http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: YOGENDRA NARAYAN CHOWDHURY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  751            1996 SCC  (7)   1  JT 1995 (9)   112

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                 CIVIL APPEAL NO.9313 OF 1995 Gopal Chakraborty & Ors. V Union of India & Ors.                          O R D E R      In these  appeals the  only  question  is  whether  the appellants-motor  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   mazdoors, 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  orders  before  different  Benches  of  the Central Administrative  Tribunal. In  the Cuttack Bench, the same categories  of persons  filed O.A. 382/87. The 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.      O.A. No.796/87  was  filed  before  the  Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta  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  Petition,  that  was  dismissed  in  limine.  In  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

meanwhile, another Bench of Calcutta Administrative Tribunal in the  impugned order,  following the Cuttack Bench, upheld the reversion  but  set  aside  the  order  of  recovery  of arrears. Thus these appeals by special leave.      Shri  Nambiar,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the appellants contended  that the  appellants having passed the prescribed test  became skilled  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 approval 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.      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 been vitiated by  error of law. That is wholly misconceived view. The only  relevant question  to be considered is whether the Chowkidars and  mazdoors 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 category  so  that  after  putting required length  of service  and other  considerations, they would become  eligible for  promotion  into  skilled  grade. Under these  circumstances, the  necessary consequence would be that  they would  be fitted  into the  category of  semi- skilled, consequent  to the  recommendation of  the III  Pay Commission. Obviously,  realising this  mistake  the  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.      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 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.