Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 178 (GAU)

Union of India and Ors. v. Tarit Ranjan Das

2002-04-25

AFTAB H.SAIKIA, R.S.MONGIA

body2002
R.S. MONGIA, CJ. - The respondent herein is working as Stenographer G. II in the office of the Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, N.E. Region. Prior to the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission, the stenographers in the Central Secretariat were in the pay scale of Rs.425-800/- P.M. whereas the Stenographers in the Subordinate Offices of the Central Government were in the pay scale of Rs.425-700/- P.M. After the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission, the pay scale of the Stenographers in the Central Secretariat was revised to Rs. 1400-26007- whereas the pay scales of the Stenographers in the Subordinate Offices of the Central Government was revised to Rs. 1400-23007-P.M. The difference in the pay scales led to some grievances amongst the Stenographers of the Subordinate Offices and the matter was considered by the board of Arbitrators. Thereafter, on the recommendations of the Board of Arbitrators, the pay scale of the Stenographers of the Subordinate Offices of the Central Government was also revised to Rs. 1400-26007- P.M. bringing it at par with the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat. 2. By an office memorandum of the Central Government issued on 31st July, 1990, the pay scale of the Stenographer of the Central Secretariat was further raised to Rs. 1640-29007- P.M. In other words, there was again a disparity between the pay scale of the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat and of the Subordinate Offices of the Central Government. This revision or enhancement of the pay scale was with effect from 01.01.1986. Certain Stenographers of the Subordinate Offices of the Central Government approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in various States. The reference to the same would be made hereinafter. The respondent filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench claiming parity of pay scale with that of the pay scale of the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat. However, the said Original Application No. 151 of 1991 was dismissed on 10.7.1998. The respondent herein filed a Review petition on various grounds, which need not be mentioned here. The Central Administrative Tribunal accepted the Review Petition and by the order dated 25th February, 2000 allowed the Original Application holding that the respondent (applicant before the Tribunal) was entitled to the same pay scale as a Stenographer, which was being enjoyed by the Stenographer of the Central Secretariat, i.e., Rs. 1640-29007- P.M. with effect from 01.01.1986. The Central Administrative Tribunal accepted the Review Petition and by the order dated 25th February, 2000 allowed the Original Application holding that the respondent (applicant before the Tribunal) was entitled to the same pay scale as a Stenographer, which was being enjoyed by the Stenographer of the Central Secretariat, i.e., Rs. 1640-29007- P.M. with effect from 01.01.1986. However, the arrears so calculated were confined to one year prior to the filing of the Original Application on 5.8.1991. The Union of India has filed the Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as aforesaid. 3. Before dealing with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, suffice it to mention that it is not being disputed that the Stenographers in the following Subordinate Offices of the Central Government have been granted the pay scale of Rs. 1640-29007- P.M. with effect from 01.01.1986 pursuant to the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in various cases and in some of the cases the departments themselves have revised the pay scale : 1. Stenographers Gr.II in the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, under Ministry of Home Affairs. Pursuant to the judgment and order in O.A. No. 144A/1993 dated 19.1.1996 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal bench), New Delhi. 2. Stenographers Gr.II in the offices of the Director General of Income Tax, (Investigation), New Delhi, under Ministry of Finance. Pursuant to the judgment and order in O.A. No. 985/94 dated 19.1.1996 by the Princiapl Bench C.A.A.T. 3. Stenographers Gr. II in the office of the Directorate of Field Publicity under Ministry of Inflormation and Broadcasting. Pursuant to the judgment and order in O.A. No. 548/94 dated 19.1.1996 by the Bench of C.A.T. 4. Stenographers Gr.II in the National Book Trust of India, New Delhi under Ministry of Education. Pursuant to the judgment and order in CWP No. 4842/96 decided on 28.7.97. 