Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rohtas Sharma vs Union Of India on 26 March, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.632/2010
MA No.463/2010
New Delhi, this the 28th day of March, 2011
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
1. Shri Rohtas Sharma,
S/o Late Shri Ram Chandar Sharma,
B-19, Nanak Pura,
New Delhi.
2. Shri P.K. Kaimal,
S/o Late C.K.K. Menon,
46/2D, Sector-II, Gole Market,
New Delhi.
3. Smt. Booma Sekaran,
W/o Shri K.S. Kekaran,
M-327, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi.
4. Smt. Sunita Arora,
W/o Shri Brij Mohan Arora,
2/22 Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi.
5. Smt. Shakuntala Chopra,
W/o Late Srhi Kamal Kumar,
C-4F-249, First Floor,
Janakpuri,
New Delhi.
6. Ms. Praveen Kalia,
D/o Late Shri S.L. Kalia,
E-153, Nanak Pura,
South Moti Bagh,
New Delhi.
7. Smt. Rama Dewan,
W/o Shri Yashpal Dewan,
F-24/139, Sector-III,
Rohini.
8. Smt. Rajani C. Nair,
W/o Shri C.G.R. Nair,
254, Pocket B,
Suvidha Apartment,
Phase IV, Ashok Vihar,
Delhi.
9. Smt. Krishna,
S/o Shri Ved S. Sharma,
47/2A Sector-II, Gole Market,
New Delhi.
10.Smt. Sushma Rani,
W/o Shri govind Lal,
2-E, MSD Flats,
Minto Road,
New Delhi.
11.Smt. Usha Peswani,
W/o Shri Jawahar Peswani,
A-146, First Floor,
Dayanand Colony,
Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi.
12.Shri Ravinder Kumar Bhatia,
S/o ate Shri S.C.Bhatia,
C-4B-77, Pocket-B,
Janakpuri,
New Delhi.
13.Smt. Mangla Verma,
W/o Shri V.K. Verma,
B-173, Nankpura,
South Moti Bagh-II,
New Delhi.
14.Shri Sanjay Kumar,
S/o Late Shri Satish Chandra,
S-203, Shakarpur,
Delhi.
15.Smt. Sadhana Kumar,
W/o Shri Ashok Kumar,
I-918, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi.
Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri Padma Kumar S. )
Versus
1. Union of India, through
Secretary,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. Controller General of Accounts,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
. Respondents
( By Advocate : Shri Rajinder Nischal)
: O R D E R :
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Shri Rohtas Sharma and 14 others, the Applicants in this OA are Private Secretaries (PSs) in the Controller General of Accounts coming under CAG. They claim historical pay parity with their counterparts in C&AG and CSSS. The case of the Applicants is that they belong to the C&AG cadre, which was subjected to a bifurcation in the year 1976-1977 for the purposes of better accounting of the Ministries by forming a separate cadre in the organization called Controller General of Accounts (CGA). It is further their claim that at the time of bifurcation, it was stipulated that there would not be any disadvantages to them in their scales of pay. Applicants are now aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure A-1), by which the disparity between the applicants i.e. Private Secretaries (PSs) of CGA and also PSs of C&AG and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) has been continued. The impugned Order dated 18.12.2009 was issued on the basis of this Tribunals directions dated 25.9.2008 in OA No.81/2009. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced below:-
4. As the applicants had been in historical parity with CSSS upto 1.1.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and the pay scale of Private Secretaries of C&AG with four years of service has been revised to Rs.8000-13500 notionally from 1.1.1996 and actually from 2003 vide OM dated 10.7.2006, but the same was not considered in case of applicants due to constitution of VI Central Pay Commission. However, being similarly circumstanced and having historical parity with CSSS they are on all fours covered by the decision of this Tribunal in S.R. Dheer (supra), which stood implemented.
