation under ACPS from the post of Fitter to the scale of pay of Rs.3200-4900 (Senior Fitters). However, since their counterparts in the CIFNET belonging to other trades were granted benefits of Rs.5000-8000 as the 1st ACP financial upgradation, the post of Senior Fitter was abolished by the CIFNET in order to rectify the anomaly

8. The applicant accepts that he was later granted the 2 nd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) vide office order dated 22.02.2013, produced as Annexure A2. This was done with effect from 16.03.2012 on his completion of twenty years of service in the Organisation. He was given the Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200/- with effect from 16.03.2012. Thus, in effect the applicant by comparing himself to those who had joined initially as Fitters in the same organisation with identical qualifications and same pay scale finds himself disadvantaged as Fitters are being granted 1st financial upgradation under the ACPS and finally placed effectively in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- and 2nd financial upgradation under the MACPS in Pay Band Rs.9300-34800/- plus GP of Rs.4600/-, whereas, he has been given the 2nd financial upgradation only in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs.2800. It is submitted that similar discrimination against Machinist vis-à-vis Fitters, exists in the cadre of Welders as well. The applicant has produced certain orders issued by the FSI at Annexures A3, A4 and A5 to establish these contentions in relation to the higher pay scale/pay band being enjoyed by those who have joined FSI as Fitters.

9. The applicant submits that the next promotion in his hierarchy is to the post of Assistant Foreman (Machine Shop). However even in that case, Turners, with identical qualifications as required for Machinists are being considered. It is submitted that the Turners who had joined the Integrated Fisheries Project (IFP) after being transferred to the FSI along with their posts were now granted the 1st ACP which was attached to the post of Assistant Foreman, which was in the Pay Band of Rs.5000-8000/-. Hence, on this ground too, due to the discriminatory treatment, the applicant had submitted another representation (dated 22.04.2013) to the 1st respondent, Secretary to the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. A copy of the representation has been produced as Annexure A6. It is mentioned that since there was a promotional intermediary post of Milling Machine Operator for Machinists, they were all granted the 1st ACP only in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000/PB-1 plus GP Rs.2400/-. However, Fitters were granted 1st ACP in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/PB-2 plus GP Rs.4200/-. Hence, he prayed that the scale of pay attached to the post of Milling Machine Operators be revised to PB-2 plus Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-. Alternatively he asked that post of Milling Machine Operators be abolished and persons like him be granted the 1st financial upgradation in scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from the date they completed 12 years of service from the date of initial appointment as Machinist. Another similar representation dated 14.01.2012 had been earlier sent to the 2nd respondent, Director General of the Fisheries Survey of India (FSI), Mumbai, which has been produced at Annexure A7.

10. The applicant submits that having received no response to the representations at Annexure A6 and A7 from the authorities concerned, he then approached this Tribunal in O.A 965/2013. That O.A was disposed of on 24th February 2016 vide the Annexure A8 Order which had directed the respondent No.1 to consider the Annexure A6 representation conscientiously and take a decision thereon as expeditiously as possible, in any case not later than 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The applicant then gave another representation to the 1st respondent on similar grounds, copy produced at Annexure A9, referring to this order of the Tribunal in O.A No.965/2013. In response the respondents only issued the Annexure A10 impugned order dated 07.04.2016, in which, they simply indicated that the representations at Annexure A6 as well as representation as Annexure A9 had been examined by the competent authority and it had been found that as per the terms and conditions of ACP Rules and existing Recruitment Rules, his request for financial upgradation on par with the pay scale of Fitters working in the Department cannot be acceded to.

