Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Shakuntala Saxena vs Union Of India : Through on 14 March, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi OA No.4154/2010 Reserved on 21.02.2012 Pronounced on 14.03.2012 Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Mrs. Shakuntala Saxena, W/o Shri Shakti Saxena. 2. Mrs. Gurcharan Kaur, W/o Shri G.S. Bagga. 3. Shri R.K. Bhatia, S/o Shri Taj Ram. 4. Shri S.S. Mahato, S/o Late Shri Ramayan Mahato. 5. Shri B.R. Kardam, S/o Shri Prabati Ram. 6. Shri B.N. Manjhi, S/o Shri Nathuni Manjhi. 7. Shri Gautam Sah, S/o Late Shri Nagina Sah. 8. Smt. Meena Seth, W/o Shri A. Seth. 9. Shri P.D. Dogra, S/o Late Shri K.R. Dogra. 10. Shri D.K. Khanna, S/o Late Shri L.N. Khanna. 11. Shri Son Pal, S/o Late Shri Het Ram. All working as Superintendents under the Respondent No.4) 12. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Shri Raj Mal Sharma, Retd Superintendent 13. Shri G.S. Rawat, S/o Late Shri K.S. Rawat, Retd. Superintendent 14. Smt. Ramesh Khanna, W/o Shri Ramesh Khanna, Retd. Superintendent 15. Shri Ranjit Kumar Paul, S/o Late Shri Sarat Chandra Paul, Retd. Superintendent 16. Shri J.P. Toora, S/o Late Shri Ram Dhan, Retd. Superintendent 17. Shri Tej Ram, S/o Late Shri Ram Lal, Retd. Superintendent. Applicants (By Advocate: Shri M.S. Reen) Versus Union of India : through 1. The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. The Land & development Officer, Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. -Respondents ( By Advocate : Shri A.K. Singh) ORDER
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Seventeen applicants have joined together in the present OA praying for the direction of the Tribunal to the respondents to consider their case of pay parity with the Section Officers (SO) of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) Cadre and to grant the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 and revised pay band under 6th CPC PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800 and after four years to grant pre-revised pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 and revised Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400; as is being paid to the SOs. They have also claimed the consequential benefits.
2. All the applicants were initially appointed in the Land and Development Office (LDO) an attached office of the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation as LDC and having been promoted to the level of UDC and Assistant, reached the grade of Superintendents. Eleven applicants are working and remaining applicants have either retired or taken voluntary retirement. It was the case of the applicants that upto 04.04.2000, the LDO was a subordinate office and w.e.f. 04.04.2000, as per the notification dated 04.04.2000, the LDO was upgraded to the status of attached office. It is the case of the applicants that on 4.1.2007 the 3rd respondent sent a proposal to Ministry of Finance requesting to upgrade the pay scale for the post of the Superintendents in the LDO on par with the SOs in CSS. The 6th CPC in para 7.46.40 of its recommendation recognized the parity between field offices and Secretariat. In the year 2007, the applicants submitted representation claiming parity with SOs, which was transmitted vide letters dated 3.12.2008 and 12.2.2009 by the LDO to Ministry of Urban Development. Despite further representations, no action was taken to grant them pay parity with SO. Feeling frustrated, they have approached the Tribunal in the instant OA.