5. Accordingly, this OA stands disposed of with a direction to respondents to re-examine the claim of applicants in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in S.R. Dheer (supra) by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that on parity the applicants shall be granted PB-2 and PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.4800 and Rs.5400 respectively with arrears. No costs.
2. The Applicants aver that the Respondents have not at all considered their homogeneity with the PSs of C&AG and CSSS and have not removed disparity in the 5th CPC as on 1.1.1996 (before the equivalence was disturbed by executive intervention in 2003 with retrospective effect favouring a class within a class). The Applicants averred that CGA was an integral part of the erstwhile Organisation of Comptroller and Auditor General of India prior to the year 1976. The C&AG got bifurcated and Controller General of Accounts was created in 1976. It is the case of the Applicants that prior to 1976, the Private Secretaries in the undivided Comptroller and Auditor General of India was an homogeneous entity and the homogeneity was recognized by the 5th CPC and PSs of C&AG, CGA and CSSS by granting all the pay scale of `6500-10500/-. Further, the Applicants case is that notwithstanding the fact that exactly same duties are performed by them, they belong to the same homogeneous class, they have been granted Pay Band-2 i.e. `9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of `4200/- vide impugned Office Memorandum dated 23.9.2008 (Annexure A-2). The Grade Pay now stands modified as `4600/- vide Order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure A1 colly). It is stated that the Private Secretaries in Comptroller and Auditor General of India in Delhi (but not attached to States), have been granted the pay scale initially in Pay Band 2 i.e. `9300-34800 but with Grade Pay of `4800/- and on completion of 4 years they get a higher Pay Band-3 i.e. `15600-39100 with grade pay of `5400/-. It is further averred that their case is fully covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in S. R. Dheer and Others versus Union of India and Others [OA No.164/2009 decided on 19.02.2009] and the same benefits should be extended to the Applicants. The case of the Applicants is that they are doing exactly the same nature of work, discharging same levels of responsibilities and reporting to same level of senior officers, but they have been denied the same grade pay for Pay Band-2 and the Pay Band-3 after 4 years and thereby their right to equality has been infringed by the Respondents. Thus, they are for the second time before the Tribunal in the present OA with the following relief(s):
(i) Declare the provision of CCS Revised Pay Rules 2008 to the extent the Applicants have been granted Grade Pay of s.4200 under 3.1.14 instead of 3.1.9 as illegal. Also quash and set aside Order dated 18.12.2009 rejecting the claim of the Applicants for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4800 (Rs.5400 after 4 years) and also the Order dated 23.11.2009 modifying the original Grade Pay of Rs.4200 to Rs.4600.
(ii) Direction to the Respondents to grant the Applicants PB-2 with GP Rs.4800 and PB-3 with GP. Rs.5400 (on completion of 4 years) with all consequential benefits with effect from 1.1.1996.
(iii) Direction to the Respondents to grant the Applicants interest on the arrears as per Govt. rates.
(iv) Any other direction which this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to pas under the facts and circumstances of the case including direction granting cost of litigation to the Applicants.
