Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr.Sudesh Kumar vs Union Of India on 15 July, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A.NO.3335 OF 2011 New Delhi, this the 15th day of July, 2015 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Mr.Sudesh Kumar, F-190AA, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 2. Mrs.Renu Sehgal, M-20, Arjun Apartmnets, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 110018. 3. Mrs.Jatinder Kaur, 2/156, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. 4. Mrs.Meenu Anand, 71-C, LIG Flats, Madi Pur, Delhi 110063. 5. Mrs.Kochuthressia T.V., 524, Type III, Ayurvigyan Nagar, New Delhi 110049 6. Mrs.Manju, 11822/7, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 7. Mr.Atul Kumar Jain, A-31, Ashok Vihar-II, Delhi. 8. Mrs.Indu Bala, 360-A, Bali Nagar, Palwal, Haryana 9. Mrs.Veena Devi, H.No.514, Type III, Ayurvigyan Nagar, New Delhi 110049 10. Mrs.Sarojini Raju, Qtr.No.492, Type III, Ayurvigyan Nagar, New Delhi 110049 11. Mr.Ashok Kumar Bhukesh, 2153, Shora Kotni, Subzi Mandi, Delhi 110007 12. Mrs.Flower Joy, CC-69-D, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110088 13. Mrs.Dinesh Mahajan, RZ-156, Santosh Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059 14. Mrs.Anita Gulati, BV 47, Vishakha Enclave, Pitam Pura, New Delhi 15. Mr.Ashok Kumar, 52-C, Pocket B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 16. Mrs.Neeru Bala, G-II/75, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi 17. Mrs.Kanta Devi Chawla, 941/7, Extension, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana 18. Mr.Lazarus, G-11, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029 19. Mrs.Susamma George, 29, Parmarth Apartments, Vikaspuri, New Delhi 20. Mrs.Nani Gangadharan, Qtr.No.809, Sector 9, R.K.Puram, New Delhi 21. Mrs.Renu Prakash, Qtr.No.508, Type III, Ayurvigyan Nagar, New Delhi 110049 22. Mrs.Usha Arora, H.No.3087-88, Phase II, New Housing Board Colony, Sonepat, Haryana 23. Mrs.Meenu Kohli, H.No.104, Tihar, New Delhil 24. Mr.Ravi Sharma, J-92, R.B.Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. 25. Mr.Raju Tandon, 1/9339, West Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032 26. Mr.Ramesh Kumar, H.No.13, Sector 9,Dwarka, Delhi 110075 27. Mrs.Nand Kumari, 3, P.M.Society, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 28. Mrs.Vijay Verma, H.No.40, Sector 6, Part II, Vaishali, Distt.Ghaziabad, U.P. 29. Mr.P.Gopinath Nair, Qtr.No.520, Type III, Ayurvigyan Nagar, New Delhi 110049 30. Mr.K.P.Dwivedi, RZ-J-26/211, Gali No.2, West Sagarpur, New Delhi 31. Mr.Yashwan Kumar, 18-D,Gali No.8, Sanjay Mohalla, Bhajanpura, Delhi 110053 32. Ms.Santosh Mendiratta, H-2, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi 110024 33. Mrs.Geetha K.Nair, H.No.127-E, Pocket-IV, Mayur Vihar Phase I, Delhi 34. Mrs.H.K.Uppal, B-24, Shakarpur Extension, Delhi 110092 35. Mr.Sushil Kumar Ajmani, G-63, AIIMS Campus, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029 36. Mrs.Sudha Sharma, H.No.E-397, Tagore Garden Extn., New Delhi 37. Mr.Ashok Kumar, C-110, MMTC Colony, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi 110017 38. Mr.Sumant PalSingh, C-8/247, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053 39. Mr.Ram Datta, B-1/A-3B, Janakpuri, New Delhi 40. Mr.Ajay Kumar, H.No.20/10, Pant Nagar, Jungpura, New Delhi 110014 41. Mrs. Sohinder Kaur, Flat No.2C, Pocket II, Sector VI, DDA Flats, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 42. Mrs.Jessy Robin, GF-1/147, Vikram Enclave Extn., Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad 43. Mrs.Pushpa Joshi, H.No.A-540, Sector 19, NOIDA, UP. 44. Mrs.Pushpa Duggal, C-6A/33-A, Janak Puri, New Delhi 45. Mr.Suresh Sahni, C-221, Ekta Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi 46. Mr.Har Singh, F-4, AIIMS Residential Campus, Ansari Nagar (West), New Delhi 110029 47. Ms.Santosh Kumari, 27/42, Jawala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032 48. Ms.Rajni, H.No.6/15, Moti Nagar, New Delhi 110015 49. Mrs.T.Omana Anand Kumar, Qtr.No.522, Type III, Ayurvigyan Nagar, New Delhi 110049 50. Mr.Naveen Chopra, Qtr.No.476, Type III, Ayurvigyan Nagar, New Delhi 110049 51. Mrs.Meenakshi, Qtr.No.F-105, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029 52. Mr.S.C.Bindra, X/1109, Rajgarh Extn., Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110031 53. Mrs.S.Kumar, 52/94-B, Old Mahabir Nagar, New Delhi 110018 54. Mr.S.K.Jain, H.No.1210/10, Krishna Colony, Gurgaon, Haryana, 55 Mrs.Rita Luthra, A-2-B/8B, Ekta Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 56. Mrs.Asha Sharma, A-68, Pocket III, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 57. Mrs.Veena Taneja, P-10, C-2, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 58. Mrs.Bimla Rani, H.No.7499, Katra Maliwala, Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi 110007 59. Mrs.Chanderkanta Khurana, 20-B/75-B, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 110018 60. Mrs.Shashi Gupta, H.No.A-701, Kalka Apartments, Sec.6, Dwarka, Delhi 110085 61. Mr.H.P.Singh, H.No.A-156, Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092 62. Mrs.Kiran Pathak, H.No.A-2-A/225, Janak Puri, New Delhi 110058 63. Mrs.Usha Tohan, H.No.C-257, Rurajmal Vihar, Delhi 110092 64. Mr.P.K.Nair, Qtr.No.34, Type II, Masjid Moth, New Delhi 110049 65. Mr.Prem Sharma, H.No.67-B, Masjid Moth DDA Flats, Ph-II, Greater Kailash-III, New Delhi 66. Mrs.Nisha Dwivedi, 64-A, Deep Enclave, Pocket D, Ashok Vihar Ph II, Delhi 110052 67. Mr.Ashwani Kumar Sharma, G-67, AIIMS Campus, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029 68. Mrs.Prem Wati, H.No.4/464, Trilok Puri, Delhi 69. Mrs.Bimla Kalra, H.No.118/7, 3rd Floor (RHS), Gautam Nagar, New Delhi 70. Mrs.Meena Bhatia, H.No.C-4/23-B, Keshav Puram, Delhi 71. Mr.Manjeet Kapoor, H.No.C-22, Ar-Dee City, Sector 52, Gurgaon 72. Mr.K.S.Bisht, Qtr.No.505, Type III, Ayurvigyan Nagar, New Delhi 110049 73. Mr.S.Devasenapathi, Qtr.No.510, Type III, Ayurvigyan Nagar, New Delhi 110049 74. Mr.Laxmi Chand, H.No.631/7, Adarsh Mohalla, Gali No.14, Maujpur, Delhi 110053 75. Mrs.Pratibha Talreja, H.No. 20/634, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi 76. Mr.Raveendran V, B-108, 1st Floor, Near Holychild School, Tagore Garden Extn., New Delhi 110027 77. Mrs.Darshna Chandna, H.No.128-C, Pocket C, Mayur Vihar Ph.II, Delhi 110091 78. Mrs.Kanchan Malik, B-134, Lajpat Nagar I, New Delhi 110024 79. Mrs.Savitri Devi, H.No. 577, Gali No.9, Madan Puri, Gurgaon 80. Mrs.Sandhya Chowdhury, E-836, C.R.Park, New Delhi 110019 81. Mrs.Dinesh, C-130, Tower Colony, Burari, New Delhi 110084 82. Mr.Ajay P.Singh, H.No.D-117/4, Chhattarpur, New Delhi 83. Mrs.Santosh Gupta, H.No.I-1673, C.R.Park, New Delhi 84. Mr.D.Tuteja, H.No.114, Shekh Sarai, Greater Kailash Pt.II, New Delhi 85. Mrs.Rekha Goswami, Goswami Kunj, Sohna, Distt.Gurgaon 86. Mrs.Shyam Bala, R-1748, Sohan Ganj, Ram Gali, Subzi Mandi, Ghanta Ghar, Delhi 110007 87. Mrs.Parmeshwari, H.No.75, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi 110017 88. Mr.Tajinder Kaur, H.No.109, Lahore Apartments, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi 89. Mrs.Neelam Pasricha, H.No.CC-25C, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar, New Delhi 110064 Applicants (By Advocates: Shri G.D.Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vikram Singh) Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011 2. Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi 110011 3. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, through its Director, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029 .. Respondents (By Advocates: Shri H.K.Gangwani with Shri Amit Chawla for Respondents 1 & 2; and Shri P.K.Gupta with Shri M.K.Singh for Respondent no.3) ORDER Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
Brief facts of the applicants case are as follows:
