Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Union Of India And Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal, ... on 28 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(4)ALD15, 2001(4)ALT264
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
ORDER
S.B. Sinha, CJ
1. A short and interesting question arises for consideration in this application.
2. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein who were applicants in OA No.170 of 1995 are graduates. An advertisement bearing No,391 of 1988 was published in the Employment News dated 23-7-1988 for appointment to the post of data entry operator; wherefor the desired qualifications were: (1) matriculation; (2) training in data entry operation; (3) Data entry speed of not less than 8000 key depressions per hour (free of error).
3. The said advertisement was issued purported to be in terms of a proposal of Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 22-7-1988. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein were appointed in the same post. The amendment to the Income Tax Department (Attached and Subordinate Offices) Data Entry Operators Recruitment Rules, 1988 came into force from 13-8-1988 whereby and whereunder the qualification for holding the said post was brought down from graduation to matriculation.
4. The selection of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein had not been challenged. The qualification which was prescribed prior to the said advertisement was graduation.
5. Later on, again the rule was amended and the qualification of the data entry operator was increased to graduation.
It is not in dispute that all the data entry operators would be performing the similar job and were enjoying the same scale of pay. Purporting to be for reorganisation/rationalisation of the course, the cadres were divided as grade A and grade B. The applicant-respondents having been appointed in terms of the aforementioned advertisement dated 23-7-1998, wherein the minimum educational qualifications prescribed to be matriculation were placed as data entry operator grade B while those who had the similar qualification but where appointed pursuant to the advertisement wherein the minimum qualification was mentioned as graduation were placed as grade A data entry operators. It is not in dispute that all were placed in the scales of pay of Rs.1350-2200/-. The learned Tribunal keeping in view the provisions of Article 14 read with Article 39(d) and various decisions of the Apex Court held that as the respondents are graduates, and they were recruited as data entry operators they are to be treated alike the persons who are similarly situated. It was, however, held:
"As can be seen from the averments made in the OA the applicants were appointed on 17-4-1989 and 10-4-1989 respectively. They reported for duties on 26-4-1989 and 19-4-1989 respectively and their probation was declared vide proceeding dated 13-6-1991. It is now to be considered whether the applicants can be eligible to draw the pay in the scale of Rs.1350-2200/- from the date of their respective appointment. On 11-9-1989, as per Annexure-6, the respondents rationalised the scale of pay of electronic data processing posts. That means a few months after the applicants were appointed the rationalisation of posts was made. They were aware that they were graduates and were appointed against matriculation qualification erroneously. They were fully aware that the Amended Rules, 1988 came into force effective from 13-8-1988. They have filed this OA on 2-2-1995 long after 7 years. They have not approached any judicial forum for their redressal. There is unexplainabte laches on the part of the applicants in claiming the reliefs belatedly. We feel that mere submission of representations after representations to the authorities may not ensure to their benefit to condone the laches.
In the result the O.A, partly succeeds and the following directions were given ;
(i) the applicants shall be deemed to have been appointed DEOs as against graduation qualification under the unamended rules which were in existence earlier to 13-8-1988;
(ii) the applicants are to be fitted notionally in the scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200/- in accordance with the rationalisation of posts dated 11-9-1989 (Annexure 6) from the dates of their appointment to the post.
(iii) the applicants shall be entitled to the monetary benefits only from 2-2-1995."
6. Mr. J. V. Prasad the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein submitted that keeping in view the fact that in the advertisement dated 23-7-1988, despite the rules having not been amended a lower qualification was prescribed, they can be treated differently although they may have the same qualification and thus the learned Tribunal must be held to have erred in passing the impugned order.
Mr. J. Sudhir, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the other hand submits that the authorities were wrong in issuing the advertisement purported to be on the basis of the rules which were yet to come. Mr. Sudhir would urge that at the time of offer of appointment all were described as data entry operators. Neither in the advertisement nor after their appointment they were placed in different categories. All other data entry operators who had been placed in grade A as also the respondents were performing the same duties and were having the same qualifications. The learned Counsel would contend that the said purported rule as regard qualification having come into force with effect from 13-8-1988, the statutory rule which was prevailing on the date when the recruitment process started must be applied. In support of the said contention reliance has been placed on Y. V, Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, , N.T. Devin Katti v. Kar Public Service Commission (SC), 1992 (2) SLR 378.
7. Mr. Sudhir would contend that delay in filing the application could not have been a ground not to pay their salary by accepting the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission.
8. The doctrines of equal pay for equal work and the parity in posts are different concepts. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that grant of a different scale of pay either on the basis of qualification, experience, the nature of the job and other relevant factors is permissible in law. In the instant case, however, the respondents have been performing the same job. They had the same qualification. In that situation the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether they can be differently treated having regard to the fact that in the advertisement, contrary to the existing rules, it was notified that minimum qualification would be matriculation.
9. Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, having regard to the various decisions of the Apex Court, must be read in juxtaposition with Article 14 thereof. As in the instant case at no point of time the respondents were treated differently with those other data entry operators. There is no dispute with the fact that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein possess the same educational qualifications as that of the data entry operators grade A. To treat them differently in the matter of grant of scale of pay and/or placing them in a lower category as a result whereof the posts held by them are made feeder posts for promotion to category A of data entry operators, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances in our opinion, would not be justified. The rules as were existing at the relevant point of time provided for the minimum educational qualification of the data entry operator to be graduate. The respondents fulfilled the said criteria. The rules stood amended only with effect from 13-8-1988 when the selection process had already begun. It is now a well settled principle of law that the rules which are existing at the point of time when selection process began would apply and not the amended rules by reason whereof minimum qualification prescribed became different. The relevant rules being in the nature of subordinate legislation would apply prospectively.
10. It is not a case where draft rules had been framed and published and only pursuant thereto the advertisements had been issued.
11. Even if it be so, the persons having the same qualifications and discharging the same functions are to be treated alike. Thus neither in principle nor in equity they can be treated differently.
12. It would bear repetition to state that the matter might have been different had the fixation of scale of pay and/or category would have been based on educational qualification. The respondents as in the case of data entry operators category A possess the same qualification. It would, therefore, be unjust and unreasonable attracting the wrath of Article 14 to make any discrimination between them and the other categories of data entry operators. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the impugned order is unassailable. The writ application is therefore dismissed. No order is to costs.