3. Shri Padma Kumar S., learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are already getting their initial pay in the Pay Band-2 on par with the PSs in Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service but the pay disparity has been crept in the (a) not allowing Pay Band-3 after 4 years in Pay Band-2 and (b) grade pay for PB-2 and PB-3. The Applicants have been getting `4200 as grade pay in Pay Band-2 which has since been amended and improved to `4600 vide order dated 23.11.2009 whereas the Applicants should be getting the Grade Pay of `4800. Further, the Counsel for the Applicants submits that on completion of 4 years in Pay Band-2 they should be allowed to get into the Pay Band-3 with the Grade Pay of `5400. Shri Padma Kumar S. highlights the historical pay parity existing between the PSs of CGA and PSs of C&AG/CSSS and submits that the pay disparity has crept in through executive order after implementation of the recommendations of the 5th CPC. He further highlights that the PSs in CGA discharging the same type of works; undertake same types of tasks and shoulder the responsibilities of similar nature. Therefore, his contention is that when there was historical parity of pay structures in earlier Pay Commissions and while the nature of work and responsibilities being same, the Grade Pay differential and non sanction of Pay Band-3 after 4 years in Pay Band-2 should be done away with and Pay parity between the PSs of CGA should be granted with PSs in C&AG and CSSS. In this context, to buttress his argument, Shri Padma Kumar S. places his reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Government of West Bengal versus Traun K. Roy and Others [2004 (1) SCC 347]; Union of India versus Mahajabeen Akhtar [AIR 2008 SC 435] and Union of India versus Dineshan K. K. [AIR 2008 SC 1026]; S. C. Chandra versus State of Jharkhand [AIR 2007, SC 3021]; Union of India versus Hiramoy Sen [AIR 2007 SCW 7025]; State of haryana versus Charanjit Singh [AIR 2006 SC 161]; State of Haryana versus Tilak Raj [AIR 2003 SC 2658]; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association versus Union of India [AIR 1990 SC 334]; Mewa Ram Kanojia versus All India Institute of Medical Science [AIR 1989 SC 1256]; Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) & Ors. versus UOI & Ors. [AIR 1988 SC 1291] and Randhir Singh versus Union of India [AIR 1982 SC 879].
4. On receipt of the notice, the Respondents have filed their reply affidavit by controverting the grounds taken by the Applicants in the OA. Shri Rajinder Nischal, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Respondents have examined the issues raised by the Applicants before this Tribunal in the earlier OA No.81/2008 wherein specific direction was issued to re-examine the claims of the Applicants in the light of the Tribunals direction in S. R. Dheers case (supra). The Respondents examined in great detail afresh and have passed the order dated 18.12.2009. His contention is that there is no historical parity of the Private Secretaries of the CGA with the Private Secretaries of the CSSS and C&AG. He drew our attention to Para 3 of the impugned order to say that the Table therein has very clearly specified the levels of disparity between the two groups of PSs. He submits that 6th CPC has examined the issue of pay parity between Secretariat and non Secretariat Services and taking into account the functional considerations and relativities and has stated that the parity in pay scales beyond the grade of Assistants may not be possible to be justified because the hierarchy and career progress will be different. He, therefore, drew our attention to the relevant paragraphs of the 6th CPC to submit the claim of the pay parity. The PS posts being beyond the Assistant grade, pay parity between PSs in Secretariat (CSSS/C&AG) cannot be extended to PSs in CGA.
5. Referring to S. R. Dheers case (supra), he submits that the present case is not the same as that of S.R. Dheer. The PSs in CAT are not on the same footing as that of the PSs of CGA, in the sense that the work of the Tribunal is of judicial nature and the duties and responsibilities of the PSs attached to the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Member of the Tribunal are more onerous than even those PSs working in CGA. He also submits that the Grade Pay of the Applicants have been revised w.e.f. 23.11.2009 from `4200 to `4600. Therefore, the Applicants should have no grievance as the grade pay difference between `4800 and `4600 is very minimum. He, therefore, submits that the Original Application deserves to be dismissed. In support of the contention that Tribunal and Courts are not the competent authority to direct fixation of pay scales and grant of pay parity as such functions come within the ambit of executive, Shri Padma Kumar S. placed his reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of S. C. Chandra (supra) and Union of India versus Arun Jyoti Kundu and Others [AISLJ-2008-1-424].
