Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 9 (JK)

Union Of India v. Ali Mohd. Malik

2000-02-02

BHAWANI SINGH, SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2000
PER SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN, J (ORAL) 1. Mr.N.A.Ronga,(Caveator) appears and takes notice Admitted Heard. 2. Writ petitioners, respondents to this Appeal have invoked writ jurisdiction for being brought at par in respect of pay and grade benefits with the erstwhile Junior Field Officers (for short JFOs), re-employed and re-designated as Carpet Training Officers (for short CTOs). The writ court found these petitioners entitled to the grade benefits with effect from January 3, 1978, the date same were given to those CTOs who were erstwhile JFOs after it found all the CTOs formed one and the same category and class of officers, doing identical jobs and performing similar duties, with a single composite seniority list. It decided and directed accordingly. The judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 3. Before us, the counsel for the appellant admits that there is grade and pay disparity among the CTOs and the Competent Authority from Ministry of Textile, Government of India, New Delhi, is seized of and looking into the matter of pay/grade anamoly among CTOs. Having conceded this much, the counsel contends that the direction of the writ court allowing pay benefits to the CTOs at par with erstwhile JEOs/re-designated CTOs from March 1978 and maintenance of the seniority list on the basis of one category and one class of CTOs as on the day, to serve as basis for on line promotional benefits to the CTOs, was not called for. The learned Single Judge should not have decided and in any case should have waited till matter was decided by Ministry of Textile, Government of India, New Delhi. The counsel further contends that following the observations in the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad extending benefit of stepping up of time pay scale to petitioner CTOs, as extended to other erstwhile JEOs, is not justified. 4. We have examined the matter. The counsel in unequivocal terms concedes the disparity of pay and grade among CTOs who do similar and like job and render indentical duties. Their placement duty-wise designation and status-wise is same. They are governed by same set of service rules. All CTOs form a single class of service. A single composit seniority list of all the officers is maintained. The members holding CTO posts on the service are inter-transferable. Their placement duty-wise designation and status-wise is same. They are governed by same set of service rules. All CTOs form a single class of service. A single composit seniority list of all the officers is maintained. The members holding CTO posts on the service are inter-transferable. Erstwhile JFOs, the members of service who on election in 1978 opted for this service were appointed as JFOs on ad hoc basis till the Union Government passed the order absorbing these JAOs on election as CTO on 15-02-1978. This group of non-gazetted JFOs, were re-absorbed/reappointed as CTOs with option to accept the grade of CTOs, or to leave the service. These JFOs elected not to quit and opted for service as CTOs. One and only one class of CTOs came into existence after Feb. 78 and all along during last around two decades these officers irrespective of the source from which they have come on service as CTOs, worked as one class and got one grade pre-revised 550-800 and revised 5000-8000. After lapse of long period extending over two decades some of CTOs, erstwhile JFOs approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, (Application No. 560 of 1992 titled R.K. Misra and others Vs. Union of India and ors) to seek upgradation of their pay scales and promotional avenues. The Tribunal did not find a case for any direction and rejected the claimed cause with observation that the respondents will consider the stepping-up the scale of applicants alongwith similarly placed counter-parts�. Basing the order of providing higher pay to these CTOs, erstwhile JFOs, on this observation of CAT Allahabad, Competent Authority under Order No.20/16 (10) Admn-II dated 15-()2-1978,sanctioned higher pay scale of Rs. 550-900, latter revised to 5500-9000 to these CTOs w.e.from 01-03-1978. Irrespective of the lable placed on and words used in the order, the result has been that among the CTOs as a class, some of these CTOs have been hand-picked without any rationale, reason or valid basis for higher grade. 550-900, latter revised to 5500-9000 to these CTOs w.e.from 01-03-1978. Irrespective of the lable placed on and words used in the order, the result has been that among the CTOs as a class, some of these CTOs have been hand-picked without any rationale, reason or valid basis for higher grade. Merely because respondents to writ petition, earlier worked on ad hoc basis as JFOs, in a higher grade and that too two decades back and the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad, made certain observation, while finding no case for any direction can hardly serve as basis to benefit some of the CTOs and to deny same benefit to their counter parts in the service as such CTOs, when they were similarly placed in almost all respects although as members of a single composite service of CTOs. The observation of the writ court that the benefit given to CTOs erstwhile JFOs, cannot be denied to other CTOs, similarly placed is based on facts and circumstances emerging on record. 5. We find the contention that the JFOs, group ˜B™ inducted as CTOs in March 1978 who allegedly carried higher grade, which was to be protected would in the facts and circumstances of this case barely supply justification to bracket these officers as a class within a class for a different treatment in respect of pay and grade. Admittedly, these erstwhile JFOs were working on ad hoc basis with bare basic pay and that they had neither earned nor been given any increment(s). These posts were abolished/ discontinued from 1-3-1978. The occupants were given the option to elect between their absorption as CTOs in the grade of 550-800 or to be out of the service. These ad hoc JFOs opted for CTO posts with grade and pay as above. Their election and acceptance of appointment as CTOs is a reality which has continued all through for last over two decades. Therefore, to say that these officers were given protection of pay and that too after around two decades while denying the higher grade and pay to other CTOs on the establishment defies logic. Neither any reason nor justification is coming forth for giving altogether different treatment to this set of officers among the CTOs as a single composite class. Therefore, to say that these officers were given protection of pay and that too after around two decades while denying the higher grade and pay to other CTOs on the establishment defies logic. Neither any reason nor justification is coming forth for giving altogether different treatment to this set of officers among the CTOs as a single composite class. Giving higher pay to erstwhile JEOs in comparison to members who became CTOs directly has nothing to do with higher qualification or merit or suitability or nature of job or the like. To create artificial groups within a cadre of group of same posts, offends the equality provision of the Constitution. 6. We do not also see any justification in the other limb of the argument of the counsel that the learned Single Judge should not have decided and in any case ought to have awaited the decision of Ministry of Textile, Government of India, New Delhi already seized of the matter of removal of disparity and anamoly in the pay and grade of CTOs. 7. It is trite law that equal pay for equal work is one of the fundamental feature of our Constitution which stands elevated as a fundamental right, once Articles 14 and 16 are construed in the context of preamble and Article 39 (d) in the Constitution. 8. In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union Vs Union of India (AIR 1991 SC: 1176) (para 6) the Apex Court laid down: It has ceased to be a judge made law as it is the part of the constitutional philosophy which ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing equal opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for similar placed employees of the State. This court has zealously enforced the fundamental right of equal pay for equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social justice in a number of decisions.� 9. In Surinder Singh and Anr. Vs. This court has zealously enforced the fundamental right of equal pay for equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social justice in a number of decisions.� 9. In Surinder Singh and Anr. Vs. Engineer Inchief, CPWT) & ors, (AIR 1986 SC: 584), the Apex Court while rejecting the argument for equal pay for equal work is not capable of enforcement by law, observed: The Central Government, the State Government and likewise, all public sector undertaking are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of law, should ill-come from the mouths of the State and State undertakings.� In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.