3. Representing the applicants, learned counsel Shri M.S. Reen would submit that Superintendents in LDO office perform the same duties as the SOs in the CSS and by not granting equal pay for equal work, the decision of the respondents is unconstitutional. Shri M.S. Reen placed his reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in Shri R. Natarajan and others Versus The Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs and others [OA No.2002/2011 decided on 11.11.2011]; judgment of Honble Karnataka High Court in H.G. Kulkarni Versus The Superintending Engineer, Belgaun Circle and Others [1984-3-SLR-776]; judgment of Honble Delhi High Court in Union of India and Another Versus Sanjay Kumar and Others [WP(C) No.2071/2007 decided on 7.9.2010] and batch of three other Writ Petitions; judgment of Honble Apex Court in (a) Union of India and Others Versus Jagdish Pandey and Others [2010-3-SCT-495]; (b) Telecommunication Research Centre Scientific Officers (Class-I) Association and Others Versus Union of India and Others [1987-1-SCC-582]; and (c) Food Corporation of India and Others Versus Ashish Kumar Ganguly and Others [2010-1-AISLJ-51]. The other contention advanced by Shri Reen is that 6th CPC vide its recommendation under Chapter 3.1 have recommended pay parity between field offices and Secretariat offices and all posts in 5th CPC pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 were merged and placed in Pay Band 2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. This has been implemented. However, the pay scale recommended for the Secretariat staff not being extended to the staff posted outside the Secretariat. It is contended to be rather discrimination. Shri Reens contention is that the SO and Superintendents were placed in one Pay Band with Grade Pay of Rs.4200, but action of the respondents granting Rs.5400 to SOs after 4 years but denying the same to Superintendents is devoid of logic and rationality. It is further submitted that the applicants representations claiming equal pay for equal work was submitted to the Anomaly Committee but they had not been favoured with any reply. Referring to the note of the Department of Expenditure at page 238 of the paper book, Shri Reen submits that there is no clean decision of the Anomaly Committee but the note dated 6.3.2009 is an internal note rejecting the applicants demand. He also placed a copy of the letter dated 18.1.2010 from Ministry of Urban Development to DOP&T to highlight that advice was sought to set up Anomaly Committee in the Ministry to settle pay related disputes.
4. Controverting the above contentions, the respondents have filed their reply affidavit on 04.7.2011 through Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. Shri Singh submits that the applicants claim is based on twin grounds viz (1) recommendation of 6th CPC merging pay scales and granting parity of field offices with Secretariat offices and (2) similarity of functions, duties and responsibilities being discharged by the Superintendents in the LDO as the SOs belonging to CSS. It is highlighted that both grounds do not have basis. Respondents dispute the material facts presented by the applicants. It is submitted that SO in CSS and P.S. in CSSS are Group B Gazetted officers whereas Superintendents and PAs belong to Group C subordinate cadre in LDO. Thus, their parity with Group B Gazetted posts is neither possible not permissible. Further, feeder category post for both S.O. and Superintendent is Assistant but Assistant post in CSS in Group B post whereas Assistant in LDO is Group C post.
5. Before we examine the issues raised in the OA, it is apt for us to get guidance of legally well settled position in the matters of pay parity, and equal pay for equal work which has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as held by Honble Supreme Court in Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union Versus Union of India, [(1991) 1 SCC 619], and also Union of India Versus Dineshan K.K., [(2008) 1 SCC 586] and State of Kerala Versus B. Renjith Kumar [(2008) 12 SCC 219]. However, as observed by the Honble Apex Court in State of Orissa Versus Balaram Sahu [(2003) 1 SCC 250] pay parity would depend upon not only on the nature or volume of work but also on quality of work as regards the reliability and responsibility as well. Different pay scales may be prescribed on the basis of such reliability and responsibility. This ratio has also been reiterated by Honble Apex Court in State of Bihar Versus Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturers Assns.,[(2008) 7 SCC 231].
6. Moreover, in S.C. Chandra and Others Versus State of Jharkhand and Others [2007-8-SCC-279], the Honourable Supreme Court has considered the issue of pay parity and powers of the Courts and Tribunal to interfere in the matters of pay fixation and if so on what grounds. It is appropriate for us to take extract of the pertinent paragraphs of the said judgment which read thus:
15. The principle of equal pay for equal work was propounded by this Court in certain decisions in the 1980s, e.g. Dhirendra Chamoli and another vs. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637, Surinder Singh vs. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. (1986) 1 SCC 639, Randhir Singh vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 etc. This was done by applying Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution. Thus, in Dhirendra Chamoli's case (supra) this Court granted to the casual, daily rated employees the same pay scale as regular employees.
16. It appears that subsequently it was realized that the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work was creating havoc. All over India different groups were claiming parity in pay with other groups e.g. Government employees of one State were claiming parity with Government employees of another State.