1.1 The applicants are working as Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short, AIIMS).
1.2 Under Section 3 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), AIIMS is a body corporate. Sub-sections (4) & (5) of Section 11 of the Act, inter alia, stipulate that subject to such rules as may be made by the Central Government in this behalf, the AIIMS may appoint such number of officers and employees as may be necessary for the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions and may determine the designations and grades of such other officers and employees, and that officers and employees of the AIIMS shall be entitled to such salary and shall be governed by such conditions of service in respect of leave, pension, provided fund and other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made in this behalf. Under Regulation 35 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations 1999), the rules as applicable to the Central Government servants regarding the general conditions of service, pay, allowances including travelling and daily allowance, leave salary, joining time, foreign service terms and orders and decisions issued in this regard by the Central Government from time to time, shall apply to the employees of the AIIMS.
1.3 A Cadre Review Report of 1991 was implemented by AIIMS, with prior approval of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, explicitly providing that the Secretarial Cadre of AIIMS shall be on the line of grade structure of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS). The Recruitment Rules and Pay Scales of the secretarial posts of AIIMS are at par with CSSS pattern. The orders and decisions of the Central Government as regards the pay structure and other conditions of service in respect of CSSS have been mutatis mutandis applied to the Secretarial Staff of the AIIMS.
1.4 The hierarchy in the cadre of Secretarial Staff of AIIMS up to 5th CPC was as follows:
S.No. Name of post Pay Scale Eligibility Criteria Mode of Recruitment 1 Stenographer *Rs.1200-2040(4th CPC) **Rs.4000-6000 (5th CPC)
i)33-1/3% by LDCE
ii)66-1/3% by Direct Recruitment 2 Personal Assistant *Rs.1640-2900 (4th CPC) **Rs.5500-9000 (5th CPC) Stenographers with 5 years of regular service in the grade and qualifying a Departmental Test for a speed of 100 w.p.m. Stenography (English/Hindi) Promotion against 50% vacancies.
Stenographers with 3 years of regular service in the grade with a qualifying test at the speed of 120 w.p.m. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for 50% vacancies.
3Private Secretary *Rs.2000-3500 (4th CPC) **Rs.6500-10500 (5th CPC) Personal Assistants with 8 years of regular service in the grade Promotion against 50% of vacancies.
Personal Assistants with 5 years of regular service in the grade with qualifying test in stenography at the speed of 100 w.p.m. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for 50% of vacancies.
4Principal Private Secretary *Rs.3000-4500 (4th CPC) **Rs.10000-15200 (5th CPC) Private Secretaries with 8 years of regular service in the grade (including service in the erstwhile grade of Sr.P.A.) 100% by promotion.
1.5 The hierarchy in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service/ Central Secretariat Service up to 5th CPC was as follows:
S.No. Name of Post Group/Classification 3rd CPC Scale of pay 4th CPC Scale of pay 5th CPC Scale of Pay 1 Stenographer Grade D/UDC Group C (Non-gazetted)/General Central Service (Ministerial) Non-Gazetted 330-560 1200-2040 4000-6000 2 Stenographer Grade C/Assistant Group B (Non-Gazetted) General Central Service (Ministerial) Non-Gazetted 425-800 1400-2600 *1640-2900 5500-9000 3 Private Secretary/Section Officer Group B (Gazetted)/General Central Service (Ministerial)/Gazetted 650-1200 2000-3500 6500-10500 4 Principal Private Secretary/Under Secretary Group A (Gazetted)/General Central Service (Ministerial) 10000-15200 1.6 The hierarchical structure of the cadre of Stenographers/ Personal Assistants/Private Secretaries/Principal Private Secretaries in AIIMS had a historical parity with the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service and there was neither any distinction nor any difference between the two.
1.7 The Department of Personnel &Training, vide its decision dated 24.6.2005, placed the Private Secretaries of CSSS in the NFSG of Rs.8000-13500/- with effect from 3.10.2003 in respect of those Private Secretaries who had completed four years of approved service. The Department of Expenditure, vide O.M. dated 15.9.2006, upgraded the pay scale of Stenographers Grade C/Personal Assistants from Rs.5500-9000/- to Rs.6500-10500/- with effect from 15.9.2006.
1.8 Since the duties and responsibilities of the applicants were same as that of their counterparts in the Central Secretariat, and there was historical parity in the pay scale of the Secretarial Cadre in the AIIMS with the CSSS in the Central Secretariat, the applicants made representations for extending them the aforesaid benefits. On 14.10.2008 the Standing Finance Committee of AIIMS decided to grant the aforesaid benefits to the applicants, subject to concurrence of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure)(respondent no.2). On 23.01.2009 the decision of the Standing Finance Committee was ratified by the Governing Body of AIIMS.
1.9 Respondent no.1-Union of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, vide its letter dated 25.3.2009, intimated respondent no.3-Director, AIIMS, that the proposal for grant of Non-Functional Scale of Rs.8000-13500/- w.e.f. 3.10.2003 to the Private Secretaries of AIIMS on the analogy of CSSS was examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance(respondent no.2), and that the Department of Expenditure (respondent no.2) conveyed that the said Non-Functional Scale could not be extended to the Private Secretaries working in AIIMS on par with the Private Secretaries of CSSS.
1.10 Respondent no.1-Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, vide letter dated 6.4.2009, intimated the Director, AIIMS (respondent No.3) that the matter regarding upgradation of scale of pay of Personal Assistants from Rs.5500-9000/- to Rs.6500-10500/- with effect from 15.9.2006 at the AIIMS on par with Grade C Stenographers (PA) of CSSS was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (respondent no.2). The Department of Expenditure (respondent no.2) clarified that the 6th CPC made a clear distinction between the pay scales of staff working outside the Secretariat and those of CSS/CSSS/Other Headquarters Services. Accordingly, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, in accordance with the recommendations of 6th CPC, ministerial employees in offices outside the Secretariat would be granted pay scales as recommended by the Commission, vide para 3.1.14 of its Report. Since AIIMS is an autonomous body, as per O.M. dated 30.9.2008, vide which the revised pay structure recommended by the 6th CPC was extended to employees working in autonomous organizations, only normal replacement pay scales could be granted in the case of employees of such organization.
1.11 Being aggrieved thereby, the applicants moved this Bench of the Tribunal, by filing O.A.No.3052 of 2009 (Mr.Sudesh Kumar & others v. Union of India and others). The Tribunal, vide its order dated 19.2.2010, allowed the O.A., quashed the orders dated 25.3.2009 and 6.4.2009 (Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2), and directed the respondents-Union of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, and Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, to re-examine the claim of the applicants within the period stipulated in the order.
1.12 The Tribunals order dated 19.2.2010 ibid having not been complied with by the respondents, the applicants initiated contempt proceedings, C.P.No.650/10.
