PDA

View Full Version : Why field offices demand parity-reason and historical parity-judgements at a glance.



krishnan09
31-07-2010, 09:19 PM
I am simply reproducing the page of Swamy's CL Digest which I received from my friend (Mr.Ramesherji) in order to convince the authorities why the field office demand for parity with documentary proof of judgements details in order to counter the arguments of our friends. This is one among the reasons for the 6th cpc to arrive at a conclusion for parity. The role of cpc has also been elaborated in it for the knowledge of friends.


283.Swamy’s CL Digest 1996/1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
V.R.Panchal and others V.Union of India and Others
O.A.No.144-A of 1993 and other connected 2 OAs
Date of Judgement 19.1.1996

Claim of parity in pay scale by Stenographers and Assistants in Central Secretariat Service. Tenable.

Facts: The applicants in the three OAs are working as Assistants and Stenographers, Grade C, in various Cen tral Government Departments. They are claiming parity in pay scales given to their counterparts in the Central secretariat. The points involved in this are common. All the applicants who are working in Assistants or Stenographers, Grade II, except Stenographer, Gr.II of the OA No.548 of 1994 were recommended pay scale of rs.1400-2600 by the Fourth Pay Commission. The same recommendation was made by the 4th cpc to the assistants and Steographers, grade II who were working in Central Secretariat. However, by a subsequent OM dated 31.7.1990 revised scale of pay of
Rs.1,640-2900 in the pre-revised scale of Rs.424-800 for duty posts included in the Assistants Grade of Central Secretariat Services and Grade.II stenographers of Central Secretariat Stenographers Services was given with effect from 1.1.1986. The same revised pay scale was also made applicable to Assistants and Stenographers who are working in other organizations like Ministry of external Affairs which are not participating in the Central Secretariat Services (CSS) and Central secretariat Stenographers Services (CSSS) where the posts were in comparable grades with same classification and pay scales and the method of recruitment through open competitive examination was the same. This OM is the cause of grievance to employees of various Central Government Departments. The Aggrieved employees field OAs before different Benches of the Tribunals. The applicants in O.A No.144-A of 1993 work in CBI, in O.A No.985 of 1993 the applicants work in Income Tax and the applicants in O.A.No.548 of 1994 work in Directorate of Field Publicity.

Held: The Principal of “Equal pay for equal work” is applicable when employees holding the same rank perform similar functions and discharges similar duties and responsibilities are treated differently in the matter relating to the scale of pay. The Court should normally accept the decision taken on the basis of recommendations of the PC which is an expert body to determine pay scales. However, in case it is found that for extraneous consideration by a subsequent state action of inaction, favourable treatment has been given to some resulting unfair treatment to others, the court may sometimes feel it necessary for the purpose of providing justice to interfere with the orders issued by the executive. Some such situations amongst others are as below:

Where (i) The Pay Commission omitted to consider the pay scale of some posts of any particular service, or (ii) The Pay Commission recommended certain scales based on no classification or irrational classification, or (iii) After the recommendation of the pay commission is accepted by the Government, there is unjust treatment by subsequent arbitrary State action or inaction. In other words the subsequent State action/inaction results in favourable treatment to some and unfair treatment to others.
In the case of all the above three situation, courts interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. Aggrieved employees have a right and the Courts have jurisdiction to remedy the unjust treatment meted by arbitrary State action or inaction.

In OA No.144-A of 1993, the applicants are Crime Assistants and Stenographers, grade C in the Department of CBI which is an attached office of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India. It is stated in the OA and not denied in the counter reply that prior to 24.11.1967 all the ministerial posts in CBI (Head office) were manned by Personnel belonging to cSS, CSSS services. It is also not denied that for the first time the Ministry of Home Affairs vide its letter dated 24.11.1967, re-designated posts of assistant to crime Assistant and stenographer as Personal Assistant in the department of CBI with a specific mention that “the re-designated posts would carry the same scale of pay and allowances as at present and there would also be no change in their classification”. The result being that, the Assistants and PAs in the department of CbI stand automatically excluded from the purview of the CSS, CSSS and CSCS cadres of the Ministry of Home affairs. In the OA it is clearly stated that “the quality and nature of work, functions, duties and responsibilities of Section Officers vis-à-vis Crime Assistants, Grade C stenographers vis-à-vis Personal Assistants Of CBI are identical and similar in all respects”. This fact is not denied by the respondents in their reply. From the documents on record, it is fully established that there is parity between the duties and responsibilities of the applicants in O.A No.144-A of 1993 with those of assistants and stenographers, grade C, in the CSS and CSSS.