17. Fixation of pay scale is a delicate mechanism which requires various considerations including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment, etc. and it has a cascading effect. Hence, in subsequent decisions of this Court the principle of equal pay for equal work has been considerably watered down, and it has hardly ever been applied by this Court in recent years.
18. Thus, in State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123, it was held that the principle can only apply if there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. Even if the employees in the two groups are doing identical work they cannot be granted equal pay if there is no complete and wholesale identity, e.g., a daily rated employee may be doing the same work as a regular employee, yet he cannot be granted the same pay scale. Similarly, two groups of employees may be doing the same work, yet they may be given different pay scales if the educational qualifications are different. Also, pay scale can be different if the nature of jobs, responsibilities, experience, method of recruitment, etc. are different.
19. In State of Haryana and others vs. Charanjit Singh and others (2006) 9 SCC 321, discussing a large number of earlier decisions it was held by a three-Judge Bench of this Court that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. Moreover, even for finding out whether there is complete and wholesale identity, the proper forum is an expert body and not the writ court, as this requires extensive evidence. A mechanical interpretation of the principle of equal pay for equal work creates great practical difficulties. Hence in recent decisions the Supreme Court has considerably watered down the principle of equal pay for equal work and this principle has hardly been ever applied in recent decisions.
20. In State of Haryana & another vs. Tilak Raj & others (2003) 6 SCC 123, the Supreme Court considered the doctrine of equal pay for equal work in the context of daily wagers of the Haryana Roadways. After taking note of a series of earlier decisions the Supreme Court observed:
"A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no post. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination. No material was placed before the High Court as to the nature of duties of either categories and it is not possible to hold that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is an abstract one.
'Equal pay for equal work' is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula".
21. In State of U.P. and others vs. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh, AIR 1998 SC 303, the Supreme Court observed that even if persons holding the same post are performing similar work but if the mode of recruitment, qualification, promotion etc. are different it would be sufficient for fixing different pay scale. Where the mode of recruitment, qualification and promotion are totally different in the two categories of posts, there cannot be any application of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
22. In State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh and others AIR 1997 SC 1788, the Supreme Court observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organizations. Persons doing the same work may have different degrees of responsibilities, reliabilities and confidentialities, and this would be sufficient for a valid differentiation. The judgment of the administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities, which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally was not open to interference by the court.
23. In Federation of All India Customs and Excise Stenographers (Recognized) and others vs. Union of India and others AIR 1988 SC 1291, this Court observed:
"In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work done, that is, on intelligible basis. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less, it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula".
24. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the Court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the Court should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive function vide Indian Drugs & Pharmacheuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408.
25. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the judiciary should not ordinarily encroach into the executive or legislative domain. The theory of separation of powers, first propounded by the French philosopher Montesquieu in his book and the Spirit of Laws' still broadly holds the field in India today. Thus, in Asif Hameed vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [AIR 1989 SC 1899] a three Judge bench of this Court observed (vide paragraphs 17 to 19) :
"17. Before adverting to the controversy directly involved in these appeals we may have a fresh look on the inter se functioning of the three organs of democracy under our Constitution. Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognized under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. Legislature, executive and judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The Constitution trusts to the judgment of these organs to function and exercise their discretion by strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. Legislature and executive, the two facets of people's will, they have all the powers including that of finance. Judiciary has no power over sword or the purse nonetheless it has power to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of State function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of democracy. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self imposed discipline of judicial restraint.
.
19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers."
26. In our opinion fixing pay scales by Courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high Constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realizing this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an expert committee appointed by the Government instead of the Court itself granting higher pay).
27. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun K. Roy and others (2004) 1 SCC 347.
28. Similarly, in State of Haryana and another vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72, the principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in great detail. In paragraphs 9 & 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body. The Courts must realize that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even experts having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the Court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences vide Union of India and others vs. Pradip Kumar Dey (2000) 8 SCC 580.