1.13 Thereafter, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (respondent no.1), vide order dated 16.10.2010(Annexure A/1), rejected the claim of the applicants. Hence, the present O.A. has been filed by the applicants seeking the following reliefs:
a) Quash the set aside the impugned orders dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure A-1) passed by Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in consultation with the Secretary, Deptt. of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, whereby the claims of applicants Private Secretaries/Personal Assistants for grant of pre-revised pay scales of Rs.8000-13500 on non-functional basis to the Private Secretaries w.e.f. 3.10.2003 and grade pay of Rs.4800 in PB 2 with non-functional scale with grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB 3 after four years of approved service and higher revision of pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 for the post of Personal Assistants w.e.f 15.9.2006 in line with the CSSS Cadre, has been rejected.
b) Declare that the Principal Private Secretaries, Private Secretaries, PAs and Stenographers of AIIMS have always had a historical parity with its counterpart-CSSS of the Central Secretariat and that the Private Secretaries and PAs are entitled to pay scale at par with those of CSSS cadre of the Central Govt. in terms of the recommendation/acceptance made by respondent no.3 in their two letters dated 5.9.2008.
c) To grant non-functional pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 w.e.f. 2.10.2003 to the Private Secretaries of AIIMS with consequential benefits, on par with their counterparts of CSSS and other autonomous bodies under the Government.
d) To grant upgraded pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 15.9.2006 to the Personal Assistants of AIIMS with consequential benefits on par with their counterparts of CSSS and other autonomous bodies under the Government.
e) To grant grade pay of Rs.4800 in PB 2 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in terms of 6th CPC to the Private Secretaries of AIIMS with consequential benefits, on par with their counterparts of CSSS and other autonomous bodies under the Government.
f) To grant Non-Functional Pay Scale of PB 3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 to the Private Secretaries of AIIMS w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in terms of 6th CPC with consequential benefits, on par with their counterparts of CSSS and other autonomous bodies under the Government.
g) To grant Grade Pay of Rs.4600 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to the Personal Assistants of AIIMS with consequential benefits on par with their counterparts of CSSS and other autonomous bodies under the Government.
h) Grant such other reliefs as are deemed fit, just, fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, including consequential benefits with cost of the litigation and the interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payments from the date(s) on which the aforesaid relief becomes due.
2. The respondents, in their counter replies, have resisted the claim of the applicants on the grounds that the AIIMS is an autonomous organization, and that the applicants cannot be treated at par with the CSSS. The respondents have stated that the applicants are only entitled to the normal replacement pay scales/Pay Band with Grade Pay as per the Department of Expenditures O.M. dated 30.9.2008.
3. The applicants have filed a rejoinder reply refuting the stand taken by the respondents. It is, inter alia, stated by the applicants that the benefit of non-functional selection grade has been granted to the Private Secretaries working in the Central Administrative Tribunal, CSIR, DDA, ICAR, CPCB, EPF Organizations, etc., which are outside the Central Secretariat. As regards the upgraded pay scale of Personal Assistant from Rs.5500-9000/- to Rs.6500-10500/- with effect from 15.9.2006, the applicants have stated that the said upgraded pay scale has already been extended to the Personal Assistants working in the ICMR which is also an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2, in an affidavit filed on 3.1.2014, have stated that the Central Secretariat, referred to as the Headquarters Organization of the Government of India, has been dealt with by the 6th CPC on a different footing vis-`-vis Non-Secretariat Organizations. The Commission, while dealing with the parity between similarly placed persons employed in Field Offices and in the Secretariat, mentioned inter alia that it might not be possible or justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be different keeping in view the functional consideration and the relativities across the board. The Commission specifically recommended that the two-tier pay structure for Section Officers (initial pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 and the non-functional grade of Rs.8000-13500 after 4 years) be extended to Central Secretariat Stenographer Service in all Secretariat Organizations, like the Railway Board, Armed Forces Headquarters, Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. This recommendation is not applicable to posts in Non-Secretariat Organizations. The AIIMS is also a Non-Secretariat Autonomous organization. So far as Non-Secretariat organizations are concerned, the Commission recommended the Grade Pay of Rs.4200 for posts, including Stenographers, which were in the pay scales of Rs.4500-7000/5000-8000/5500-9000/6500-10500 by merging them. It was only in case of those posts which were already in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 that the Commission recommended the Grade Pay of Rs.4800 and Rs.5400. Even though the grade pay of Rs.4600 has been allowed in case of posts which were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 as per the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure O.M. dated 13.11.2009, the same cannot be given to the PA in AIIMS because the post was in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 only, for which the Grade Pay recommended by the Pay Commission is Rs.4200. The grant of two-tier pay structure of Rs.6500-10500 and non-functional scale of Rs.8000-13500 was given to PS of CSSS, vide DoP&Ts order dated 24.6.2005 based on the recommendation of a group of officers on cadre structure of CSSS. This order is applicable only in case of CSSS. As regards the extension of benefit of GP of Rs.4600/- to PA and GP of Rs.4800 (Rs.5400 after four years) to PS of CSIR, DDA, CPCB, EPFO & ICMR, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded that they are not aware of the circumstances under which this was allowed to the PA and PS working in those organizations. As regards extension of benefit to the PA and PS in ICAR Headquarters, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have stated that the benefit was extended to PA and PS in the said organization on the basis of the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 1499 of 2009(V.K.Sharma v. Union of India and others). The Tribunals order dated 22.12.2009 was upheld by the High Court, vide order dated 17.5.2010 passed in W.P.( C ) No. 3349 of 2010. The SLP filed against the judgment of the Honble High Court was also dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.12.2010 passed in CC No. 17537 of 2010.
5. In the further rejoinder replies filed by the applicants on 9.1.2014, 4.7.2014 & 11.8.2014, and in the further counter replies/affidavits filed by respondents on 23.5.2014, 5.8.2014 and 9.10.2014, they have more or less reiterated the same averments and contentions in support of their respective cases and have filed certain documents.
6. We have perused the records and have heard Shri G.D.Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, and S/Shri H.K.Gangwani with Shri Amit Chawla, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2, and Shri P.K.Gupta with Shri M.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3-AIIMS. The written notes of arguments filed by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and respondent nos. 1 and 2 have also been perused by us.
7. Shri G.D.Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, submitted that as there was historical parity between the Secretarial Staff working in the AIIMS and their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat as regards their pay scales, respondents 1 and 2 ought not to have rejected the claim of the applicants. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that in several other autonomous bodies, namely, DDA, ICAR, CSIR, CPCB, ICMR, and EPFO functioning under the Central Government, the PAs and PSs have been extended the said benefits and therefore, the rejection of the claim of the applicants on the ground that the said benefits were not extendable to PAs and PSs working in the organizations outside the Central Secretariat is unsustainable. In support of his contentions, Shri Gupta invited our attention to the order dated 24.6.2005 ibid and O.M. dated 15.9.2006 ibid issued by the DoP&T and the Department of Expenditure (respondent no.2) respectively, whereby the Section Officers/PSs and Assistants/Personal Assistants working in the Central Secretariat were granted the said benefits; and paragraphs 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 of the 6th CPCs Report. Our attention was also invited by Shri Gupta to the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court, High Court of Delhi, and the Tribunal:
(i) Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K., (2008)1 SCC (L&S) 248: The nub of the grievance of the writ petitioner, working in the rank of Radio Mechanic in the Assam Riles, was that though the Ministry of Home Affairs and Director General of Assam Rifles having accepted in principle that the members of the Assam Rifles should be given the same rank and pay structure as was given to other central paramilitary forces, yet the same had been denied to him. Taking note of the admission on the part of the Union of India that there was disparity between the pay scales of the members of the Assam Rifles and similarly ranked personnel of other paramilitary forces, the Honble High Court felt that it would be unreasonable and discriminatory if the pay scales given to Radio Mechanics in CRPF and BSF were denied to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, when the qualifications and service requirements in all the three organizations were identical. Consequently, the Honble High Court allowed the claim of the writ petitioner. The Union of India and others challenged the decision of the Honble High Court by filing SLP/Civil Appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Honble Supreme Court held that 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 of India.