6. Before we examine the grounds raised in the OA, it is apt for us to get guidance of well settled position in law in the matters of pay parity and equal pay for equal work. Equal pay for equal work has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as held by Honble Supreme Court in Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union Versus Union of India, [(1991) 1 SCC 619], and also Union of India Versus Dineshan K.K., [(2008) 1 SCC 586] and State of Kerala Versus B. Renjith Kumar [(2008) 12 SCC 219]. However, as observed by the Honble Apex Court in State of Orissa Versus Balaram Sahu [(2003) 1 SCC 250] pay parity would depend upon not only on the nature or volume of work but also on quality of work as regards reliability and responsibility as well and different pay scales may be prescribed on the basis of such reliability and responsibility. This ratio has also been reiterated by Honble Apex Court in State of Bihar Versus Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturers Assns.,[(2008) 7 SCC 231]. In S.C. Chandra and Others Versus State of Jharkhand and Others [2007-8-SCC-279], the Honourable Supreme Court has exhaustibly dealt with the issue of pay parity and powers of the Courts and Tribunal to interfere in the matters of pay fixation and if so on what grounds. It is appropriate for us to take extract of the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment 15. The principle of equal pay for equal work was propounded by this Court in certain decisions in the 1980s, e.g. Dhirendra Chamoli and another vs. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637, Surinder Singh vs. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. (1986) 1 SCC 639, Randhir Singh vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 etc. This was done by applying Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution. Thus, in Dhirendra Chamoli's case (supra) this Court granted to the casual, daily rated employees the same pay scale as regular employees.
16. It appears that subsequently it was realized that the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work was creating havoc. All over India different groups were claiming parity in pay with other groups e.g. Government employees of one State were claiming parity with Government employees of another State.
17. Fixation of pay scale is a delicate mechanism which requires various considerations including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment, etc. and it has a cascading effect. Hence, in subsequent decisions of this Court the principle of equal pay for equal work has been considerably watered down, and it has hardly ever been applied by this Court in recent years.
18. Thus, in State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123, it was held that the principle can only apply if there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. Even if the employees in the two groups are doing identical work they cannot be granted equal pay if there is no complete and wholesale identity, e.g., a daily rated employee may be doing the same work as a regular employee, yet he cannot be granted the same pay scale. Similarly, two groups of employees may be doing the same work, yet they may be given different pay scales if the educational qualifications are different. Also, pay scale can be different if the nature of jobs, responsibilities, experience, method of recruitment, etc. are different.
19. In State of Haryana and others vs. Charanjit Singh and others (2006) 9 SCC 321, discussing a large number of earlier decisions it was held by a three-Judge Bench of this Court that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. Moreover, even for finding out whether there is complete and wholesale identity, the proper forum is an expert body and not the writ court, as this requires extensive evidence. A mechanical interpretation of the principle of equal pay for equal work creates great practical difficulties. Hence in recent decisions the Supreme Court has considerably watered down the principle of equal pay for equal work and this principle has hardly been ever applied in recent decisions.
20. In State of Haryana & another vs. Tilak Raj & others (2003) 6 SCC 123, the Supreme Court considered the doctrine of equal pay for equal work in the context of daily wagers of the Haryana Roadways. After taking note of a series of earlier decisions the Supreme Court observed:
"A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no post. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination. No material was placed before the High Court as to the nature of duties of either categories and it is not possible to hold that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is an abstract one.
'Equal pay for equal work' is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula".
21. In State of U.P. and others vs. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh, AIR 1998 SC 303, the Supreme Court observed that even if persons holding the same post are performing similar work but if the mode of recruitment, qualification, promotion etc. are different it would be sufficient for fixing different pay scale. Where the mode of recruitment, qualification and promotion are totally different in the two categories of posts, there cannot be any application of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
22. In State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh and others AIR 1997 SC 1788, the Supreme Court observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organizations. Persons doing the same work may have different degrees of responsibilities, reliabilities and confidentialities, and this would be sufficient for a valid differentiation. The judgment of the administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities, which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally was not open to interference by the court.
23. In Federation of All India Customs and Excise Stenographers (Recognized) and others vs. Union of India and others AIR 1988 SC 1291, this Court observed :
"In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work done, that is, on intelligible basis. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less, it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula".
24. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the Court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the Court should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive function vide Indian Drugs & Pharmacheuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408.
25. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the judiciary should not ordinarily encroach into the executive or legislative domain. The theory of separation of powers, first propounded by the French philosopher Montesquieu in his book and the Spirit of Laws' still broadly holds the field in India today. Thus, in Asif Hameed vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [AIR 1989 SC 1899] a three Judge bench of this Court observed (vide paragraphs 17 to 19) :
"17. Before adverting to the controversy directly involved in these appeals we may have a fresh look on the inter se functioning of the three organs of democracy under our Constitution. Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognized under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. Legislature, executive and judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The Constitution trusts to the judgment of these organs to function and exercise their discretion by strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. Legislature and executive, the two facets of people's will, they have all the powers including that of finance. Judiciary has no power over sword or the purse nonetheless it has power to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of State function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of democracy. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self imposed discipline of judicial restraint.
.
19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers."
26. In our opinion fixing pay scales by Courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high Constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realizing this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an expert committee appointed by the Government instead of the Court itself granting higher pay).
27. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun K. Roy and others (2004) 1 SCC 347.
28. Similarly, in State of Haryana and another vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72, the principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in great detail. In paragraphs 9 & 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body. The Courts must realize that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even experts having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the Court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences vide Union of India and others vs. Pradip Kumar Dey (2000) 8 SCC 580.
7. We may briefly identify the law which runs through various judgments of Honble Supreme Court on the pay parity controversy. It is well established that (a) pay scale fixation is purely executive function and courts and Tribunals should not direct in fixing pay scales; (b) the principle of equal pay for equal work should not be applied unless there is a complete and wholesale identity between the two groups; (c) even to find out the wholesale and complete identity, the best forum is an expert body like Pay Commission; (d) the Pay Commission which goes into at great depth on the pay anomalies and the issues of pay parity demand in depth examination from various angles with full facts on the issues, is the appropriate authority to decide such matters; (e) it is the claimants of equality to substantiate the basis of equivalence and resultant discrimination; (f) even if the persons holding same post doing similar work but if the mode of recruitment, qualification, promotion etc. are different, pay parity would not be admissible; and (g) persons doing the same work in different organizations may have different responsibilities, reliability, confidentiality which are sufficient reasons for pay disparity;
8. In the background of the well settled position in law, we may refer to the Applicants claim of historical pay parity with PSs in C&AG and CSSS. The Respondents have dealt this in the impugned order dated 18.12.2009. They have stated that the Applicants (PSs of CCAS) are not on par with the PSs of CSSS or PSs of CAT or PSs of C&AG. The historical pay parity claim has been demolished in the well documented Table in the impugned order dated 18.12.2009. As per the said order, we find that the pay scale of CSSS in 3rd Pay Commission was higher than that of the pay scales of the Applicants (CCAS). Though the initial pay in the 4th Pay Commission became same but the pay scales were different between the two groups as may be seen that the Applicants used to get `2000-3200 whereas PSs in CSSS used to get `2000-3500. In case of 5th CPC, the pay disparity also continued as the Applicants used to get `6500-10500 and PSs of CSSS though initially sanctioned same pay scale but on completion of 4 years of service in the said scale they became entitled to non functional pay of `8000-13500 w.e.f. 3.10.2003. Such a provision did not exist for the Applicants in the 5th CPC. In the 6th CPC, we find that Pay Bands have taken into account more than one pay scale of the previous Pay Scales of 5th CPC. It is noted that in 6th CPC pay disparity has been maintained between the Secretariat Services and non Secretariat Services. Pay Scales recommended in Para 3.1.9 of 6th CPC report is meant for CSS, CSSS and other Head Quarter Services whereas Para 3.1.14 envisages pay scales in case of ministerial staff working outside the Secretariat. As the Applicants are in non-Secretariat Services they have been sanctioned Pay Band-2 with `4200 as Grade Pay (revised to `4600). It is appropriate for us to quote Para 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 of the 6th CPC report, which read as under:-
