Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 463 (GAU)

Sabita Kuri v. Gauhati High Court

2008-06-26

HRISHIKESH ROY, MAIBAM B.K.SINGH

body2008
JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Also heard Mr. Section Talapatra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears to represent the petitioner No. 3. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking stepping up of their pay with employees in the General Ministerial Cadre of the High Court. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are also aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.1999 (Annexure 8), whereby their claim for stepping up pay have been rejected by the said order. 3. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who are Translators of this Court, tries to justify the claim for stepping up of pay of the present petitioners on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court on 14.2.1997 in Civil Rule No. 525/1994 reported in 1998 (4) GLT 186 (High Court Employees Association v. Registrar, Gauhati High Court) and connected case Civil Rule No. 106/1996 (Sri Tikendrajit Majumdar v. State of Tripura). The learned Counsel contends that one Nanda Dulal Das, a Translator of the Court was granted benefit of stepping up pay by virtue of the said judgment and order dated 14.2.1997; on the basis of which the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were also given the benefit of stepping up pay by the office order dated 30.7.1998 but the said benefit granted to as many as 17 employees of the Court, have been recalled by the impugned order dated 17.5.1999, only in respect of the 2 Translator petitioners. 4. The learned Counsel further submits that there is no scope to discriminate the Translators and the other employees who work under the common establishment of the High Court and accordingly no discrimination in granting of stepping up pay benefit could be made between the Translators and the General Ministerial Staff in the common establishment of the High Court. 4.1. It must be noted that the learned Counsel for the petitioner is basing his case on the ground of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not by placing reliance on FR 22(1)(22), which replaces the earlier provision enacted in FR 27, which is otherwise applicable for consideration of claim for stepping up benefit. 5. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are ex-cadre employees and are not part of General Ministerial Cadre of the High Court and accordingly a claim for stepping up of pay made by ex-cadre employees vis-a-vis the pay of General Ministerial Cadre employees is not at all tenable and if such stepping up pay is permitted, it would amount to treating unequals as equals. 5.1. The further contention made by the learned senior counsel is that the office order 30.7.1998 granting benefit of stepping up pay to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was a mistake and the said mistake was rectified by issuing the impugned notification dated 17.5.1999, whereby it is clearly indicated that the Translators do not belong to the General Ministerial Cadre of the High Court. 5.2. By referring to the judgment dated 14.2.1997 in Civil Rule No. 525/1994 the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the said judgment cannot be made the basis for granting of stepping up of pay benefits to the Translators as there was no discussion on the said judgment on the status of the Translators vis-a-vis the status of the General Ministerial Cadre of the High Court and the order directing stepping up benefit to Translator Nanda Dulal Das is to be considered as a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem, to make it applicable for granting benefit to the present two Translators/writ petitioners. 5.3. With regard to the petitioner No. 3, it is contended by Mr. Talapatra that the petitioner No. 3 being posted as an Assistant Librarian, is also an ex-cadre employee and his pay benefits cannot be equated or considered vis-a-vis the employees working under the General Ministerial Cadre of the High Court. 6. We have examined the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Tikendrajit Mazumdar (supra) and find from the said judgment that the Court considered the entitlement of the claim of the writ petitioners in that case for stepping up benefits by considering as to whether the writ petitioners and their comparable colleagues belonging to the same cadre and whether the writ petitioners are entitled to pay identical to a cadre colleagues who were drawing higher pay. In that context the learned Single Judge compared the case of the writ petitioner Tikendrajit Mazumdar who was employed as Superintendent on promotion form the General Ministerial Cadre vis-a-vis another employee J.K. Roy drawing higher pay benefit who also belong to the General Ministerial Cadre, posted at that point of time as a Superintendent. By comparing the case of petitioner Tikendrajit Mazumdar with J.K. Roy both of whom belong to the General Ministerial Cadre, the Court granted the stepping up benefit to the writ petitioners. 7. Although the learned Single Judge in passing the order also granted the benefit of stepping up of pay to one Nanda Dulal Das, a senior cadre Translator of the High Court, no examination of status of the Translator vis-a-vis the General Ministerial Cadre was made and without discussion of any relevant materials, an order granting benefit of stepping up was passed in favour of Nanda Dulal Das. 8. Obviously the Court then was not apprised of the fact that Translators are ex-cadre employees and do not belong to the General Ministerial Cadre of the Court and there cannot be any direction for stepping up of pay on the ground of discrimination as both categories cannot be treated to be at per with each other. 9. On direction of the then Chief Justice of the Court, the claim made by the petitioner Translators for stepping up was examined and from the materials available for our perusal, we find that a decision has been taken wherein it has been held that the Translators are not entitled to the stepping up benefit as because Senior Grade Translators and Junior Grade Translators are outside the cadre of the General Ministerial Cadre (Non-gazetted) in terms of the memorandum dated 10.5.1992 issued by the High Court. It is further recorded that as per the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rule"), the post of Translators, Senior Grade Translator and Junior Grade Translator form an independent cadre and these posts carry separate scales of pay having distinct line of promotion and different qualification norms are prescribed for recruitment to the said posts. It was also recorded that the benefit of stepping up granted to Nanda Dulal Das by the judgment dated 14.2.1997 cannot be made applicable to the two Translators present before us, in as much as, these two Translators were not parties in the said case and the benefit of the learned Single Judge decision ought not to be made applicable to the present petitioners. 10. Since the petitioners contend that there has been discrimination in denying them the stepping up of pay benefits granted to several of their colleagues in the High Court, it is necessary for this Court to examine as to whether the Translator petitioners can be considered to be at per with the employees who have been granted the stepping up benefits by taking into account the higher pay drawn by an employee in the General Ministerial Cadre. 10.1. From the notification dated 10.5.1992 and also the Rules, we find that the Translators form a separate and independent cadre and are outside the General Ministerial Cadre of the High Court. Different recruitment rules are provided with different qualification for appointment of Translators and they have a distinct line of promotion starting from Junior Grade Translator, Senior Grade Translator and Chief Translator. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Translators working in the High Court are in the same class as those in the General Ministerial Cadre of the High Court. Therefore, to treat them at per with the General Ministerial Cadre with regard to a claim for equal pay would mean unequals being treated as equals, which in our view would be wholly unjustified. 11. We further find that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.2.1997 cannot come to aid the petitioner Translators as the benefit given to Nanda Dulal Das in the said case cannot be said to be on the basis of declaration of law by the Court vis-a-vis the status of the Translators with the General Ministerial Cadre of the High Court. Therefore, the judgment dated 14.2.1997 giving the benefit to Nanda Dulal Das, in our opinion is to be considered as a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem and cannot therefore be applied to confer pay benefit to the present petitioners. 12. Therefore, the judgment dated 14.2.1997 giving the benefit to Nanda Dulal Das, in our opinion is to be considered as a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem and cannot therefore be applied to confer pay benefit to the present petitioners. 12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find that the present petition has any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. No cost. Petition dismissed.