Delhi High Court
Chairman, National Productivity ... vs Association Of Employees Of National ... on 30 January, 2008
Author: Mukundakam Sharma
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Reva Khetrapal
JUDGMENT Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the civil writ petition filed by the respondent which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 16th October, 1998. While doing so, the learned Single Judge relied upon an earlier decision of a Single Bench in CW No. 3790/1995. In the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge held that the respondents who were writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- effective from 01.01.1986 as such a pay scale is being provided to the Assistants/Stenographers Gr.'C' working in the Central Secretariat Service.
2. The writ petition was filed in this Court with the issue as to whether the Stenographers and Assistants working in the National Productivity Council are entitled to the similar pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- which has been given to the Assistants/Stenographers Gr.'C' working in the Central Secretariat Service in view of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. Pay scale of such persons working in the Central Secretariat Services (CSS) prior to 1st January, 1986 was Rs. 425-800/- (pre-revised). However, on the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the aforesaid pay scale was revised to Rs. 1400-2600/-. It is needless to mention that the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission were not automatically applicable to the employees of the Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), but many such autonomous bodies and PSUs adopted those recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission and gave parity of pay scales to their employees working in similar cadre.
3. The Assistants and Stenographers of the National Productivity Council were also given a pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-. However, the Government issued Office Memorandum (O.M.) on 31st July, 1990 whereby it granted pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- to the Assistants/Stenographers Gr.'C' working in the CSS. Contending, inter alia, that the nature and duties performed by the Stenographers and Assistants of the National Productivity Council are similar to those of the Assistants and Stenographers Gr.'C' working in the CSS and also that the Government's Office Memorandum dated 31st July, 1990 would also be applicable to the case of those employees working as the Stenographers and Assistants of National Productivity Council and they would be entitled to a parity of pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-, the respondents filed a writ petition.
4. The Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India on 31st July, 1990 also stipulates that the aforesaid revised pay scale would also be applicable to the Assistants/Stenographers in other organizations like the Ministry of External Affairs, which are not participating in the CSS subject to fulfilllment of certain conditions. In the light of the aforesaid stipulations in the Office Memorandum, claim was raised by the employees of the National Productivity Council belonging to the grade of Stenographers and Assistants claiming the same pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. Since the same was not made available, hence the writ petition was filed in this Court by the respondents herein, which was registered as WP No. 4040/1996.
5. At this stage, we must point out that the Assistants of many such PSUs/autonomous organizations, who were in the previous pay scale of Rs. 425-800/- and were given the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- started claiming the same pay scale as that of the Central Secretariat Service, that is, Rs. 1640-2900/- on the ground that they are entitled to the benefit of O.M. dated 31st July, 1990 as they fulfilll the conditions prescribed therein. Some such writ petitions were allowed by the Single Benches after hearing those writ petitions. One of such petition was CW No. 3790/1995 which was allowed. Following the decision rendered therein, the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises was also disposed of by order allowing the writ petition dated 16th October, 1998.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeal was filed by the National Productivity Council challenging the legality of the aforesaid order dated 16.10.1998. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that all the writ petitions which involve the similar issues became subject matter of appeal and were decided by a common judgment on 31st May, 2002 in L.P.A. No. 271/1971. The Division Bench disposed of all those appeals holding that the Assistants of the Public Sector Undertakings and Autonomous Bodies were not entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. As against the aforesaid order, as it appears, and some other cases, review petition was filed in this Court, which was considered in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Staff Association and Ors. connected matters. The said cases were disposed of by order dated 18.12.2003 whereby the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the review application and upheld the common judgment and order dated 31st May, 2002 passed by the Division Bench holding that those Assistants of the PSUs and autonomous bodies were not entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. Therefore, the said order passed by the Division Bench has become binding so far this Court is concerned.
7. We may, at this stage, also refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das . In the said case, the Supreme Court was called upon to answer a similar issue as raised in the present appeal. The facts of the said case before the Supreme Court were that the respondent working as Stenographer Grade II in the Office of Geological Survey of India, submitted a representation before the Deputy Director General, GSI, Shillong seeking parity of pay scale with that of Stenographer Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat. A view was taken by the Union of India in that case that Stenographer Grade II is not in comparable grade with Stenographer Grade 'C' in the Central Secretariat and according to it, services in Stenographer Grade 'C' in the Central Secretariat belong to Grade 'B' whereas Stenographer Grade II in Geological Survey of India are classified as Grade 'C' (Ministerial). In the said case also, when the claim was raised for parity of pay scale of the aforesaid Assistants/Stenographers working in the Geological Survey of India with that of Assistants/Stenographers Gr.'C' of the Central Secretariat, the Central Administrative Tribunal before whom the petition was filed seeking the relief of parity initially dismissed the same, but in a review petition, the Tribunal held that all the relevant facts were not placed before the Central Pay Commission and that it had not given any reason as to why different scales were to be fixed. It was also held by the Tribunal that the nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the two categories of Stenographers clearly indicate that the relevant aspects were not considered by the Commission and it proceeded on a different basis and held that the Stenographer Grade II should be placed in a same pay scale of Stenographer Gr.'C' of the Central Secretariat. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the said judgment of the Tribunal. Both the Tribunal and the High Court judgments were set aside by the Supreme Court, holding that the equality is not based on designation or the nature of work alone and that there are several other factors like responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, confidentiality involved, functional need and requirements commensurate with the position in the hierarchy as also the qualification required which were equally relevant. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj and Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty as also the case of State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu . The Supreme Court also referred to paragraph 46.34 of the report of the Fifth Pay Commission, which states as follows:
46.34. We have given our careful consideration to the suggestions made by associations representing Stenographers in offices outside the Secretariat in the light of observations made by the Third CPC. The Commission had observed that as a general statement, it was correct to say that the basic nature of a Stenographer's work remained by and large the same whether he was working with an officer in the Secretariat or with an officer in a subordinate office. The Commission was of the considered view that the size of the Stenographer's job was very much dependent upon the nature of work entrusted to that officer and that it would not be correct, therefore, to go merely by the status in disregard of the functional requirement. By the very nature of work in the Secretariat, the volume of dictation and typing work was expected to be heavier than in a subordinate office, the requirement of secrecy even in civil offices of the Secretariat could be very stringent. Considering the differences in the hierarchical structures and in the type of work transacted, the Commission was not in favor of adopting a uniform pattern in respect of matter listed in the preceding paragraph. To our mind, the observations of the Third CPC are as relevant today as they were at that point of time and we are not inclined to overlook them totally. In view of the abovementioned distinguishable feature, we do not concede the demand for absolute parity in regard to pay scales between Stenographers in offices outside the Secretariat and in the Secretariat notwithstanding the fact that some petitioner Stenographers, Grade II have got other benefits of parity in pay scale through courts. However, pursuing the policy enunciated by the Second CPC that disparity in the pay scale prescribed for Stenographers in the Secretariat and the non-Secretariat organizations should be reduced as far as possible, we are of the view that Stenographers, Grade II should be placed in the existing pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 instead of Rs. 1400-2300/Rs.1400-2600.
8. Thereafter, referring to its earlier decision in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia reported in (1989) 1 SCC 121 wherein it was stated by the Supreme Court that whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay depends on several factors and does not depend upon either the nature of work or the volume of work done, and that whether there could be a parity of pay could not be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties and must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission or the Government, who would be the best judges, to evaluate the nature of duty, responsibility and all relevant factors, the Supreme Court in the case of Tarit Ranjan Das (supra) allowed the appeal.
9. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521, it was stated that a claim for equal pay by a group of pharmacists was rejected saying that the classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate that the classification made was unreasonable. This decision was also referred to and relied upon in the case of Tarit Ranjan Das (supra).
10. In our considered opinion, in view of the Division Bench decision in LPA No. 271/1997, which is also upheld in the order passed on 18.12.2003 on the review application, and the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarit Ranjan Das and other similar cases referred to above, there is merit in this appeal. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and hold that the Stenographers/Assistants of National Productivity Council cannot get the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- in lieu of Rs. 1400-2600/- effective from 01.01.1986. They shall be entitled only to the aforesaid pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- effective from 01.01.1986.
11. In terms of the aforesaid order, the appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.