(ii) Haryana State Minor Irrigation & Tubewell Corporation & others v. G.S.Uppar & others, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 562: The writ petitioners were working on the post of SDO, SDE, AE, and Law Officer with Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tube-wells Corporation Ltd., which was a Government company. The Corporation ever since its inception in the year 1970 had been following the pay scales of the employees of the Haryana Government as revised from time to time in respect of all categories of its employees. Claiming revision of pay scales at par with their counterparts working in the Government of Haryana, the writ petitioners moved the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The learned Single Judge allowed the claim of the writ petitioners. The letters patent appeal filed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The appeal preferred by the Corporation was also dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court.
(iii) State of Kerala v. B.Renjith Kumar & others, (2008) 12 SCC 219: The respondents were members of the Bar. In 1993, respondents 1 and 2 were selected and appointed as Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals, whereas respondent no.3 was selected and appointed as Presiding Officer in the year 1996, in the State of Kerala. Prior to 1998, the State Government had granted them pay scales at par with District Judges. However, when Judicial Officers were granted benefit of revision of pay scales in December 2001 with retrospective effect from March 2001, similar benefit was denied to them. Their claim for the grant of same scales of pay as that of the District Judges in the State having been rejected by the Government, the respondents moved the Honble High Court of Kerala. Their claim was resisted by the State on the grounds that while the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court were appointed under the provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution of India, the Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunals were not so appointed under Article 234 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the Presiding Officers were not entitled to the same scales of pay as recommended by the National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission) for the members of the Higher Judiciary. Taking note of the contentions, and claims and counter claims of the respective parties, the Honble High Court felt that the mere fact that the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals were not appointed on the recommendation of the Honble High Court or that they were not under the control of the Honble High Court cannot, by itself, be a good reason and adequate ground for treating them differently. Consequently, the Honble High Court allowed the claim of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Honble High Court, the State of Kerala filed SLP/Civil Appeal. The Honble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Kerala.
(iv) Yogeshwar Prasad & others v. National Inst., Edu.Planning & Admn. & others, (2010)14 SCC 32: The appellants, in Civil Appeal Nos.288-289 of 2005, were working as Assistants, Stenographers with National Institute of Educational Planning & Administration, Delhi. The appellants in Civil Appeal No.209 of 2007 were working as Accounts & Administrative Assistants/Assistants/ Stenographers with Sahitya Academy, Delhi. The appellants were getting the same pay scale of Rs.425-800 up to 1986. The Assistants in the Central Government were also getting the same pay scale. According to the IVth Pay Commission, the pay scale of Assistants and Stenographers was revised from Rs.425-800 to Rs.1400-2600 in the Central Government. The Anomalies Removal Committee gave its recommendation increasing the pay scales from Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.1640-2900. Though the recommendation of the Anomalies Removal Committee were accepted from 1.1.1986, the appellants were not given the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. Being aggrieved, the appellants moved the Honble High Court of Delhi. The learned Single Judge allowed the claim of the appellants. The letters patent appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was allowed by the Division Bench. Hence, the appeals were filed by the appellants before the Honble Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the Division Bench. The Honble Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High Court.
(v) Union of India and others v. V.K.Sharma and others, W.P. (C ) No. 3349 of 2010, decided on 17.5.2010: The respondents (who were applicants before the Tribunal in OA No.1499 of 2009) were working as Section Officer/Under Secretary/Private Secretary in Headquarters office (HQ) of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short, ICAR) under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (for short, DARE). They were aggrieved by the U.O. Note No. 303/Dir. IC/ 09 dated 16.03.2009 (Annexure-A/1), whereby the Respondent No. 3 declined to grant them Non-Functional Pay Scale of Rs.8000-13500 notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual financial benefits w.e.f. 03.10.2003 on completion of 4 years of regular service in the grade. They approached this Tribunal for directing the respondents to grant them benefit of Non Functional Pay Scale of Rs. 8000-275-13,500 also w.e.f. 1.1.1996 notionally and w.e.f. 3.10.2003 actually, with all the consequential financial benefits to the Section Officers and Private Secretaries of the ICAR Hqrs., as were granted to the similarly situated Section Officers/Private Secretaries in CSS/CSSS on the basis of Department of Personal & Training Office Order No. 21/36/2003-CS.I dated 13.11.2003, Order No. 5/4/2005-CS.I dated 25.01.2006 and Order No. 10/3/2004-CS-II (Pt. I) dated 24.6.2005 and dated 25th January 2006, further extended to the members of RBSSS, AFHQ and PMO. It was, inter alia, contended by the respondents before the Tribunal that objection was raised by the Finance Ministry mainly on the ground that the non-functional pay scale was only for the SOs of CSS and was not applicable for similarly designated posts. The Tribunal, after analyzing the recommendations of the 6th CPC, vide para 3.1.9 of its report, directed that the DOPT order No 21/36/2003-CSI dated 13.11.2003 shall be extended to the Section Officers/ Private Secretaries in so far as the non-functional pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 is concerned notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and financially w.e.f. 3.10.2003. The Tribunal also directed the Respondents to disburse all admissible pay arrears and refund the amount of recoveries, if any, to the employees concerned. Being aggrieved thereby, the Union of India and others filed the writ petition. Dismissing the writ petition, the Honble High Court of Delhi held thus:
10. Thus the argument of the petitioners made before us that there is no parity between the employees of ICAR with the officers of CSS as there are differences in the mode of recruitment, nature of duties and responsibilities, organizational hierarchy etc. is misconceived in the light of Government order dated 30.10.2008 where it has been approved that the pay structure for Assistants and Section Officers in the CSS may be extended to the Assistants/Personal Assistants and Section Officers/Private Secretaries in ICAR HQ. One more argument advanced before us is that granting of pay scales is purely an executive function and hence the Courts should not interfere with the same as it may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and the authorities. However, this argument cannot be sustained as it is observed by the Tribunal that though fixation of pay and removal of anomalies is a domain of expert bodies like pay commission and the forum to decide it, is of the executive, yet judicial review is not altogether excluded.
(vi) Manoj Kumar and others, etc. v. High Court of Delhi represented by its Registrar General & others, W.P.( C ) No. 6522 of 2012, decided on 2.5.2013: The petitioners, who were working as Personal Assistant, Judicial Assistant, Junior Translator and Assistant Librarian, all posts in PB II (Rs.9300-34800), claimed Grade Pay in sum of Rs.4600/- with effect from 1.1.2006, instead of Rs.4200/-. The other petitioners, who were working as Senior Judicial Assistants, Senior Personal Assistants, Senior Judicial Translators, Senior Assistant Librarians and Readers and were receiving salary in PB II with Grade Pay Rs.4,600/-, claimd a right to be paid Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB II with effect from 1.1.2006 and after rendering the requisite length of service, to be granted non-functional scale, to be placed in PB III with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, instead of Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and placing them in PB-II. Referring to its earlier decision in K.K.Sharma & others v. UOI & others, W.P. ( C ) No. 1174 of 1994, decided on 8.8.1996, and the decision of the Tribunal in S.R.Dheer & others v. UOI & others, OA No.164 of 2009, decided 19.2.2009, which was followed in Mrs.Sunita Devi v. The Secretary, DOPT, OA No.1165 of 2010, decided on 9.4.2010, the Honble High Court of Delhi held thus:
10. As regards W.P. ( C ) No. 6751/2012, the undisputed position is that working in the Central Secretariat, members of the Central Secretariat Service and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service working as Private Secretary/Section Officers were hitherto fore in the pay scale Rs.6500-10500 which was the same pay scale in which Senior Personal Assistants, Senior Judicial Assistants, Senior Judicial Translators, Senior Assistant Librarians and Readers in the Establishment of the Delhi High Court were placed when the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission were implemented and prior thereto when the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission were implemented the parity was in the pay scale Rs.2000-3200. That those working in the Central Secretariat hold Gazetted posts and their brethren in the Delhi High Court do not work on Gazetted post would make no difference firstly for the reason the pay rules do not draw any such distinction, secondly historically when non-functional upgradation by placing them in the non-functional scale of Rs.8000-13000 was granted to those working in the Central Secretariat, similar benefit was granted to the petitioners in the Delhi High Court in the past. And lastly when in the past recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission were implemented by the Central Government pertaining to those working in the Central Secretariat the pay was fixed in sum of Rs.6900/- in the pay scale Rs.6500-10500 i.e. with benefit of two increments and similar was the position in the Delhi High Court. This would be evidenced from the orders dated August 25, 2006 and April 23, 2007 annexed as Annexure PX-3 and PX-4 to the rejoinder affidavit filed in W.P. ( C ) No. 6751/2012. Accordingly, the Honble High Court held that the writ petitioners would be entitled, on being placed in PB-II, to be granted Grade Pay in sum of Rs.4,800/- with effect from January 01, 2006, instead of Rs.4,600/-, and after rendering 4 years service, to be granted the non-functional scale at par with their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat.