7. Guided by the law set in a catena of judgments of the Honble Apex Court, we identified the principles which run through those judgments on the pay parity controversy. Those are as follows:-
(a) pay scale fixation is purely executive function and courts and Tribunals should not direct in fixing pay scales;
(b) the principle of equal pay for equal work should not be applied unless there is a complete and wholesale identity between the two groups;
(c) even to find out the wholesale and complete identity, the best forum is an expert body like Pay Commission;
(d) the Pay Commission which goes into at great depth on the pay anomalies and the issues of pay parity undertake in depth examination from various angles with full facts on the issues, is the appropriate authority to decide such matters;
(e) it is the claimants of equality to substantiate the basis of equivalence and resultant discrimination;
(f) even if the persons holding same post doing similar work but if the mode of recruitment, qualification, promotion etc. are different, pay parity would not be admissible; and
(g) persons doing the same work in different organizations may have different responsibilities, reliability, confidentiality which are sufficient reasons for pay disparity.
8. The controversy in the instant case revolves around the claim of pay parity by the applicants with the Section Officers of Central Secretariat Service (CSS). It is noticed that they have not been getting same pay scales and benefits as was available to the SOs in the CSS in the earlier Pay Commissions. They do not claim historical pay parity to be maintained but claim that they discharge the same duties and responsibilities as the SOs of CSS. The respondents in their averments have elaborated the distinctly higher functions being discharged by the SOs compared to the Superintendents. On the score of equal work, there are dissimilarity. It is further stated that the DOP&T OM dated 13.11.2003; the non functional scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 was introduced for CSS Section Officers on their completion of 4 years of approved service in the grade. This non functional grade was not granted to the applicants in the 5th CPC period and also as per the OM dated 13.11.2003. Thus, the applicants claim to get the non functional pay scale after 4 years does not have any logical ground.
9. In the background of above legal position and facts of the case, it is noted that 6th CPC has already considered the issue raised by the Applicants and the 6th Central Pay Commission has recommended two distinct and exclusive pay scales and grade pay in Paragraphs 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 which read 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 161 Offices, which have always had an established parity with CSS/CSSS, shall be extended the scale of Rs.8000-13500 in Group-B corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800 on completion of four years service in the lower grade. This will ensure full parity between all Secretariat Offices. It is clarified that the pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800 is being recommended for the post of Section Officer in these services solely to maintain the existing relativities which were disturbed when the scale was extended only to the Section Officers in CSS. The grade carrying grade pay of Rs.4800 in pay band PB-2 is, otherwise, not to be treated as a regular grade and should not be extended to any other category of employees. These recommendations shall apply mutatis-mutandis to post of Private Secretary/equivalent in these services as well. The structure of posts in Secretariat Offices would now be as under:-
Post Pre revised pay scale Corresponding revised pay band and grade pay .. .. Section officer Rs.7500-12000 Rs.8000-13500* (on completion of four years) PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along PB-2of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.5400* with grade pay of Rs.5400* (on completion of four years) (on completion of four years) with grade pay of Rs.4800 * This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments organisations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would therefore be covered.
.. . .
3.1.14 In accordance with the principle established in the earlier paragraphs, parity between Field and Secretariat Offices is recommended. This will involve merger of few grades. In the Stenographers cadre, the posts of Stenographers Grade II and Grade I in the existing scales of Rs.4500-7000/Rs, 5000-8000 andRs.5500-9000 will, therefore, stand merged and be placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. In the case of ministerial post in non- Secretariat Offices, the posts of Head Clerks, Assistants, Office Superintendent and Administrative Officers Grade III in the respective pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500- 10500 will stand merged. The existing and revised structure in Field Organization will, therefore, be as follows:-
Designation Present Pay Scale Recommended pay scale Corresponding pay Band & Grade Pay Pay Band Grade Pay .. . .. . Office Superintendent/Steno Grade-I/equivalent 5500-9000 6500-10500 PB-2 Superintendent/Asst. Admn. Officer/Private Secretary/equivalent 6500-10500 Administrative officer Grade II/Sr. private Secretary/equ. 7500-12000 7500-12000 (entry grade for fresh recruits ) 8000-13500 (on completion of four years) PB-2 4800 (5400 after 4 years) Administrative Officer Grade I 10000-15200 10000-15200 PB-2 6100 Note 1 The posts in the intermediate scale of Rs.7450-11500, wherever existing, will be extended the corresponding replacement pay band and grade pay.