11. The applicant is therefore aggrieved by the bland disposal of his representations at Annexures A6 and A9 through the impugned order at Annexure A10. It is submitted by him that the Order at Annexure A10 has not been issued by or at the instance of the 1st respondent. On the contrary it appears that the same has been issued at the instance of the 2nd and 3rd respondents only in order to overcome the delay in implementation of the directions of this Tribunal in O.A 965/2013 at Annexure A8. It is submitted that Annexure A10 therefore is without jurisdiction and needs to be struck down. The applicant submits that in his representations at Annexures A6 and A9, he had specifically pointed out that the cadre of Milling Machine Operator had been created only taking into consideration the arduous nature of duties attached to the post of Machinist. However, this does not mean that the purpose was to take away any other rights which the applicant might acquire through the introduction of schemes like ACPS/MACPS etc. It is submitted that the creation of the post of Milling Machine Operator has resulted in him being discriminated vis-à-vis his counterparts appointed with identical qualifications as Welders/Fitters/Carpenters in the same organisation. This anomalous situation, which he had pointed out in Annexures A6 and A9, has not been considered by the 1st respondent. It is submitted that the Annexure A10 order, which has been issued thereafter, suffers from errors of law and of facts apparent on the face of the records. It is clear that while disposing of Annexure A6 by Annexure A10 the 1 st respondent has not considered any of the valid and factual points raised by him.

12. The basic ground taken by the applicant is that the education qualifications fixed for the post of Welder/Fitter/Carpenters in the FSI and in the office of the Integrated Fisheries Project, Cochin under the Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries are the same. Thus, granting a lesser pay scale to the applicant in the matter of ACP/promotion compared to similarly placed persons is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is submitted that there are persons who have joined later than him in the category of Fitters, who have been granted the 1st financial upgradation in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/PB-I plus GP Rs.4200/-. Hence, on being promoted as Milling Machine Operator in order to avoid the anomalous situation as compared to his counterparts, he should have also been granted the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 (Rs.5200-20200/- plus GP Rs.2800/-) which was later upgraded to the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/- (Rs.9300-34800/- plus GP Rs.4200/-) as has been done in the case of Fitters. He again points out to what had happened in a sister organisation like CIFNET in the case of Fitters, where a post of Sr. Fitter was merged with post of Fitters, granting the concerned employee consequential benefits along with his counterparts.

13. Flowing from the above contentions, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief

“(i)Call for the records leading to the issue of A10 and quash the same;

(ii) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be treated at par with his counterparts in the category of Fitters/Welders/Turners/Carpenters in the matter of grant of the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/-(Rs.9300-34800/- plus GP Rs.4200/-) on his promotion and/or grant of benefits under the Assured/Modified Assured Career Progression Schemes and direct the respondents accordingly;

(iii)Direct the respondents to grant the applicant the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/- (Rs.9300-34800/- plus GP Rs.4200/-), at par with his counterparts in the category of Fitters/Welders/Turners/Carpenters in the matter of his promotion and also grant of financial upgradations under the ACP/MACP Scheme;

(iv) Award costs and of incidental thereto;

(v) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just and fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal.”

14. The respondents have filed a reply statement in which they submitted that they seek to clarify the issues raised by the applicant. At the outset they have agreed with the basic facts set out by the applicant regarding the date of his joining in the FSI as well as the other dates relating to the fixation of his pay, etc. However, coming to the core issues raised by the applicant, it is submitted that, though a certificate from ITI in the respective trade is the essential educational qualification prescribed for recruitment to the posts of Fitter, Welder, Machinist, Carpenter, etc., all these Trades have had different promotional channels carrying different pay scales. The promotion is to the post of Refrigeration Mechanic in the PB-2of Rs. 9300-34800/- plus GP of Rs. 4200/- for Fitters, it is to Welder Gr.I in the PB of Rs. 5200-20200/-plus GP of Rs. 2400/- for Welders, etc. For the applicant‟s Trade of Machinist, the promotional channel is to the post of Milling Machine Operator in the PB of Rs. 5200-20200/- plus GP of Rs. 2400/-. Hence, it is submitted that the rules governing promotion has provided Fitters, Welders, Machinist & Carpenters with different pay scales. Further, as the ACP Scheme also provided financial upgradation to the next hierarchical promotional grade, it is quite apparent that Fitters, Welders, Machinist & Carpenters have to be granted different pay scales on grant of financial upgradations as per their hierarchy. It is submitted that Government Rules do not permit grant of a higher than allowed pay scale to employees like the applicant either on promotion or grant of financial upgradation on par with some other trades, such as Fitters. Even in case of Fitters, the respondents have clarified that the applicable Recruitment Rules allow the financial upgradation under ACP to be granted in the promotional scale only on completion of 15 years of service, unlike 12 years in the normal case of ACP upgradation.

