Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sunita vs M/O Law And Justice And Company Affairs on 29 May, 2025
1
OA No. 1294/2018
Item No.70/C-5
CENTRALADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1294/2018
Reserved on: 07.04.2025
Pronounced on: 29.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member(A)
1. Ms. Sunita, Aged 56 years
D/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath,
Presently working as Superintendent (Printing)
Min. of Law & Justice, Legislative Department,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
R/o J-151, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110023
2. Ramesh Chand Verma, Aged-59 Years,
S/o Late Sh. H.S. Verma
Working as Superintendent (Printing)
Min. of Law & Justice, Legislative Department,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
R/o C-154, Sector 23,
Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad(UP)
3. Rajbir Singh, Aged 46 years
S/o Late Sh. Jagdev Singh,
Presently working as Assistant (Printing)
Min. of Labour & Justice, Legislative Department,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
R/o 950, Sector-2, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110022.
4. Anil Kumar Thapliyal,
Aged- 65 Years,
S/o Late Sh. D.P. Thapliyal
Retired Superintending (Printing) from
Min. of Law & Justice, Legislative Department,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
R/o 249F, Pocket-I, Phase-I, Mayur Vihar,
New belhi-91.
2
OA No. 1294/2018
Item No.70/C-5
5. Hardeep Singh, Aged 65 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Kehar Singh
Retired Superintending (Printing) from
Min. of Law & Justice, Legislative Department,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
R/o 634, Vikash Kunj, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi-18.
6. Bal Krishan, Aged- 63 Years,
S/o Late Sh. Daya Ram
Retired Superintending (Printing) from
Min. of Law & Justice/Legislative Department,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
R/o Sector 4C/3057, Pragya Kunj,
Vashundhra, Ghaziabad(UP).
7. Ms. Inderjeet Kaur, Aged 60 years
D/o Sh. Veer Singh,
Retired Assistant (Printing) from
Min. of Law & Justice, Legislative Department,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
R/o 447, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
New Delhi-9.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Legislative Department,
Ministry of Law and Justice,
Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt. of India, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi-03.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K. Jain)
3
OA No. 1294/2018
Item No.70/C-5
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S, Khati, Member (A) :
The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants, who are working as Assistants (Printing) and Superintendent (Printing) under the Respondent No.1, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned orders dated the order dated 27.10.2017 (Annex.A/l)(colly), declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondent not granting the upgraded grade pay of Rs.4600 to the Assistant(Printing) and grade pay of Rs. 4800/- to the Superintendent(Printing) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to grant Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to the Assistant(Printing) and grade pay of Rs. 4800/- to the Superintendent(Printing) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and further revised at Level 7(Assistant(P)) and at level 8 (Superintendent) w.e.f. 1.1.2016 i.e. after 7th CPC with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay allowances with interest.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
2. Learned counsel for the applicants has impugned the orders dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure-A/1. colly) by which the applicants have been denied the upgraded pay scales in terms of para 7.24.3 and 7.24.4 of the U.O. Note of the 6th Central Pay Commission. 2.1. Learned counsel for the applicants drew attention to the factual matrix of the present case, highlighting that earlier in the 2nd Pay Commission, the Assistants (Printing) were drawing a higher pay scale of Rs. 210-530/-, whereas Assistants (CSS) were drawing pay 4 OA No. 1294/2018 Item No.70/C-5 scale of Rs. 210-425/-. He further highlighted para 4.2 of the O.A., which reads as under:-
"4.2. That at the time of Second Pay Commission the pay scale of Assistants (Printing) were of Rs.210-530 while that of Assistants (CSS) were of Rs.210-425. In the Third Pay Commission both these posts had identical pay scale of Rs.425-800. During Fourth Pay Commission the pay scale was of Rs.1400-2600. However, the pay scale of Assistants of (CSS) was raised by the Government to Rs.1640-2900 based on which the post was placed the higher scale of Rs.5500-9000 while the post of Assistants of (Printing) was allowed of Rs.5000-8000 which was later on revised on 29.07.2005 to Rs.5500-9000 at par with Assistants of (CSS) this parity was again disturbed as the pay scale of Assistants of (CSS) was further revised to Rs.6500-10500 and accordingly higher pay scales of 6th and 7th CPC. However, Assistants (Printing) has not been allowed such dispensation as a result the post is in a lower pay scales as compared to Assistants of (CSS) Comparative Table of Assistants (Ptg.) and Assistants (CSS) during different Pay Commissions are given as under:-
Table Pay Assistants Assistants Commission (Printing) (CSS) II Rs.210-530 Rs.210-425 III Rs.425-800 Rs.425-800 IV Rs.1400-2600 Rs.1400-2600 V *Rs.5000-8000 Rs.5500-9000 VI Rs.9300-34800+ Rs.9300-34800 4200 GP +4800 GP VII Level 6 Rs. Level 7 Rs.
35400-112400 44900-142400
*29th July 2005 pay scale of Assistants
(Ptg.) of Rs.5500-9000
Accordingly, it is prayed that Assistants (Ptg.) may be allowed pay scale at par with Assistants (CSS)."