(vii) D.G.O.F.Employees Association and anr. V. Union of India and ors., W.P. ( C ) No. 4606 of 2013, decided on 14.10.2014: The petitioner-Association filed O.A.No.39 of 2011 before the Tribunal, for quashing the order of the Ordnance Factories Board, Ministry of Defence, dated 1.9.2009, and the order of the Central Government, Ministry of Finance, dated 20.4.2010, whereby the request made by the petitioner-Association for grant of parity of pay scales to employees in Ordnance Factories with that of identically ranked employees in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Central Secretariat Stenographers Servcice (CSSS), was declined. The Tribunal found that the OF employees had the status of those of attached offices of the Ministry of Defence with its own separate structure of governance and could not claim equation with Secretariat Services or the Ministry of Defence or any other Union Ministry. The Tribunal observed that the cadre strength of CSS and CSSS and the method of recruitment and deployment in various departments of the Ministry was inter alia based upon different terms and a claim for parity by those working in the OFB Factories could not be made on a superficial comparison. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.39 of 2011, vide order dated 18.10.2012. Review Application filed for reviewing the order dated 18.10.2012 was also dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 1.4.2013. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the Tribunal, Writ Petition (C ) No.4606 of 2013 was filed by the DOOF Employees Association and another. Allowing the writ petition, the Honble High Court, in paragraphs 14 to 26 of the judgment, held thus:
14. The upgradation (of pay-scales of Assistants in CSS/CSSS) which broke the parity (between CSS/CSSS and other Departments) which had existed for nearly four decades resulted in demands for parity by non-Secretariat service employees, which were quickly acceded to. The Ministry of Railways Circular of 19.12.2006 granted the benefit to Assistants expressly citing the upgradation in the CSS. Likewise, the upgradation to the employees in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and CBC (by orders dated 12.02.2007 and 13.7.2007) expressly mentioned the upgrdation in CSS/CSSS. Significantly, the upgradation orders in such non-participating Ministries and organizations was not based on any determination or evaluation of its need, but the mere existence of parity in pay scales of Assistants in CSS/CSSS and those in such other departments.
15. It is thus evident that the up-gradation of pay scales from ? 5500-9000/- to ? 6500-10500/- was not consequent to recommendations of the Sixth CPC. In fact, this preceded and was prior to the acceptance/recommendations of the Sixth CPC. The implementation of the recommendations was in the form of Central Civil Service (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008. This fact, in the opinion of the Court, has been lost sight of by the CAT even though it took note of the events which led up-to the demand for parity. The significance of the upgradation is that it took place independently of the Sixth CPC recommendations and pending its acceptance. Thus, when the recommendations were in fact considered, the stage had been set for Assistants in the CSS/CSSS and Assistants in other nonparticipating Ministries (but who were beneficiaries of the upgradation consequent upon its implementation by their respective departments) to demand replacement for the upgraded scale, i.e. ? 6500-10500/-. The two non-participating/non-Secretariat service employees, i.e. AFHQ employees and employees of OFBs stood excluded. Employees of the AFHQs approached the CAT successfully. The CAT's decision is categorically upon the existence of historical parity - as is evident from extracts of its findings reproduced earlier in the judgment. The members of the Association and other employees of the OFBs, however, were left behind and had to rest content by grant of pay scale of ? 6500-10500/- as against replacement pay scale enjoyed by all other identically placed employees, i.e. ? 7500-12000/- in the wake of the 2008 Rules.
16. In this background, it would be necessary to extract the relevant recommendations of the Sixth CPC, i.e. paras 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 which reads as follows:
"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 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 mutatismutandis 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."
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX Recommendations for non-Secretariat Organizations 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 and Rs.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:-
Designation Present pay scale Recommended pay scale Corresponding Pay Band & Grade Pay LDC 3050- 4590 3050- 4590 PB-1 1900 UDC 4000- 6000 4000- 6000 PB-1 2400 Head Clerk/Assistant /Steno Grade II/equivalent 4500- 7000/-
5000- 8000 6500-10500 PB-2 4200 Office Superintendent /Steno Grade I/equivalent 5500- 9000 Superintendent /Asst. Admn. Officer/Private Secretary/ equivalent 6500- 10500 6500-10500 PB-2 4200 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.
17. The Sixth CPC had this to say about the AFHQ Civil Service, AFHQ Stenographer's Services and other similarly placed posts in different Headquarter organizations:
"AFHQ Civil Services and AFHQ Stenographers Service 7.10.22 AFHQ Civil Services and AFHQ Stenographers Service have demanded parity with CSSS and CSS. Since the Commission has recommended parity between posts in headquarters and field offices, it is only justified that such parity also exists between similarly placed posts in different headquarter organisations. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that parity should be maintained between the posts at the level of Assistant and Section Officer in these services.
18. It is evident from the above discussion that the denial of parity is based upon the Central Governments interpretation of the 6th CPC recommendations. As observed earlier, there is doubt that parity had existed as between Assistants working in the OFs falling within the jurisdiction of the OFB and identically situated Assistants working in CSS/CSSS. This parity had also existed as between CSS/CSSS Assistants on the one hand and similar ranking employees in all other non-Secretariat employees working in different departments in the Central Government. This parity existed for 10 years even after the Fifth CPC recommendations and its implementation. The singular event which brought about a change was not the result of the Sixth CPC recommendations; it was the intervening upgradation of the pay scales that had existed for Assistants in all these organizations pending the acceptance of those recommendations. The upgradation given to all others but denied to employees in OFs was the point of departure, and also the turning point of the discrimination practiced against them. 19. The Central Governments first explanation for denial is that this is in terms authorized by Para 3.1.14 of the Sixth CPC recommendations. That is plainly incorrect, because that portion of the Sixth CPC merely indicated the replacement scales from the existing ?5000-8000/- to be ? 6500-10,500/-. By the time this recommendation was accepted, Assistants in the CSS/CSSS were already enjoying the higher scale of ? 6500-10,500/-. Even the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 support this inference. Under Rule 3(1) of the said Rules, "existing basic pay" means pay drawn in the prescribed existing scale of pay, including stagnation increment(s), but does not include any other type of pay like 'special pay', etc. Rule 3 (2) on the other hand, prescribed "existing scale" in relation to a Government servant as the present scale applicable to the post held by the Government servantas on the 1st day of January, 2006. Rule 3 (7) defined "revised pay structure" as one in relation to any post specified in column 2 of the First Schedule and meaning the pay band and grade pay specified against that post or the pay scale specified in column 5 & 6 thereof, unless a different revised pay band and grade pay or pay scale is notified separately for that post. Rule 11 prescribed the mode of fixation in pay after 01.01.2006. Part B of Section II of the First Schedule to the Rules specifically stated as follows:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Sl.No. Post Present Scale Revised Scale Corresponding Pay & Band Para No. of the Report Pay Band Grade Pay (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) OFFICE STAFF IN THE SECRETARIAT* 1 Section Officer /PS/ Equivalent 6500-10500 7500-12000 8000-13500 (On completion of 4 years PB-2 PB-3 4800 5400 3.1.9 * 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.