15. Coming to the issue raised by the applicant in relation to the purported action taken in the Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical Engineering Training (CIFNET), it is submitted that this is a training organisation with its own Recruitment Rules, based on its functions and duties. The applicant has been working in the post of Machinist in Fishery Survey of India, which has separate Recruitment Rules. Thus comparison with the post of Fitters in CIFNET for grant of financial upgradation/promotion by the applicant is not tenable. The applicant has also been granted financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in PB1 of Rs.5200-20200/- plus GP of Rs.2800/- with effect from 16.03.2012 on his having completed 20 years of service with only one promotion. Further clarifying the comparison raised by the applicant with the case of Fitters in the FSI/IFP, it is submitted that the initial appointment of the Fitters was in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. These Fitters on completion of 15 years of service are eligible for the financial upgradation under ACP Scheme in the then Pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-, which was upgraded to Rs.5000-8000/- and replaced in the 6 thCPC to PB-2 of Rs. 9300-34800/- plus GP Rs. 4200/- as earlier indicated. The respondents submit that it is pertinent to point out that the completion of 15 years of service for being eligible for ACP/Promotion only applies for the Fitters. This condition does not apply to any other post. In fact, Machinists with only 12 years of service are eligible for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. Thus, it is submitted that there is no comparable graph for granting of pay scales of other posts, viz. Fitter, Welder & Carpenter, on par with the post of Machinist.

16. Similarly, with regard to the issue pointed out by the applicant about Turners, the respondents clarify that the ACP Scheme had been later replaced by the MACP Scheme. The contention that Turners were granted first ACP attached to the post of Assistant Foreman was not logical. It is submitted that Turners, with 10 years of service, would fall under the scheme of MACP and will be granted the financial upgradation under MACP in PB-1 of Rs.5200-20200/- plus GP of Rs. 2000/- corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900/-. It is submitted that, in supersession of the Recruitment Rules 1987 of the Integrated Fisheries Project, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Foreman in various categories came into effect from August 2009. It is submitted that by that time the ACP scheme did not exist and, hence, Turners were not eligible for ACP in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-.

17. It is further submitted by the respondents that as per the directions of this Tribunal in Order dated 24.02.2016 in OA 965/2013, the representation at Annexure-A6 had been examined. It had been found that the grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme from the Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 to Rs. 5000-150-8000 on par with the pay scale of Fitters would be against the ACP Rules. Hence, the request of the applicant was not acceded to. Accordingly the Annexure-A6 representation was disposed of as per Annexure-A10 impugned order. It is again reiterated that the alleged claim is devoid of merits as it is against ACP Rules. In effect the point taken by the respondents is that the repeated contention of the applicant that he is entitled to pay scale of Rs.4500- 7000/- (revised later to Rs.5200-20200 plus GP of Rs.2800/-) in the post of Milling Machine Operator is erroneous. No orders have been received regarding upgradation of the post of the Milling Machine Operator or placing them on par with Fitters either from the parent Department or from the Department of Personnel and Training. The applicant‟s claim is baseless as he has not produced any further documents to this effect. Further to this, the respondents have produced the Annexure R1 communication by which the pre-revised pay of Rs.4500-7000/- was revised to Rs.5000-150-8000/-, revised in the 6th CPC to PB 2 of Rs.9300-34800 plus GP of Rs.4200 with effect from 01.01.2006, which is applicable only to employees holding the posts of Marine Electrician and Refrigerator Mechanic. In addition, a copy of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Milling Machine Operator has been produced at Annexure R2, wherein, the existing pay scale for the post of Milling Machine Operator is Rs.4000-7000/- which has been revised in the 6 th CPC to PB 1 of Rs.5200-20200/- plus GP Rs.2400.