2.2. He contended that during the 4th Pay Commission, the pay scale was Rs.1400-2600. However, the pay scale of Assistants (CSS) was revised to Rs.1640-2900/-, based on which the post was placed in higher scale of Rs.5500-9000/-, whereas the post of Assistants 5 OA No. 1294/2018 Item No.70/C-5 (Printing) was allowed pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 /-. A demand was raised by the applicants, which was accepted by the respondents vide UO No.75/2/2004-IC dated 28.07.2005 and their scale was revised at par with Assistants (CSS).
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the case before the 6th Central Pay Commission was that Assistant (Printing) were asking for a higher pay scale than that of Assistant (CSS), which has been rejected. However, it has been contended on behalf of the applicants that due to merger, the applicants would be entitled to the equivalent grade pay of Rs.4600/-. This parity was again disturbed as the pay scale of Assistants (CSS) was further revised to Rs.6500-10500 and accordingly, the anomaly occurred at the stage of implementation of 6th Central Pay Commission, whereby Assistants (CSS) were granted the grade pay of Rs. 4600/-, whereas Assistants (Printing) were accorded the grade pay of Rs. 4200/-. The applicants submitted representations (Annexure A/2 colly.) in this regard, which were rejected vide impugned orders dated 27.10.2017.
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the preliminary objections taken in the counter affidavit, and averred that the present O.A. is not maintainable. The preliminary objections are as under:-
"i. That the applicants are praying for higher pay scale to the post of Assistant [Printing] and to the post of Superintendent [Printing] w.e.f 01.01.2006 i.e.· from the date of notification of the Sixth CPC. It is hereby submitted that the Sixth CPC has 6 OA No. 1294/2018 Item No.70/C-5 already rejected this claim of the applicants in the para no. 7.24.3 and 7.24.4 of its report. The applicants have not challenged this part of the recommendation and hence the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
ii. That the claim of the applicants has already been rejected by the Sixth CPC, whose recommendation had come into effect w.e.f 01.01.2006 and the present OA has been filed in the year 2018 i.e. after more than 12 years of the same. Hence the OA is barred by limitation."
4.1 He further relied upon the following paras of the counter affidavit, which are reproduced herein below:
"1. That in reply to the contents of para 1 of the OA, it is submitted that the demand for higher pay of Superintendent (Printing) in Legislative Department was examined by Sixth Central Pay Commission. The Commission vide para 7.24.3 of it's report has observed as under:-
Higher pay scale has been demanded for Superintendent (Printing) in Legislative Department on the ground that Fifth CPC had placed them in a higher pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 vis-à-vis Section Officers who were recommended the pay scale of Rs 6500-10500. It has been contended that pursuant to the grant of scale of Rs.8000-13500 to Section Officers on completion of four years of service, Superintendent (Printing) should also be extended the pay scale of Rs.8000- 13500 on completion of four years of service. It is observed that the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 on completion of four years of service was only for the Section Officers of Central Secretariat Service (CSS). This post has no relativity with that of Section Officers in CSS. No functional justification exists for extending the scale of Rs.8000-13500 on completion of four years of service to this post. The demand cannot, therefore, be accepted.
The post of Assistant (Printing) has never been at par with that of Assistant of Central Secretariat Service while comparing the duties and responsibilities. The pay scale is not the sole criterion for deciding parity between two posts. The demand for higher pay for Assistant (Printing) was also examined by the 6th CPC. The Commission vide para 7.24.4 of its report has stated that the demand is totally unjustified and accordingly recommended only corresponding revised pay band and grade pay to the post of Assistant (Printing).
In so far as revision of Pay Scale of Assistant (Printing) to Rs. 5500-9000 is concerned, it is submitted that in 2005, a proposal was considered by the Respondents for upgradation of the post from the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 to Rs. 5500- 9000 taking a plea that the comparable post of Senior Technical 7 OA No. 1294/2018 Item No.70/C-5 Assistant in the Office of Registrar General of India which was at par or lower than the post of Assistant (Printing), in the past, is in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. This was considered in the Ministry of Finance and the proposal was agreed for upgrading the post of Assistant (Printing) to Rs. 5500-9000 at par with that of the Senior Technical Assistant in the Office of Registrar General of India.
The officers in the grade of Superintendent (Printing) and Assistant (Printing) in the Department submitted representations for higher pay in respective grades vide representations dated 05.09.2016 and 14.06.2017. The matter was considered by the Respondents. However, the Competent Authority has not agreed to the request in view of para 7.24.3 and 7.24.4 of report of 6th CPC. Accordingly, a suitable reply was given to the concerned officer vide Department's Note dated 27.10.2017.