Note 2 The existing Administrative Officer Grade II /Sr. Private Secretary/equivalent in the scale of Rs.7500-12000 will, however, be placed in the corresponding replacement pay band and grade pay till the time they become eligible to be placed in the scale of Rs.8000-13500 corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.5400.
10. It is stated by the Respondents that the Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 is admissible only in cases of those services where a non-functional up gradation in the pre-revised scale of Rs.8000-13500 was available on completion of 4 years of service. It is noted that the applicants did not have such dispensation in the 5th CPC and subsequent modification done in 2003 for other Secretariat Services. As such these Provisions applicable to CSS would not be admissible for the applicants.
11. It is trite law that even if the persons doing the same work having the same nomenclature like Superintendents/Section Officers, the pay parity need not be admissible as their recruitment, educational qualification, experience, promotion prospects, responsibilities, reliability and confidentiality matters which they may be handling would be different from other groups. These are sufficient reasons to maintain pay disparity between two groups even with same designation. In the present case, we find that the pay disparity which was existing during 5th CPC period has been continued in the 6th CPC. Thus, we do not find any ground and any legal infirmity in the action of the respondents in rejecting the applicants pay parity claim with SOs in the CSS.
12. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that their case is covered by the judgments and orders of the Honble Apex Court and High Courts and Tribunal. We have gone through those judgments and note that the facts in those cases being dissimilar, the law set in those decisions would not be applicable in the present OA.
13. It is noted that the Chapter 3.1 of the 6th CPC recommendation dealt very comprehensively the issues brought before it on the subject of disparity between Secretariat and Field Offices. The role and responsibilities of the Secretariat and Field Officers have been identified to be different. Parity of certain posts, disparity in other posts, anomaly in pay scale have been analysed in Para 3.1.7 and the 6th CPC has given its recommendations in Para 3.1.8 to 3.1.15. para 3.1.9 provides the pay structure of LDC to Director levels in the Secretariat in Pay bands and grade pay whereas Para 3.1.14 gives the pay structure for non-Secretariat Organisation. On carful perusal of Swamys Compilation of 6th CPC Report Part I (pages 141 to 147) and Swamys Manual on Office Procedure 2006 and 2009 we note from the definition Chapter at entry 53, Secretariat Offices are defined as those which are responsible for formulation of the policies of the Government and also for the execution and review of those policies. As per this definition, the Organisations where the applicants are working cannot be termed as Secretariat. On the contrary, admittedly the LDO i.e Non-Secretariat Organisation where the applicants are working is attached offices upgraded from the subordinate offices. Definition of the attached offices are generally responsible for providing executive direction required in the implementation of the policies laid down by the department to which they are attached. They also serve as repository of technical information and advise the department on technical aspects of question dealt with by them. The meaning of subordinate offices signifies that these function as field establishments or as agencies responsible for the detailed execution of the policies of Government. They function under the direction of an attached office or directly under a department. Having examined the definitional aspects and the averments made by the respondents, we are of the opinion that there exist distinction in the works, functions and responsibilities between the Secretariat and non-Secretariat Organisation. If there are functional dissimilarities, there is bound to be financial disparity in pay and allowances.
14. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in both OAs, we find that Applicants belong to attached office i.e. Non-Secretariat Organisation. We also come to the considered conclusion that the distinction brought in the year 2003 for CSS is not applicable to the applicants. All the applicants would be covered by the pay scale prescribed in Para 3.1.14 of the 6th CPC recommendations and accepted by the Government.
15. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and guided by the well settled position in law in the subject of pay parity, we come to the considered conclusion that the applicants do not have a case in their support. Resultantly, finding no merits in the case, the Original Application is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
pj