18. We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri T. C. Govindaswamy and learned Senior Panel Counsel (SPC) Shri Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also objected to the issue of the impugned order at Annexure A10 by the third respondent, Zonal Director, FSI, Cochin on the ground that this is not a proper order in pursuance of the directions of this Tribunal in O.A 965/2013 dated 24.02.2016. He points out to the fact that in that order only respondent No.1 (Secretary to the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries) had been directed to consider the Annexure A6 representation and to take a decision expeditiously. It is therefore submitted that the order at Annexure A10 has not been issued by the 1st respondent, but has been issued by the FSI. This aspect, which was brought out in the O.A, has not been denied in the reply statement. Further, he submits that a very similar case dealt by this Tribunal in O.A 1080/2012 had been disposed of on 17.08.2016. In that matter the Tribunal had considered the case of a Machinist in the Marine Engineering Division of the FSI who was found eligible to be granted 1st ACP in the scale of pay of Rs.5000- 8000 (Pay Band II plus Grade Pay Rs.4200/-) with effect from 02.06.2006. Learned Counsel therefore submits that the respondents are only relying on the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, but have not taken into consideration their own submission made to the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) vide Annexure A1, in relation to the above orders of this Tribunal in O.A 1080/2012.

19. Countering the above contentions, learned SPC has submitted that the O.A seeks to create a new right for a particular pay scale without a right which is existing. The respondents are bound to act only as per the Recruitment Rules as they stand as well as with the conditions laid down in the ACP Scheme. As pointed out in the reply statement, different trades like Welders/Fitters/Machinists/Carpenters/Turners have different Recruitment Rules providing different channels of promotion and pay scales. There has been no mistake committed therefore by the respondents in placing the applicant in the applicable pay scale on grant of financial upgradation under the ACPS. Further the applicant has not only got the 2nd financial upgradation under MACP but has also received the benefit of 3rd MACP from the due date. In short, therefore, he cannot compare his own future/channel of promotion with that of other Trades, however similar they may be.

20. Learned SPC has also has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association [AIR 2002 SCC 2589] arising out of Civil Appeal No.3518 of 1997, dated 10-7-2002. The Hon‟ble Apex Court had gone into various relevant issues in this case and had also analysed in paragraph 8 therein regarding how the principles of „equal pay for equal work‟ and „equality in the matter of pay‟ would apply. It was pointed out by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in paragraph 9 therein that in Secretary, Finance Department &Ors v West Bengal Registration Service Association &Ors [1993 Supp (1) SCC 153] [LQ/SC/1992/185] which dealt with the question of equation of posts and equation of salaries of Government employees, the Apex Court had indicated that job evaluation is a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different group of employees. Further, in the same matter, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had found that ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer‟s capacity to pay, etc. The Hon‟ble Apex Court then observed in West Bengal Registration Service Association &Ors (supra) that “…There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court’s interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice”

21. Expanding on the above findings in Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court in paragraph 10 found that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. In the context of the complex nature of issues involved, the far reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration of the State Government, Courts have taken the view that ordinarily they should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. It was also observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that this is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the Courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the government. It was only found that Courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees. Further, it was held that the Court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the government to implement the same.