OFFICE STAFF WORKING IN ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE SECRETARIAT 1 Head Clerk/Assistants/Steno Grade II/Equivalent 4500-7000 5000-8000 6500-10500 8000-13500 PB 2 4200/-
5400 (on completion of 4 years) 3.1.14 2 Administrative Officer Grade II/Senior Private Secretary/equivalent 7500-12000 7500-12000 (entry grade for fresh recruits) 8000-13500 (on completion of 4 years) PB 2 4800/-
5400/-
3.1.14 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The interesting part of the above table is that but for the explanation it affords, the substantive part of the Rules are based on the replacement scales being in accordance with the ones indicated in Part A of the First Schedule read with definition of revised pay. The scales indicated, under the First schedule are in the form of merger of four pay scales- ? 4500-7000/-; ? 5000-8000/-; ? 5500-9000/- and ? 6500- 10,500/-. All are merged into one pay scale, i.e., ? 9300-34800/-. The Rules, as well as the Sixth CPC recommendations specifically talk of continuation of pay benefits on the basis of historical parity. As observed earlier, this historical parity is not denied; however, the explanation for denial of the benefit of upgradation and the consequent placement in higher pay scales, to employees in Ordnance Factories is that OFB employees are not specifically mentioned, as opposed to mention of other non-secretariat employees: like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/ Departments organisations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. This argument is both unpersuasive and specious, because mention of specific department was meant only by way of illustration; else a contrary intention would have been clearer. That the mention of some, not all non-secretariat employees is illustrative and not exhaustive is clear from the qualifying terms like and etc. The allusion to historical parity with reference to only a few illustrations was to encompass all those organizations where employees had identical pay scales and not merely those in enumerated departments or organizations. Any other interpretation would negate the whole intention of maintaining historical parity altogether.
20. The other reason why the respondents submission has to fail is because the Sixth CPC recommendations specifically talks again- in Para 7.10.22 of its report that Since the Commission has recommended parity between posts in headquarters and field offices, it is only justified that such parity also exists between similarly placed posts in different headquarter organisations. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that parity should be maintained between the posts at the level of Assistant and Section Officer in these services." This reinforces the construction of this Court, that the Sixth CPC did not intend to create a disparity for the first time, but rather wished to continue the existing parity or equality between all the group of employees regardless of their location in different organizations- the parity was in respect of what was determined to be parity in work. If seen from this viewpoint, whether the cadre structure, especially the hierarchy of posts and promotional chances in the organization was identical or not, was irrelevant. This certainly was not the basis for all previous determinations; there is nothing on the record to indicate that these considerations weighed even with the Sixth CPC. This Court consequently rejects the respondents submissions that the differentia between CSS/CSSS and other nonparticipating organizations on the one hand, and of OFBs, on the other, could be based in differential cadre structure. For the record, there is no denial that the cadre structure in Ordnance Factories both below and above Assistants corresponds to that in the CSS/CSSS.
21. The other submission of the respondents was that employees in Ordnance Factories were not working in Headquarters based organizations. The history of Ordnance Factories, available from the record is that by the Central Government order dated 27th September, 1975, the President had extended the Armed Forces Headquarters Service scheme mutatis mutandis to the Directorate General Headquarters Staff. Later, by order of 09.01.1979, the Ordnance Factory Board was set up at the Headquarters office of the DGOF. These documents point to the untenability of the respondents submission that OF services are not Headquarters based services. In this context, it is worth mentioning that what comprises Headquarters is indicated in the Sixth CPC recommendations although no such definition exists under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules. At para 3.1.1 of the Sixth CPC recommendations, it is stated that:
Office staff in Headquarters and Field Organisations of Government of India 3.1.1 The various Secretariats of the Ministries and Departments of Government of India together constitute the headquarters organization. The Secretariats are chiefly involved in matters relating to formulation of policy and ensuring that these policies are executed in a coordinated and effective manner. Actual execution of these policies, however, is left to field agencies outside the Secretariat which may be either attached or subordinate offices or quasi-Government/autonomous/public sector undertakings.
22. If the respondents submission is that Headquarters implies the headquarters being located in New Delhi, there is no warrant either express or implied- for such a contention. Headquarters of different Central Government organizations can and are geographically dispersed- some, deliberately having regard to functional necessity and others as a historical reality. These can, without anything more, not be the basis of discrimination or valid differentiation.
23. The executive free play in the joints in devising pay revisions was explained by the Supreme Court in the following passage in Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. v. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors. 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 153 where also the scope of judicial review in such decisions was spelt out:
"We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the pay commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction. Courts must, however, realize that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability of the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalization of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g. (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasize that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the subregistrars to the second (state) pay commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the registration service before him in his capacity as the chairman of the third (state) pay commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.
24. In the CATs order, several decisions which have declared that the principle of equal pay for equal work means parity in pay scales only when there is wholesale identity of the work and nature of the posts involved, have been relied upon. The principle as stated is correct. However, that itself does not explain why the almost four decades old parity even one decade after the fifth CPC recommendations (which too continued the parity) was sought to be disturbed on the basis of an event entirely outside Pay Commission recommendations, i.e. upgradation of scale on 25.09.2006, just prior to the Pay Commission recommendations implementation. The upgradation, initially confined only to CSS/CSSS was given to all others- save OF employees and AFHQ employees, on the basis of historical parity itself. However, ironically, because that parity (in upgradation) was omitted to the OF employees, it became a point of departure. Save and except that point of departure- which is the starting point of discrimination, there is no basis at all for disturbing OF employees who were classified along with non-secretariat employees in the matter of grant of same pay scales. It is not the respondents case that the Sixth CPC consciously went into the subject matter and recommended a break from the past - Para 3.1.14 and its reference to organizations like AFHQ, Ministry of External Affairs, UPSC etc specifically are meant to cover OF employees. In the opinion of the Court, the submissions of the respondents to justify the discriminatory implementation of the Sixth CPC recommendations are illogical and artificial; they are not based on any nexus with the objective of scientific pay revision, based on the need to have separate pay scales, differing from others who formed part of the same class (CSS/CSSS, Railway Board employees, Assistants in Railway Ministry, UPSC, AFHQ etc). The anxiety at somehow striving to reach to a basis for classification in this case is in effect a hyper or over-classification, the like of which was warned against by the Supreme Court in Roop Chand Adlakha v Delhi Development Authority 1988 Supp (3) SCR 253 : W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 27 But the process cannot in itself generate or aggravate the inequality. The process cannot merely blow-up or magnify in- substantial or microscopic differences on merely meretricious or plausible differences. The over-emphasis on the doctrine of classification or any anxious and sustained attempts to discover some basis for classification may gradually and imperceptibly deprive the article of its precious content and end in replacing Doctrine of equality by the doctrine of classification.
25. In another decision, i.e. T. Sham Bhat v Union of India 1994 Supp (3) SCC 340, the vires of Regulation 2 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Second Amendment Regulations. 1989 - the IAS Second Amendment Regulations was challenged before the Supreme Court. Holding the increase in number of years of continuous service of non-State Civil Service Class-I officers, required in the eligibility condition for selection to the Indian Administrative service, which deprived nonState Civil Service Class-I officers of the right to be considered for selection under the IAS Selection Regulations (which held the field for over 33 years), as unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to legitimate expectations and Article 14 of the Constitution, the regulation was struck down as unconstitutional:
Further, we are unable to see, any reason as to why the period of 8 years continuous service of non-State Civil Service Class-I officers which made them eligible for selection to the Indian Administrative Service under the IAS Selection Regulations should have been increased to 12 years of their continuous service by Regulation 2 of the IAS Second Amendment Regulations. In fact, no plausible reason has been out forth as to why such increase was made. Since such increase in number of years of continuous service of non-State Civil Service Class-I W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 28 officers to make them eligible for selection to the Indian Administrative service deprived them of the right to be considered for selection under the IAS Selection Regulations which held the field for over 33 years, with no palpable reason, Regulation 2 of the IAS Second Amendment Regulations which brought about such deprivation has to be regarded as unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and that which arbitrarily affected the legitimate and normal expectations of non-State Civil Service Class-I officers and was that inhibited by Article 14 of the Constitution
26. The petitioners were treated historically as equals to CSS/CSSS employees and enjoyed equal pay and all benefits flowing from equal pay. This was based on the previous four instances of determinations by successive Pay Commissions that they performed equal work. No other evidence of complete identity of work was necessary in the circumstances of the case. The materials on the record do show that the Sixth CPC stated in more than one place specifically that historical parity in pay scales ought not to be disturbed. Such being the case, this Court is of the opinion that the CAT fell into error in holding that differentiation was facially justified, and could not be gone into given the nature of restricted judicial review. Consequently, a direction is issued to the respondents to fix the members of the Petitioner Association and other similarly placed Assistants working in Ordnance Factories and in OFB in the same pay scale as was given to Assistants similarly placed in CSS/CSSS, Army Headquarters, UPSC, CAT, MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, etc. with effect from the same date as was first given to them. Consequential pay fixation and fitment orders shall be issued within eight weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms without any order as to costs.