3.1.9 Accordingly, the Commission recommends upgradation of the entry scale of Section Officers in all Secretariat Services(including CSS as well as non participating ministries/departments/organizations) to Rs.7500-12000 corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800. Further, on par with the dispensation already available in CSS, the Section Officers in other Secretariat 161 Offices, which have always had an established parity with CSS/CSSS, shall be extended the scale of Rs.8000-13500 in Group-B corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800 on completion of four years service in the lower grade. This will ensure full parity between all Secretariat Offices. It is clarified that the pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800 is being recommended for the post of Section Officer in these services solely to maintain the existing relativities which were disturbed when the scale was extended only to the Section Officers in CSS. The grade carrying grade pay of Rs.4800 in pay band PB-2 is, otherwise, not to be treated as a regular grade and should not be extended to any other category of employees. These recommendations shall apply mutatis-mutandis to post of Private Secretary/equivalent in these services as well. The structure of posts in Secretariat Offices would now be as under:-
Post Pre revised pay scale Corresponding revised pay band and grade pay LDC Rs.3050-4590 PB-1 of Rs.4860-20200 along with grade pay of Rs.1900 UDC Rs.4000-6000 PB-1 of Rs.4860-20200 along with grade pay of Rs.2400 Assistant Rs.6500-10500 PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4200 Section Officer Rs.7500-12000 Rs.8000-13500* (on completion of four years) PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800.
PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.5400* (on completion of four years) Under Secretary Rs.10000-15200 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100 along with grade pay of Rs.6100 Deputy Secretary Rs.12000-16500 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100 along with grade pay of Rs.6600 Director Rs.14300-18300 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100 along with grade pay of Rs.7600 * This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments organisations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would therefore be covered. .. .. .. .. 3.1.14 In accordance with the principle established in the earlier paragraphs, parity between Field and Secretariat Offices is recommended. This will involve merger of few grades. In the Stenographers cadre, the posts of Stenographers Grade II and Grade I in the existing scales of Rs.4500-7000/Rs, 5000-8000 andRs.5500-9000 will, therefore, stand merged and be placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. In the case of ministerial post in non- Secretariat Offices, the posts of Head Clerks, Assistants, Office Superintendent and Administrative Officers Grade III in the respective pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500- 10500 will stand merged. The existing and revised structure in Field Organization will, therefore, be as follows:-
(in Rs.) Designation Present pay scale Recommended pay scale Corresponding Pay Band & Grade Pay Pay band Grade Pay LDC 3050-4590 3050-4590 PB-1 1900 UDC 4000-6000 4000-6000 PB-1 2400 Head Clerk/Assistants/ Steno Grade II/equivalent 4500-7000/ 5000-8000 Office Superintendent/ Steno Grade I/equivalent 5500-9000 Superintendent/ Asst. Admn.
Officer/ Private Secretary/ equivalent 6500-10500 Administrative Officer Grade II /Sr. Private Secretary/equ. 7500-12000 7500-12000 entry grade for fresh recruits) 8000-13500 (on completion of four years) PB-2 4800 (5400 after 4 years) Administrative Officer Grade I 10000-15200 10000-15200 PB-2 6100 Note 1 The posts in the intermediate scale of Rs.7450-11500, wherever existing, will be extended the corresponding replacement pay band and grade pay.
Note 2 The existing Administrative Officer Grade II /Sr. Private Secretary/equivalent in the scale of Rs.7500-12000 will, however, be placed in the corresponding replacement pay band and grade pay till the time they become eligible to be placed in the scale of Rs.8000-13500 corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.5400.
9. It is stated by the Respondents that the Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of `5400 is admissible only in cases of those services where a non-functional upgradation in the pre-revised scale of `8000-13500 was available on completion of 4 years of service. It is noted that the Applicants did not have such dispensation in the 5th CPC and as such the said Provision applicable to CSSS would not be admissible for the Applicants.