22. The above contending submissions, the citations that have been provided and arguments made have been gone through. One contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order at Annexure A10 had been not issued by the directed authority/concerned Secretary but by the FSI in itself ignoring the directions made by this Tribunal in O.A 965/2013. We note that the communication at Annexure A10 had been issued by the 3 rd respondent, Zonal Director, Fisheries Survey of India. However, it is recorded therein that the matter had been examined by the competent authority who had found that, as per the terms and conditions of ACP Rules and existing Recruitment Rules, the request of the applicant for financial upgradation on par with the pay scale of Fitters working in the department cannot be acceded to. Though, admittedly, this letter has not been issued by the 1st respondent, we are sufficiently persuaded to ignore this as a relevant matter for reconsideration in the context of the overall explanations provided. The decision clearly has been made by the competent authority in the case and communicated as such to the applicant and is part of the consistent stand taken by the respondents. Indeed even the department concerned cannot easily make any changes for fixation of pay had been decided at the level of the competent authority. Further, in regard to the matter relating to what is termed as an order granting the sought after pay scale to the applicant in O.A No.1080/2012 (Rs.5000-8000 (Pay Band II plus Grade Pay Rs.4200/-)), it is noted that this decision was not cited or relied upon in the OA even though the orders therein were issued on 17.08.2016 and this O.A was filed only on 19.09.2016. In fact, learned Counsel for the applicant in this O.A is the same as in O.A 1080/2012. Thus it was surprising to us that it was not cited while filing this O.A. On a closer reading of the order, we note that the facts and circumstances in which that order was issued does not appear to be actually similar to the case of the applicant herein. The applicant in the O.A 1080/2012 had an ITI certification in the Turner trade. He had been appointed as Machinist in the Machine Shop of the Integrated Fisheries Project (IFP) now known as National Institute of Fisheries – Post Harvest Technology and Training. The next promotion post in that organisation was to the post of Assistant Foreman which initially carried the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000/- which was upgraded later to the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/- with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996. In September 2005, the Marine Engineering Division of the Organisation was transferred to the FSI, which did not have its independent cadre of Assistant Foreman, Machine Shop, etc. Nor were there any Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Foreman. Thus the post of the applicant therein, who was a Machinist in the IFP and transferred to the FSI, was maintained as an isolated post. Further, initially, it appears that the cadre of Machinist was also not in existence in the IFP and that only the post of Turner was in existence and this post was to have promotional post of Assistant Foreman. After examining various issues involved, this Tribunal had found that in the IFP, the organisation in which the applicant originally belonged, had a promotion post as Assistant Foreman in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 (PB II plus GP 4200). All other persons like the applicant had been retrospectively given 1st financial upgradation in ACP in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from due dates. The applicant thus prayed for a similar treatment with effect from 02.06.2006. Taking into consideration that the applicant had a Turner trade certificate as per Annexure A10 and there was an experience of 10 years of service, this Tribunal therefore granted 1st ACP in the scale of pay of Rs.5000- 8000 (Pay Band II plus Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-) to the applicant. It is clear that the facts and circumstances in relation to the applicant in this OA are different since he had joined the FSI directly as a Machinist and had not come from the IFP. He had always been working as Machinist and was also having ITI certification as Machinist. Thus he cannot be compared to the applicant in O.A 1080/2012, who had a certification in the trade of Turner and had joined initially in the IFP, where the only promotion scope was to the post of Assistant Foreman in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000/- (upgraded to Rs.5000-8000).

23. Therefore, in light of all the above considerations and also in light of the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court brought out in State of Haryana v Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (supra), we are not persuaded to allow the relief as asked for in this O.A. We have also kept in mind that an effort had been made by the FSI by recommending the grant of the higher Pay Scale as part of the Memorandum submitted to the 6th Central Pay Commission at the relevant time. However that expert body, which is as concluded by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court the right forum for granting Pay Scales at different levels to different classes of people, had not agreed with the respondents and no recommendation was made. Thus, in such circumstances and also given the fact that there are clear Recruitment Rules for each category of Trades in different institutions allowing different pay scales we are not in a position to allow the relief sought in the O.A.

24. The O.A is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.