(viii) Mahaveer Tripathi and others v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others, T.A.No.353 of 2009, decided on 24.7.2009: The applicants were working as Senior/Junior Hindi Translators in AIIMS. The Ministry of Health, which is the cadre controlling authority, after comparing the duties and all other functional requirements of Hindi Translator cadre in AIIMS with others in the Department of Official Language, sent a proposal to the Ministry of Finance for revision of pay scales of Rs.4500-7000 and Rs.5000-8000. The aforesaid proposal was turned down by the Ministry of Finance only on the ground that as the 6th CPC was in vogue, a decade old issue cannot be taken up. Following the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Dr.Manju Vatsa v. The Director, AIIMS and another, W.P. ( C ) No. 3005 of 2008, decided on 28.8.2008, the Tribunal held that as the applicants were discharging the identical duties as their counterparts, the only reason to deny that the grant of pay scale after the 6th CPC was constituted after a decade would not be reasonable and justified ground to reject the claim of the applicants. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the respondents to upgrade the pay scales of the applicants in the entire Hindi Translator cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
(ix) In S.R.Dheer & others v. Union of India and others, O.A.No.164/2009, decided on 19.2.2009, the applicants were working as Private Secretaries and Section Officers in the Central Administrative Tribunal. They were claiming non-functional selection grade as extended to the Private Secretaries and Section Officers in the CSSS/CSS. The Tribunal, in paragraphs 55 to 57, held thus:
55. A discriminatory and contradictory stand is antithesis to the fairness in law. As the issue of NFSG of RS.8000-13500 to the OSs in case of CBI, a non-secretariat office at par with CSS/CSSS, decision in S.C. Karmakar (supra) was affirmed by the High Court of Delhi. Even the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R&AW Department has been implemented by the Government by grant of pay scale/NFSG to the concerned SOs, by order dated 19.01.2009 and also the SOs/PSs in AFHQ were allowed the pay scale on 25.09.2008. This clearly shows that the 6th CPC recommendations in para 3.1.9 have been adhered to not only in the case of SOs/PSs of the CSS/CSSS but also in the case of SO/PSs in other Organizations, who have had historical parity. As such, exclusion of the CAT employees and not meeting out the same treatment in respect of Grade Pay without any intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is an unreasonable classification and an invidious discrimination, which cannot be countenanced in the wake of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
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.
8. On the other hand, Shri H.K.Gangwani, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2, referred to paragraphs 3.1.3 and 3.1.9 of Chapter 3.1 of the report of the 6th CPC and submitted that the claim of the applicants has been rightly rejected. Shri Gangwani also submitted that S.R.Dheers case (supra) is a bad law because it overlooked the observations of the 6th CPC in paragraphs 3.1.3 amd 3.1.9 of its report as well as the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hiramoy Sen, (2008)1 SCC 630. Therefore, the present Bench may either dissent from S.R.Dheers case (supra) or refer the matter to a larger Bench. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that in Rohtas Sharma v. Union of India, O.A.No.632 of 2010, decided on 28.3.2011, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal was not inclined to treat S.R.Dheers case (supra) as a general law which could be applied in every case where parity is claimed with the Central Secretariat staff.
8.1 Shri Gangwani also submitted that it is an established law that whatever benefit is granted to one category of staff, need not automatically be granted to another category of staff. Job content, kind of responsibility, kind of organization where employees are working, also play role in determination of pay structure. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel also invited our attention to the following decisions:
(i) Associate Bank Officers Association v. State Bank of India, (1998) 1 SCC 428, where it has been held that differential pay structure can be fixed within the same organization even.
(ii) State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72, where it has been held that determination of pay structure does not depend on one factor only and that P.As. working in State are not entitled to parity with P.As. working in Central Secretariat.
(iii) Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers(Recognized) and others v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 91, where it has been held that pay structure depends inter alia on degree of responsibility, reliability, confidentiality, etc.
(iv) K.Vasudevan Nair v. Union of India, 1991 Suppl.(2) SCC 134, where the claim of the Section Officers working in the Indian Audit & Accounts Department for the same pay scale as drawn by the Section Officers in the Central Secretariat has been negatived.
(v) Mew Ram Kanojia v. AIIMS, (1989)2 SCC 235, where disparity in pay scales within AIIMS has been accepted as valid.
(vi) Harbans Lal v. State of H.P., (1989) 4 SCC 459, where it has been held that the Carpenters working in a Government company are not entitled to claim parity with their counterparts in Government Department.
(vii) State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya, (1993) 1 SCC 539, where it has been held that the principle of equal pay for equal pay is inapplicable where distinction is based on qualitative difference in functions and responsibilities.
(viii) Municipal Commissioner v. Pijush Kanti Das, (1996) 7 SCC 266, where it has been held that mere designation of claimant is not conclusive for granting parity.
(ix) Sita Devi v. State of Haryana, (1996) 10 SCC 1, where it has been held that the burden to establish parity lies on the person who claims it.
(x) Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Krishna Bhandari, (1996) 11 SCC 348, where it has been held that principle of equal pay for equal work is not applicable between the employees who work in different posts.
(xi) Garhwal Jal Sansthan Karmachari Union of India v. State of U.P., (1997) 4 SCC 24, where it has been held that some similarity in duties and functions is not enough for pay parity if there is qualitative difference in duties, functions and responsibilities in two organizations.
(xii) State Bank of India v. M.R.Ganesh Babu, (2002) 4 SCC 556, where it has been held that even where functions are same, the degree of responsibility and reliability expected might be different.
(xiii) Govt. of A.P. v. P.Hari Hara Prasad, (2002) 7 SCC 707, where it has been held that employees of subordinate courts are not entitled to parity with employees of Secretariat.
(xiv) Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K.Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188, where it has been held that burden of proof to establish parity lies on person claiming it.
(xv) Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2003) 11 SCC 658, where it has been held that parity cannot be applied merely on the basis of designation or nature of work.
(xvi) State of Punjab v. Surinder Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 231, where it has been held that parity has to be complete and total.
(xvii) Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1, where it has been held that similarity in designation and quantum of work are not determinative factors.
(xviii) State of M.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC 635, where it has been held that similarity in designation, or nature or quantum of work are not determinative factors for pay parity.
(xix) State of W.B. v. W.B.Minimum Wages Inspectors Association, (2010) 5 SCC 225, where it has been held that if there was pay parity on an earlier occasion, it does not mean that it must be maintained after pay revision.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions of the parties.