10. It is trite law that even if the persons doing the same work having the same nomenclature like PSs their pay parity need not be admissible as their recruitment, educational qualification, experience, promotion prospects, responsibilities, reliability and confidentiality matters which they may be handling would be different from other groups. These are sufficient reasons to maintain pay disparity between two groups with same designation. In the present case, we find that the pay disparity which was existing during earlier CPC periods has been there between PSs in CGA (CCAS) and CSSS/C&AG, and has been continued in the 6th CPC. There is no ground to claim historical parity. Thus, we do not find any legal infirmity in the orders passed by the Respondents on 18.12.2009.
11. It is contended on behalf of the Applicants that their case is fully covered by the orders of this Tribunal in S. R. Dheers case (supra). We have gone through the judgment and note that the Tribunal framed 3 issues and after detailed analysis of the law on the subject of pay parity passed orders on those issues. We take extract of the relevant parts of the order which read as follows:-
16. For proper adjudication of the case, the following issues may be framed:
i) Whether the CAT has jurisdiction in judicial review to interfere in the matter concerning parity of pay on wrong fixation of pay by the Government, pursuant to the recommendations by the expert body like Pay Commission?
ii) Whether the PSs/SOs in CAT have had historical parity with their counterparts in CSSS/CSS?
iii) Whether the decision taken by the Ministry of Finance to apply para 3.1.14 of the recommendations as accepted is legally justifiable? . .. ..
56. In the light of the discussions made above, issue no. (i) framed by us is answered to the extent that as in the matter of grant of pay scale there has been an unreasonableness and accepted recommendations having not been followed and applied to the applicants at par with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS, an exception has been carved out as per the trite law to interfere with the decision of the Government in judicial review by us. As far as the issue No. (ii) is concerned, we have already concluded that the SOs/PSs of CAT have always had historical parity with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS. Accordingly the issue no. (iii) is answered on the basis of the above observations that such an application is misconceived, misplaced and contrary to law.
57. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that the decision of the Government to deny Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2 to the PSs and SOs of the CAT initially and Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 on completion of four years service in the grade is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, since they are having established historical parity with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS and, therefore, applicants are entitled to these Pay Bands with Grade Pay. The interim order is made absolute. The difference in arrears of pay shall be disbursed to the applicants within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OA is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. In OA No.81/2009, while considering the Applicants prayers as we are considering in the present OA, direction was issued to examine their pay parity claims. The relevant paragraphs of the said order have been extracted in para 1 of the present order. Respondents have considered this aspect in the impugned order dated 18.12.2009, which reads as follows:-
(g) The instant case is different from the case of S.R. Dheer, wherein the Honble CAT had traced the pay scales of SOs, PSs in CAT from the third CPC onwards generating a ground to establish historical parity between SOs PSs in CAT and in CSS/CSSS. The same cannot be said for the PS of CCAS as can be seen from the comparative statement above. Another fact which distinguishes Private Secretaries of CCAS from Private Secretaries of Central Administrative Tribunal is that work of CAT is of judicial nature and, therefore, duties and responsibilities of Private Secretaries attached with Chairman/Vice-Chairmen/Members of the Tribunal are more onerous than those of Private Secretaries in CCAS. On a careful examination of the above in the background of the judgment in S. R. Dheers case (supra), we are of the opinion that Respondents analysis is logical and clear. Dissimilarities have been brought out between PSs of CGA (CCAS) and the PSs of the Central Administrative Tribunals. Thus, the Applicants have failed to convince us on this ground for our interference.
12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and guided by the well settled position in law in the subject of pay parity, we come to the considered conclusion that the Respondents have well defended their case and the Applicants do not have a case in their support. Resultantly, we uphold the orders dated 18.12.2009 and 23.11.2009 passed by the Respondents. Thus, the Original Application being bereft of merits is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda)
Member (J) Member (A)
/pj