Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 507 (PAT)

Raj Kishore Prasad Singh v. Union of India

2012-03-23

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, VIKASH JAIN

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railway. 2. For sometime the petitioner was given replacement scale of Rs. 4500.00-7000.00/- for holding the post of Senior Material Clerk. Subsequently, the Railway found that the grant was contrary to the policy decision based on report of 5th Pay Revision Committee. Since the petitioner was admittedly getting the scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- at the relevant time, as per First Schedule, the revised scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- was held to be his entitlement. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench vide O.A. No. 355/2000 but the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13th August, 2007 (Annexure-14). 3. On behalf of the petitioner same arguments have been advanced which were advanced before the Tribunal that since his post is included in the larger group of ministerial servants, he must be treated to be equivalent to Senior Clerk in the Ministerial Staff category (other than Accounts Department) for whom the replacement scale was Rs. 4500-7000/-. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in detail, and found the claim unacceptable. 4. We have gone through the First Schedule containing revised scale for different posts which is part of Annexure-4 and it is evident from the opening lines of the First Schedule that revised scales for posts in present scales in Group D, C, B and A except in respect of posts for which different revised scales were notified separately are to be found in the First Schedule itself. Serial no. 7 relates to scale no. 7, which includes the scale of the petitioner, i.e. Rs. 1200-2040/- and for that the revised scale or replacement scale, was of Rs. 4000-6000/- . In order to succeed in his claim that post of Senior Material Clerk was placed in the category of exception, the petitioner had to show that his post was included as exception in Annexure- B which is part of Annexure-4. He failed to show any relevant entry relating to post of Senior Material Clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Serial No. 11.1 which relates to General Ministerial Staff (other than Accounts Department). In that category the posts mentioned are of Senior Clerks and higher posts but not of Senior Material Clerk. He failed to show any relevant entry relating to post of Senior Material Clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Serial No. 11.1 which relates to General Ministerial Staff (other than Accounts Department). In that category the posts mentioned are of Senior Clerks and higher posts but not of Senior Material Clerk. Thus, it is evident that the post of the petitioner was not treated as an exception in terms of First Schedule and no different revised scale was notified for that post. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that since the post of Senior Clerk was also earlier in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 but was granted revised pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-, hence injustice has been done to the petitioner by not providing similar revised scale for the Senior Material Clerk. 6. There is no dispute that authorities have treated the post of Senior Material Clerk amongst the Ministerial Staff for some purpose but it is not possible for this Court to hold that petitioner’s post should have been treated at par with other general posts and should have been given a higher revised scale as was done in the case of Senior Clerk belonging to Ministerial Staff (other than Accounts Department). Such classification or such determination of equivalence is best left to the expertise of the Pay Revision Committee and unless gross case of discrimination is made out on the basis of nature of duty etc. from undisputed materials, it is not advisable for this Court to go into the exercise of laying down parity between different posts for the purpose of pay revision. 7. In our considered view no good ground is made out to interfere with the views taken by the Tribunal. 8. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 9. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is so advised, he may approach the Pay Anomaly Committee for consideration of his aforesaid grievance.