The nature of the duties and responsibilities of the assistants in the Central secretariat is to contribute to policy making of the Government of India and whereas the applicants who hold the posts of assistants in CBDT do not deald with any policy matter and do only routine and clerical job. The Ernakulam Bench on O.A.No.1322 of 1994 and O.A.No.276 of 1995 in the case of K.R.Chandrasekharan Kunji v.Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Central secretariat, New Delhi decided on 20.7.1995 was also considering the case of assistants in Enforcement Directorate and Passport Office for the scale of rs.1,640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986. A similar ground was taken and the Ernakulam Bench observed” “We find it difficult to endorse the view that officials at a comparatively lower level like Assistants in the Ministry have anything to do with policy matters in the real sense,” We are in full agreement with the view expressed by the Ernakulam Bench.

The Objection of the respondents that due to intermediatory scale the applicants were not given the scales of Rs.1640-2,900 is also not sustainable. This point has already been considered in a similar matter by the Hon’ble Supremem Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs.Debashiskar and others (1995 SCC(L&S)1303). The Apex Court was dealing with the scale given to Draughtsman. Gr.II, in CPWD and Orindance Factories. A Similar Objection, as in the case before us, regarding intermediately scale was taken before the Apex Court and the same was repelled. In our view, therefore, the present applicants in O.A.No.985 of 1993 are entitled to the scale of Rs.1,640-2,900 at par with Assistants in the cSS.

In O.A.No.548 of 1`994, the applicants are Stenographers, Grade.II, and assistants in the Directorate of Publicity, Ministry of Information and



Broadcasting. The main ground for rejection of the claim of the applicants is (i) that the method of recruitment to these posts in the Directorate is not through open competition; (ii) that the pay scales for the posts of Stenographer, grade.II, in DFP was Rs.425-700 which was subsequently revised to Rs.1,400-2300 on the recommendations of the 4th cpc and later on it was again revised to rs.1,400-2600 with effect from 1.1.1986 by the Ministry of Finance, OM dated 4.5.1990 and (iii)since the 5th cpc has been announced by the Government, the matter will be taken up with them. It is not denied that right from the fyear 1971, the scales of Stenographers and assistants in the DFP were comparable to the scale of Stenographers and Assistants in the Central Secretariat.


The other point is that, pay scales of stenographers, gr.II of DFP was only Rs.425-700 whereas those of CSSS was Rs.425-800. It is not disputed that the scale of rs.425-700 was revised to Rs.1,400-2300, but the scale of stenographers, grade II, of DFP was subsequently revised to rs.1,400-2600 by OM, dated 4.5/.1990 with effect from q1.1.1986. Thus the benefit of the scale of rs.1,400-2600 was made available to Stenographer, grade II, of DFP with effect from 1.1.1986. The reason for doing so has not been brought on record. Whatever may be reasons, the Government in its own wisdom thought it proper to bring the stenographers, grade II, of DFP at par with CSSS and stenographer grade II, of some other departments. The ground mentioned in the OM, dated 31.7.1990 for CSSS in a higher pay scale has not been found tenable, in view of various Apex Court judgments by the Tribunal in various cases. In the case before us, we are of the view that the case of the applicants who are working as Assistants and Stenographers grade II in the DFP cannot be discriminated. In our view, therefore, the applicants in this case are also entitled to the scale of Rs.1,640-2900 as their court parts in the CSS/CSSS.