10. The claims of the applicants have been rejected by respondent nos. 1 and 2, vide speaking order dated 16.10.2010 (Annexure 1) on the following grounds:
i. The non-functional scale of Rs.8000-13500/- (pre-revised) was granted to PS (Grade A & Bmerged) of CSSS vide Department of Personnel & Trainings order no.10/3/2004-CS-II dated 24th June,2006 as a part of cadre restructuring on the basis of recommendations of Group of Officers. The posts of Assistant and Personal Assistant in Central Secretariat Services (CSS) and CSSS respectively were upgraded to the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f. 15.09.2006 as an exception specific to these two category of posts.
ii. As per Part (B) of the CCS (RP) Rules 2008, the Section Officers and PSs equivalent in the Central Secretariat, have been extended the NFSG in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB 3 after completion of 4 years of service. This shall be available only in such of those organizations/services which had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments/Organizations like Ministry of External Affairs, Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would, therefore, be covered. As AIIMS is an autonomous body, it cannot be treated as a part of Central Secretariat. Therefore, these pay scales are not applicable to AIIMS.
iii. As per Department of Expenditures O.M. No.7/23/2008-E-III (A) dated 30.09.2008 only the Part A of the first schedule of CCS (RP)Rules, 2008 may be adopted in respect of autonomous organizations. It was further clarified by the Department of Expenditure vide OM dated 07.10.2008 that Part B of the first schedule to the rules pertaining to revised pay structure for certain common categories of staff would not be automatically applicable to employees of autonomous bodies.
iv. Selection to the post in CSS/CSSS is done through countrywide competitive examination conducted by UPSC and SSC respectively and the PA & PS of Central Secretariat can be transferred to different cadres controlled by the Department of Personnel & Training. This is not the case with PS/PA at AIIMS. As such there is no parity between PA/PS at AIIMS and those at the Central Secretariat.
v. The non-functional pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- as granted to PS of Central Secretariat Services has not been extended to the employees of any of the autonomous bodies under the administrative control of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
vi. Further, PS/PA of AIIMS cannot be compared with the PS/PA of CAT as the work of CAT is of judicial nature and therefore duties and responsibilities of PS/PA attached with Chairman/Members of the Tribunal are more onerous than those PS/PS of AIIMS.
vii. The 6th CPC has made clear distinction between the pay scales of staff working outside the Secretariat and those of CSS/CSSS/other headquarter services. Accordingly, w.e.f. 01.01.2006, ministerial employees in the offices outside the Secretariat will be granted pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as recommended by the Commission vide para 3.1.14 of its report. Also since AIIMS is an autonomous body, as per the Department of Expenditures O.M. dated 30.09.2008, by which the revised pay structure recommended by 6th CPC was extended to employees working in autonomous organizations, only normal replacement pay scales can be granted in case of employees of such organizations. Accordingly, the revised pay structure recommended by 6th CPC has already been implemented in respect of employees of AIIMS.
11. From a perusal of the records, we find that the AIIMS is a body corporate/autonomous organization. Under the statutory provisions, AIIMS is conferred with the power to appoint its officers and employees, and the salaries and other conditions of service of such officers and employees of AIIMS are prescribed by regulations made in this behalf. Under Regulation 35 of the Regulations 1999, the rules as applicable to the Central Government servants regarding the general conditions of service, pay, allowances, etc., issued in this regard by the Central Government from time to time are applicable, to the officers and employees of AIIMS. On the basis of recommendations of successive Pay Commissions, the pay scales of Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants/Stenographers Grade C in the Central Secretariat were revised from time to time. With the prior approval of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants working in the AIIMS were granted the same pay scales as granted to the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants in the Central Secretariat. The Private Secretaries working in the AIIMS and Central Secretariat were placed in the 4th CPC pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- and 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. The Personal Assistants working in the AIIMS and Central Secretariat were placed in the 4th CPC pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- and 5th CPC pay scale Rs.5500-9000/-. Thus, it is clear that there was historical parity in the pay scales of the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants working in the AIIMS with the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants in the Central Secretariat on the basis of recommendations of the successive Pay Commissions.
12. However, on the basis of the recommendation of the Group of Officers on Cadre Structure of CSSS, the Department of Personnel & Training, vide order dated 24.6.2005, granted non-functional scale of Rs.8000-275-13500/- to the Private Secretaries (Rs.6500-10500) of CSSS on completion of 4 years of approved service in the grade from 3.10.2003. The Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (respondent no.2), vide O.M. dated 15.9.2006, took a decision that the posts of Assistants and Personal Assistants in CSS and CSSS respectively should be upgraded and placed in the 5th CPC pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 with effect from 15.9.2006. As would appear from the O.M. dated 15.9.2006 ibid, this decision was taken by respondent no.2 owing to its having perceived an anomaly in the pay scale of Assistants/PAs in CSS/CSSS vis-`-vis Inspectors/analogous posts in Central Board of Direct Taxes/Central Board of Excise & Customs.
13. In the present case, the applicants, who are working as Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants in AIIMS, are claiming the aforesaid non-functional scale of Rs.8000-13500/- with effect from 3.10.2003 and upgradaed pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- with effect from 15.9.2006 as have been granted to the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants in the Central Secretariat. The applicants are also claiming the 6th CPC Pay Band and Grade Pay as granted to the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants in the Central Secretariat corresponding to the said non-functional pay scale and upgraded pay scale. The Standing Finance Committee of AIIMS and the Governing Body of AIIMS have decided to grant the aforesaid benefits to the applicants subject to the approval of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (respondent no.2).
14. It is worth mentioning here that the aforesaid grant of non-functional scale and upgraded pay scale to the Section Officers/Private Secretaries and Assistants/Personal Assistants in CSS/CSSS gave rise to a number of litigations being initiated by Section Officers/Private Secretaries and Assistants/Personal Assistants working in Non-Secretariat offices/autonomous organizations, when their claims, similar to the present ones, were turned down by the Central Government.
15. As discussed in paragraphs 7(v), (vi) and (vii) of this order, in Union of India and others v. V.K.Sharma and others (supra), Manoj Kumar and others, etc. v. High Court of Delhi represented by its Registrar General & others (supra), and D.G.O.F. Employees Association & anr. V. Union of India and ors (supra), the Honble High Court of Delhi has examined identical issues and upheld the claims of the applicants/petitioners therein. The decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in V.K.Sharma v. Union of India and others, O.A.No.1499 of 2009, decided on 22.12.2009, where the claims of the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants working in Indian Council of Agriculture Research, an autonomous organization, for non-functional scale of pay (5th CPC) and upgradaed pay scale (5th CPC) as have been granted to the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants working in Central Secretariat were allowed, was upheld by the Honble High Court of Delhi, vide its judgment passed in W.P. ( C ) No.3349 of 2010, decided on 17.5.2010. The SLP filed by the Union of India was also dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.12.2010 passed in CC No.17537 of 2010.
16. Similarly, in S.R.Dheer & others v. Union of India and others (supra), the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after examining the issues in great detail, has upheld the claims of the Section Officers/Private Secretaries working in the Central Administrative Tribunal which is a Non-Secretariat office. The decision in S.R.Dheer & others v. UOI & others (supra) was also followed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Mrs.Sunita Devi v. The Secretary, DOPT (supra) where the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicants for pay scale/Pay Band & Grade Pay as granted to the Personal Assistants/Stenographers Grade C in the Central Secretariat.
17. In view of the decisions in Union of India and others v. V.K.Sharma and others (supra), Manoj Kumar and others, etc. v. High Court of Delhi represented by its Registrar General & others (supra), and D.G.O.F. Employees Association & anr. V. Union of India and ors (supra), wherein the issues identical to the ones arising in the present O.A. have been specifically examined and decided by the Honble High Court of Delhi after taking note of the order dated 24.6.2005 ibid issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, the O.M. dated 15.9.2006 ibid issued by the Department of Expenditure (respondent no.2), the recommendations of the 6th CPC, vide paragraphs 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 of its report, and the CCS(RP)Rules, 2008, we find no substance in any of the contentions of Shri H.K.Gangwani, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2. In none of the cases cited by Shri Gangwani, the order dated 24.6.2005 ibid, O.M. dated 15.9.2006 ibid, paragraphs 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 of the 6th CPCs report, and CCS (RP)Rules, 2008 have been examined by the Honble Apex Court. Therefore, the decisions cited by Shri Gangwani are of no help to the case of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
18. In the light of the above discussions, we find that the grounds mentioned in the order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure 1 to the O.A.), on which the claims of the applicants have been rejected by respondent nos. 1 and 2, are unsustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure 1) is quashed, and we hold and declare that the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants working in the AIIMS are entitled to same non-functional pay scale (5th CPC) and upgraded pay scale (5th CPC) and corresponding 6th CPC Pay Bands & Grade Pays as have been granted to the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants working in the Central Secretariat. The respondents are directed to issue appropriate orders and pay them arrears of pay and allowances within two months from today. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we disallow the claim of the applicants for payment of interest on arrears of pay and allowances payable to them on account of grant of pay scales/Pay Bands with Grade Pay with retrospective effect.
19. In the result, the O.A. is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN