Delhi High Court - Orders
Gourang Charan Parida & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 March, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2981/2021 &
GOURANG CHARAN PARIDA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Sumita Hazarkira, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Advocate for
R-2, 3 & 6
Ms. Biji Rajesh Adv for Mr. Gaurang
Kanth, Counsel for CAG/R1,2&5
Mr. Jagjit Singh, Senior Counsel for
Railways with Mr. Preet Singh and
Mr. Vipin Chaudhary, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 05.03.2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] CM APPL. 9027/2021( for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2981/2021
1. The petition impugns the order dated 10th April, 2019 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, of dismissal of O.A. No. 3911/2013 preferred by the five petitioners.
2. The five petitioners are Accountants and Senior Accountants in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IAAD) and in the Indian Railways W.P.(C) 2981/2021 Page 1 of 4 and filed the O.A. aforesaid before CAT, for implementation of the Award dated 24th August, 2004 of the Central Board of Arbitration constituted in accordance with the Joint Consultative Machinery Scheme for Central Government employees.
3. It is the case of the petitioners, (i) that the reorganisation of the IAAD was undertaken in the year 1993, on the basis of a plan prepared by Comptroller and Auditor General of India; (ii) that for the post of auditors (since re-designated as Accountant/Senior Accountant in the year 1987), it was decided that the appointments shall be made by direct recruitment and pay shall be at Rs. 425-800/-; (iii) that the petitioners held the post of Auditor with pay scale of Rs.425-800/- which was equivalent to the post of Assistant in Central Secretariat Services; (iv) that consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission, disparity existed between the pay scale of Auditors on the one hand and Assistants in the Central Secretariat Services on the other and the matter was referred to the Central Board of Arbitration aforesaid; (v) that the Central Board of Arbitration passed the Award dated 24th August, 2004 directing that pay scale attached to the post of Assistants in Civil Secretariat Services namely, Rs. 1640-2900/- (Rs.5500-9000 with effect from 1st January, 1996) shall be extended to all Senior Auditors/Senior Accountants in the IAAD and Indian Railways, with effect from 1st January, 1986, notionally and actually from 12th November, 2001; and, (vi) that however, the Award of the Board of Arbitration had not been implemented.
4. CAT, in the impugned order has dismissed the O.A. aforesaid, reasoning (i) that as per the Joint Consultative Machinery, the power to implement or reject the Award is reserved to the Government; (ii) that it was W.P.(C) 2981/2021 Page 2 of 4 the case of the respondents in their reply that the Award was rejected by the Cabinet and would be placed before the Parliament; (iii) that the Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Hiranmoy Sen (2008) 1 SCC 630, had taken a view that the Accountants and Senior Auditors cannot claim parity with the Assistants in the Central Secretariat Services.
5. Though the counsel for the petitioners has controverted both the aforesaid reasons but has also contended that the Parliament, which alone has the right to reject the award, has till date not rejected the Award. It is further argued that the negotiations are still going on and the impugned order of CAT may come in the way of the petitioners and others similarly situated as them in the said negotiations.
6. We have enquired from the counsel of the petitioners, whether there is any provision that the Award shall be implemented if not rejected.
7. No such provision is shown. It is only shown that the Award is binding till rejected.
8. The counsels for the respondents appear on advance notice and we have heard the counsels.
9. Since it is nobody's case that the Award aforesaid, till date has been rejected by the Parliament and it appears that the matter is still pending and it is the categorical stand of the petitioners that the negotiations are still going on, we have proposed to dispose of this writ petition clarifying that in the said negotiations and/or before the Parliament, impugned order of CAT would not come in the way of grant of relief to the petitioners and others similarly situated, if otherwise found entitled thereto.
10. Though, the counsel for the petitioners is agreeable thereto but Mr. Ajay Digpaul, counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 6 opposes, W.P.(C) 2981/2021 Page 3 of 4 contending that once the petitioners chose to invoke the remedy of CAT, they cannot escape the findings thereof. He otherwise also contends that the matter is no longer res integra owing to Hiranmoy Sen supra.
11. We have considered the aforesaid opposition and are of the view that, once the negotiations are still on, the misconceived step taken by the petitioners of approaching CAT, when CAT could not have directed implementation of the Award till the matter was pending before the Parliament, should not come in the way of the petitioners or in the decision making process stated to be still underway and in the way of independent consideration of the matter by the authorities who alone are competent to consider the same.
12. The petition is accordingly disposed of, directing that the order dated 10th April, 2019 of CAT in O.A. No. 3911/2013 shall not come in the way of negotiations between the petitioners and others similarly situated as the petitioners and the Government and/or in the consideration, if any, before the Parliament. It will remain open to all the parties in said negotiations and/or considerations take all pleas available to them in law.
13. The petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J MARCH 5, 2021/sr..
W.P.(C) 2981/2021 Page 4 of 4