Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 275 (MEG)

Union of India v. Jayachandran K.

2014-11-26

SUDIP RANJAN SEN, UMA NATH SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT : Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. M. Chanda, learned Advocate, appears for the appellants-Union of India. 2. Mr. M. Chanda, learned Advocate, represents the respondents. 3. Writ appeals No. 25 of 2013 and 29 of 2013 upon being taken up together, are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the writ appeals. The short point raised herein is as to whether the respondents, who are performing the same functions and discharging the same duties would be entitled to get the same pay scale as admissible to their counter parts in other Central Police Force Organisations. 5. Learned Sr. counsel, Mr. S.C. Shyam, appearing for Union of India pleads the case only on the ground that the respondents do not possess the same qualifications as are being possessed by their counter parts working in other Central Police Force Organisations. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents, Mr. M. Chanda, contends that this point has already been discussed in great detail in the impugned judgment, particularly, vide paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. It is also his submission that the respondents case is rather placed on better footing than that of their counter parts in other organizations. In support of his contention; he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Dineshan K.K., AIR 2008 SC 1026 . 7. On due consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that this writ appeal does not merit consideration for the reasons that under the Recruitment Rules in vogue for appointment on the post of Rifleman (Draftsman) in Engineers category of Assam Rifles, the educational qualifications for direct recruitment are prescribed as: "Matriculation with English, Mathematics, Science and Diploma ITI certificate from a recognized institute and 20% of the post of Halvidar (Draftsman) are to be filled up by direct recruitment and the essential qualifications for the direct recruitment are matriculation or equivalent with diploma in trade from a recognized institute with three years experience." 8. In another Central Police Force Organisation, namely, Border Security Force vide advertisement dated 21.10.2008 for recruitment on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Draftsman), the educational and technical qualifications as provided are: "(i) Matriculation pass or equivalent from a recognized Board or University. (ii) Two years Diploma or Certificate in Draftsmanship (Civil) from a recognized Individual Training Institute or equivalent institution." Thus the eligibility qualifications for appointment as draftsman in Assam Rifles are better than the BSF are better like diploma in trade from recognized university with three years experience. That apart, it is rather the experience that matters more, than the academic qualifications and theoretical knowledge. Besides, the issue has already been settled by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the judgment of Dineshan K.K. (Supra). 9. Paragraphs 19, 21, 22, 26 and 27 of the judgment in Dineshan K.K.'s case (Supra) read as under:-- "19. On 22-1-1998, an office memorandum was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, by way of a clarification. In the said letter, it was clarified that Order dated 10-10-1997 was equally applicable to all advertised categories. In the said letter, directions with regard to the redesignation of the three posts including Head Constable (RM) as ASI in Central paramilitary forces along with their replacement pay scales were also ordered. 21. Having failed to receive any positive response from the Government, one of the Radio Mechanics issued a notice of demand to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Director General of Assam Rifles, inter alia, praying for giving effect to Office Order dated 10-10-1997 and Office Memorandum dated 22-1-1998. Vide order dated 26-12-2001, the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the Director General of Assam Rifles that his proposal had been examined in consultation with Ministry of Finance and it was found that there was no point for comparison of grades and scales of pay for such posts across various Central paramilitary forces. 22. It was stated that the proposed upgradation may disturb relativities of various trades and grades within the Assam Rifles and there was no functional justification for upgrading these posts. It is evident that on rejection of the recommendation made by the Director General of the Force, the respondent herein was left with no option but to approach the High Court for redressal of his grievance. 26. It is evident that on rejection of the recommendation made by the Director General of the Force, the respondent herein was left with no option but to approach the High Court for redressal of his grievance. 26. In the present case, therefore, in the light of the admitted factual position, the question of examination of external comparisons, internal relativities and other factors, to be kept in view for job evaluation, considered to be a complex issue to be studied only by expert bodies, does not arise. As a necessary corollary, the issue as to whether there is a complete or wholesale identity between the said paramilitary forces, does not survive for consideration. 27. Thus, the short question requiring our consideration is whether having admitted in their affidavit referred to hereinabove, the "apparent disparity" and "anomaly" in the pay scales of Radio Mechanics, the administrative authorities, the petitioners herein, could be permitted to perpetuate apparent discriminatory differentiation in the pay scales because of the disparity in pre-revised and revised scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities with other paramilitary forces. In our considered opinion, in view of the total absence of any plea on the part of the Union of India that Radio Mechanics in other paramilitary forces were performing different or more onerous duties as compared to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, the impugned decision of the Government was clearly irrational and arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal. Before parting with the judgment, Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Sr. counsel, also pointed out that in terms of recommendation by the Director General Assam Rifles way back in 1998, as referred to in the judgment of Dineshan K.K. (Supra) some of Havildars (Draftsman) have already been re-designated as Warrant Officer. Thus, there is no scope left for any interference with the impugned judgment. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.