Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 496 (JK)

UOI v. Virender Singh

2017-07-28

ALOK ARADHE, SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 05.12.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench by which the original application preferred by the respondents has been allowed. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing petition briefly stated are that respondent was appointed as Junior Translator w.e.f. 01.02.1990 in the pay scale of 1400-2300 and subsequently was promoted as Senior Translator w.e.f. 30.07.1996 in the pay scale of 5500-9000. The terms and conditions for Junior Hindi Translator and that of Senior Translator has been incorporated in the recruitment rules through an amendment issued under SRO 7 dated 20.01.1996. In pursuance of the aforesaid amendment rules the Senior Hindi Translator and Junior Hindi Translator have been placed in the pay scale of 1640-2900 and 1400-2600 respectively and the same have been revised under the 5th Pay Commission to Rs.5500-90000 and Rs.5000-8000 respectively. 3. The pay in respect of the Senior Translator employed in the office of Principal Controller of Defense Accounts was upgraded by order dated 11.02.2003 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally and financial effect was to be given w.e.f. on 11.02.2003. However, the similar benefit was denied to Junior and Senior Translators employed in Central Secretariat, Official Languages Department. Thereupon the Junior Hindi Translators filed an original application before the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The aforesaid Bench by order dated 28.09.2006 allowed the original application preferred by Senior and Junior Hindi Translators and taking note of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India, 1982 (1) SCC 618 , the office memorandum dated 29.03.2004 was quashed and directed the petitioners herein to extend the benefit of office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Defence dated 14.07.2013 to the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators respectively within three months. Thereafter the respondent on the strength of the aforesaid order filed an original application before the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The aforesaid Bench by following the decision rendered by the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application preferred by the respondent and directed the petitioners herein to accord him the benefit of upgraded pay scale of Senior Hindi Translator i.e. 6500-10500 within a period of three months. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned ASGI submitted that the question of pay scale is a matter which is to be decided by the employer and the Senior Translator in the office of Principal Controller of Defense Accounts and those employed in the Central Secretariat Official Languages Department performed different duties. Therefore, principle of equal pay for equal work could not have been invoked in their cases. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the learned ASGI and have perused the record. From a perusal of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, we find that the aforesaid issue has been dealt with meticulously by Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and it has been held that the Junior as well as Senior Hindi Translators are entitled to parity in the matter of grant of pay scale on the analogy of principle of equal pay for equal work. From the material available on record, we do not find that the duties and functions which are performed by Senior Translators employed in Office of Principal Controller of Defense Accounts and Central Secretariat of Official Languages are different. Therefore, in view of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, the Tribunal has rightly followed the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench and has rightly awarded the benefit to the respondent. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record nor from any jurisdictional infirmity, warranting interference of this Court in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same fails and is hereby dismissed along with connected MP.