5. Stenographers Gr.II in the office of the Director General of Inspection, Customs and Central Excise under Ministry of Revenue. Pursuant to the judgment and order in O..A No. 527/97 dated 28.9.1997, by the Principal Bench of C.A.T. 6. Stenographers Gr.II in the offices of National Archives of India, New Delhi under Ministry of Human Resource Development Deptt. Of Culture. Pursuant to the judgment and order in O.A. No. 407/97 decided on 9.1.1998 by the Principal Bench of C.A.T. 7. Pursuant to the judgment and order in O..A No. 527/97 dated 28.9.1997, by the Principal Bench of C.A.T. 6. Stenographers Gr.II in the offices of National Archives of India, New Delhi under Ministry of Human Resource Development Deptt. Of Culture. Pursuant to the judgment and order in O.A. No. 407/97 decided on 9.1.1998 by the Principal Bench of C.A.T. 7. Stenographers Gr.II working in C.A.T., New Delhi Ministry of Law and Justice. Pursuant to the judgment and order in O.A. No. 2865/91 and O.A. No. 529/92 decided on 4.2.1993 by the Princiapl Bench Bench of C.A.T 8. Stenographers Gr.II working in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, Ministry of Human Resource and Development Deptt. Of Education. Pursuant to the judgment and order in CWP No. 4414/94 and O.A. No. 3181196 decided by the Delhi High Court on 16.7.97. 9. Stenographers Gr.II working in the office of the Salt Commissioner, Jaipur, Ministry of Industry. Pursuant to the judgment and order in O.A. No. 152/91 dated 9th August, 1994 of the C.A.T., Jaipur. 10. Stenographers working in the office of the Director General of Ordinance Factory, Calcuta. Pursuant to the judgment and order in O.A. No. 1130/91 decided on 19.5.1995 by the C.A.T. Bench at Calcutta. 11. Stenographers working in Official Language Wing under Ministry of Law & Justice Pursuant to the judgment and order in Civil Appeals No. 8348-50 of 1995 decided on 9.10.96, 1998 (L&S) 253. 4. In the following Departments, the Department itself had ordered the grant of pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- to the Stenographers Grade-II with effect from 1.1.1986:- "1. Department of Space/ISRO Centres/Units, Bangalore. 2. Department of Atomic Energy, Atomic Energy Commission, Hyderabad. 3. CSIR, Department of Science and Technology. 4. Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 5. Central Glass & Ceramic Research Institute, Calcutta, Department of Science and Technology. 6. Border Security Force, Indo Tibetan Border Police, Central Industrial Security Force, Bureau of Police Research & Development." 5. It may further be observed here that various O. As. CSIR, Department of Science and Technology. 4. Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 5. Central Glass & Ceramic Research Institute, Calcutta, Department of Science and Technology. 6. Border Security Force, Indo Tibetan Border Police, Central Industrial Security Force, Bureau of Police Research & Development." 5. It may further be observed here that various O. As. Were also filed by the Stenographers working in the Department of Central Bureau of Investigation, Director General of Income Tax, Directorate of Field Publicity and the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi by its judgment as reported in (1996) 34 Administrative Tribunals Cases 544 (V.R. Panchal and others -Applicants - Versus-Union of India and others-Respondents) has decided the case in their favour. This judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, was tested by the Union of India before the Apex Court and the same was dismissed on 11.7.1996 (SLP No. 13853/1996 Union of India & Ors.-Vs-Gobardhan & Anr). Similarly, another judgment of the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal on the same point as reported in 2000(1) (CAT) 139 was also taken up by the Union of India before the Apex Court and the Apex Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal and dismissed the S.L.P. on 23.8.1999. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the pay parity on the dicta for 'equal pay for equal work' would depend on the nature of duties and responsibilities between the two sets of Stenographers. He pointed out that the duties and responsibilities of the Stenographers in the offices of the Geological Survey of India are totally different than the Stenographers of the other Subordinate Offices of the Central Government. Normally speaking, though not necessarily, all the Stenographers have almost identical duties to perform. In this case nothing has been pleaded or brought to out notice as to how the duties and functions of the respondent Stenographer in the Geological Survey of India are in any manner different than the Stenographers in the Subordinate Offices to which reference has already been made above. Apart from this fact, it cannot be lost sight of that even pursuant to the recommendations of the Board of Arbitrators at a given time the Stenographers in the subordinate Offices of the Central Government were also given the same pay scale as was enjoyed by the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat. Apart from this fact, it cannot be lost sight of that even pursuant to the recommendations of the Board of Arbitrators at a given time the Stenographers in the subordinate Offices of the Central Government were also given the same pay scale as was enjoyed by the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat. Consequently, we find no distinguishing features between the respondent Stenographer working in the office of the Geological Survey of India or the other Stenographers working in the Subordinate Offices, as has been referred to above. 7. We find nothing wrong in the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench allowing the same pay scale to the respondent (Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal) as is being enjoyed by the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this Writ Petition, which is hereby dismissed.