Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 95 (CAL)

UNION OF INDIA v. ARUN JYOTI KUNDU

2003-03-04

ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, JYOTESH BANERJEE

body2003
A. CHAKRABARTI, J. ( 1 ) THE Union of India has moved the present writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, whereby the applications filed by the private respondents herein, were allowed directing the authorities to give the benefit of the same pay scales to the private respondents as are applicable to the Senior Clerks, Head Clerks and Office Superintendent - Grade-II with effect from 1. 1. 1996 with further direction to pay the arrears within three months from the date of communication of the order. ( 2 ) MORE than 200 employees under the railways holding the posts of Senior Typists, Head Typists, Chief Typists etc. filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking direction upon the railways authorities to grant them benefit of pay scales as per recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission in respect of typists in categories (i) and (ii) therein and to grant pay scale at par with the general Clerical cadre i. e. Senior Clerks Rs. 4500 - Rs. 7000, Head Clerk Rs. 5000 - Rs. 8000/- and Office Superintendent - Grade-II Rs. 5500 - 9000/- in respect of Senior Typists, Head Typists and Chief Typists as equivalent post holder. ( 3 ) MR. R. N. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Union of India, challenges the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, contending that the same was passed following the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, without noticing the opposite view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench, following several Supreme Court judgments settling the law. It is contended that parity between two posts can be decided only by any expert body like Pay Commission, Anomaly Committee or any other appropriate statutory forum having such power and not by Central Administrative Tribunal or the writ Court. Apart from placing the relevant portion of the impugned judgment and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench, deciding identical issue, reliance was placed on the judgments in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. J. P. Chowrasia reported in 1989 (1) SCC 121 and other judgments referred to in the impugned judgment. Apart from placing the relevant portion of the impugned judgment and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench, deciding identical issue, reliance was placed on the judgments in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. J. P. Chowrasia reported in 1989 (1) SCC 121 and other judgments referred to in the impugned judgment. It is further contended that Anomaly Committee constituted for deciding this particular issue having already refused parity between senior typist and senior clerk on recorded reasons followed by refusal by the authorities to pay the pay scale of the senior clerks to the senior typists, the said benefit cannot be allowed in the present proceeding and the Tribunal in the impugned judgment having not taken into consideration the report of the Anomaly Committee, is required to consider the matter afresh. ( 4 ) MR. K. K. Moitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents in the present writ petition referred to the report of the 5th Pay Commission to [sick] before this Court that the 4th Pay Commission also treated the said category of typists at par with the said general categories of clerks and this fact was taken note of by the 5th Pay Commission in its report which has since been accepted by the railways authorities. It has been argued by Mr. Moitra that after so accepting the 5th Pay Commission's report, refusal to give the benefits thereunder to one group of employees without there being overwhelming reasons showing effect on public interest, cannot be permitted. In support of such contention reference was made to judgment in the case of Purushottam Lal v. Union of India reported in AIR 1973 SC 1088 , Laljee Dubey v. Union of India reported in AIR 1974 SC 252 and Barindranath Jha v. Coal India Ltd. reported in 1996 (2) CHN 273 . ( 5 ) MR. Moitra, further contended that the Courts have power and duty to ignore such irregular act on the part of any employer in respect of implementation of a report of an expert body and in support of such contention reliance was placed on the judgment in the cases of Union of India v. K. K. Shankarappa reported in AIR 2000 SC 3678 Mohd. Sahabuddin v. Union of India reported in 1975 SCC (L and S) 244. ( 6 ) FURTHER contention has been made by Mr. Sahabuddin v. Union of India reported in 1975 SCC (L and S) 244. ( 6 ) FURTHER contention has been made by Mr. Moitra that when the railway board was approached by the concerned employees they refused to consider the contention of the petitioners as appears from the statement made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed by the railway authorities before the learned Tribunal. It is pointed out by Mr. Moitra even such statement was affirmed as submission by the deponent of the said affidavit. ( 7 ) MR. Moitra further contended that the report of the Anomaly Committee has not been placed by the petitioner before this Court and therefore the said report should not be taken into consideration particularly when Pay Commission has admittedly recommended parity and such recommendation has been accepted by the railway authorities. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the aforesaid contentions, we find that the report of the 5th Pay Commission has dealt with the relevant matter in its sub-paragraph 152 under paragraph 55 under the heading "language typists". The relevant paragraph thereof being 55. 152 is set out hereunder:"55. 152 Language typists can be divided into four categories (i) typists in English, (ii) typists in Hindi (iii) typists in Indian languages other than Hindi, and (iv) typists in foreign languages. Typists in category (i) and (ii) form part of the general clerical cadre of an organisation. They are treated at par in the matter of pay scales, promotion avenues etc. " ( 9 ) PERUSAL of the said provision shows clearly that typists in category (i) and (ii) being typists in English and typists in Hindi formed part of the general clerical cadre of an organisation and they are treated at par in the matter of pay scale, promotion avenue etc. The respondents in the present proceeding have not been refused the benefit of pay scale of clerical cadre on the ground of their being typists in Indian languages other than Hindi or typists of foreign languages being categories (iii) and (iv ). On the contrary, head typists and chief typists belonging to category (i) and (ii) have been accepted as entitled to pay scales of clerks by the authorities themselves and only objection raised is against the senior typists refusing them pay scale with senior clerks treating both at par. On the contrary, head typists and chief typists belonging to category (i) and (ii) have been accepted as entitled to pay scales of clerks by the authorities themselves and only objection raised is against the senior typists refusing them pay scale with senior clerks treating both at par. ( 10 ) WHILE supporting such a decision on behalf of the railway authorities it has been argued that Anomaly Committee constituted for the said purpose has refused to accept such claim for parity of senior typists and senior clerks considering academic qualifications for the relevant posts. While considering the said contention we find that the report of the Anomaly Committee has not been made available to this Court either filing the same along with the writ petition or placing a copy thereof at the time of hearing. Moreover, we find that the 5th pay commission admittedly accepted the parity between typists in categories (i) and (ii) with the general clerical cadre and some of the categories out of such typists have been already accepted as entitled to such benefit by the authorities concerned. It is also admitted that report of the 5th Pay Commission has been accepted by the railway authorities and, therefore, we are of the opinion, the railway authorities are not entitled to refuse such benefits to one group. We do not find any overwhelming reason far less a reason affecting public interest has been shown by the railway authorities to this Court for refusing the benefit of report of the 5th Pay Commission to the senior typists, Law in this connection cited by the respondents is clearly applicable and it dis-entitled the employer to apply the report of the pay commission partially to one group when admittedly report is accepted and applied to other group of similar employees. ( 11 ) WE further find that Anomaly Committee only consider existence of anomaly in between various groups of employees, whereas pay commission considers the pay structure generally and such pay commission can make recommendation even if there was no anomaly earlier which requires correction by anomaly committee. Therefore, even assuming that any anomaly committee had already refused such parity, when such parity is recommended by pay commission and report of such pay commission is accepted by railway authorities such benefit cannot be refused to a group of employees only. Therefore, even assuming that any anomaly committee had already refused such parity, when such parity is recommended by pay commission and report of such pay commission is accepted by railway authorities such benefit cannot be refused to a group of employees only. ( 12 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that refusal of such benefits granting pay scale on the basis of parity to various categories of typists under the railway authorities cannot stand and the judgment of the Tribunal impugned herein does not require any interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed j. Banerjee, J.- I agree.