xxx xxx xxx xxx 4.5&4.7 That in reply of para 4.5 & 4.7 of the OA, it is hereby submitted that when Grade of Pay of Rs.4600 was granted to Assistants and Personal Assistant of Central Secretariat Service, Armed Forces Headquarter Service, Indian Foreign Service 'B' and Railway Board Secretariat Service and their Counterpart Stenographer Services vide OM No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 16.11.2009, representations dated 10.08.2010 were submitted by the then Assistant (Printing) in the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice regarding upgradation of Grade Pay of Assistant (Printing) from Rs. 4200 to Rs 4600 at par with Assistant (now ASO) of CSS. The representations were considered by the respondents and it was observed that the Assistant/Stenographers of CSS/CSSS have been placed in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 w.e.f. 01.01.2016 vide OM dated 16.11.2009. This dispensation was extended to Assistant/Stenographers working in CSS/CSSS, AFHQS, IFS(B)&RBSS. However, the post of Assistant (Printing) in the Legislative Department does not belong to such secretariat services/ headquarter. Therefore, the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 was not extended to the Assistant (Printing) in the Printing Sections of the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice. 4.10 That in reply to the contents of para 4.10 of the OA, it is submitted that the para 4 of Ministry of Finance OM No. F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 16.11.2009 regarding grant of the pay structure of grade pay of Rs. 4600 to Assistant and Personal Assistance in CSS/CSSS, AFHQS, IFS(B)&RBSS states as under:-
"While considering the case of granting upgraded grade pay of Rs. 4600 to Assistants and PAs in the Central Secretariat, it is noted that Sixth Pay Commission has recommended parity in terms of hierarchical structure of Office Staff in Field and Secretariat Offices up to the level of Assistants and this recommendation had been accepted by the Government. However, one of the reasons due to which Assistants of Central Secretariat are being granted grade 8 OA No. 1294/2018 Item No.70/C-5 pay of Rs. 4600 is the fact that there is an element of direct recruitment to the post and that too, through an All-India Competitive Examination."
Therefore, it is clear that element of direct recruitment was not the only reason for granting revised pay grade of Rs. 4600 to Assistant, but it was one of the reasons for it.
4.11 That in reply to the contents of para 4.11 of the OA, it is submitted that element of direct recruitment was not the only criteria for grant of grade pay of Rs. 4600/- to Assistants of CSS and other Ministries. There is no parity in the duties of Assistants of CSS and the Applicants Le Assistant (Printing) in the Legislative Department.
4.12 That in reply to the contents of para 4.12 of the OA, it is submitted that submission made by Applicants has not been supported by any documentary evidence. Hence, the same cannot be relied upon.
4.13 That in reply to the contents of this para, it is submitted that representation of applicants was considered by the Respondents. However, in view of the para 7.24.3 and 7.24.4 of report of 6th CPC, the request was not agreed to and accordingly a suitable reply was given to the applications by Respondents vide Note dated 27.10.2017."
4.2. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8329 of 2011 in the matter of Union of India vs Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Anr. decided on 22.02.2023. The relevant portion of the same is extracted below:-
"3. As per the further case of the respondent-Association, up to the Fifth Central Pay Commission, all the pay scales of all the disciplines and all grades were the same, however, after the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 was fixed for the CTOs, whereas the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 was fixed for the JDOs. Since the pay scales of the feeder cadre had remained the same in all the disciplines, the respondent-Association had made representation to the appellant for the grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 to the JDOs as allowed to the CTOs (Design) consequent upon the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The Ministry of Finance having rejected the respondent's proposal for upgradation of the pay scale, the respondent-Association had filed the O.A. No. 1730 of 2003 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide the order 9 OA No. 1294/2018 Item No.70/C-5 dated 01.11.2004 disposed of the said O.A. with direction to the appellant to consider the parity of pay scale of JDOs along with CTOs by evaluating their duties and responsibilities and to pass a detailed speaking order.
****
14. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine "equal pay for equal work"
is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.
15. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not disputed that the Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs are as per the SRO 367 dated 08.12.1996, as amended by SRO 246 dated 21.11.2002, whereas the Recruitment Rules governing the CTOs (Design) are as per the SRO 132 dated 12.05.1982. The probation period in case of CTOs is longer than that of JDOs. The duties and responsibilities of both the posts are different and the promotional avenues also have different duration and different criteria. There was not a single error, much less grave error pointed out by learned Senior Advocate. Mr. Khurshid, in the fixation of the pay scales for the JDOs and CTOs, which would have justified the interference of the Tribunal.
10OA No. 1294/2018 Item No.70/C-5
16. Much emphasis was placed by the learned senior advocate Mr. Khurshid on the noting made by the Officer of the Naval Department in the file recommending pay scale of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs, however, it may be noted that a noting recorded in the file is merely an expression of opinion by a particular officer, and by no-stretch of imagination such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government.
17. The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party.
18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs.
19. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The appeal stands allowed accordingly."
5. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 4606/2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of DGOF Employees Association and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors, highlighting para 26 of the said order, which reads as under:
"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 11 OA No. 1294/2018 Item No.70/C-5 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."
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the pleadings/judgments placed on record.
7. The claim of the applicants is that there was historical parity in the pay scales of Assistants (Printing) and Superintendent (Printing) to that of Assistants (CSS) and Section Officers (CSS), respectively, upto the 5th Central Pay Commission, however, at the stage of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the latter were granted higher grade pay and further revised in 7th Pay Commission.
8. However, from a careful perusal of the record, it is explicitly clear that there is no historical parity between the posts of Assistant (Printing) in Legislative Department to that of Assistant of CSS as regards the pay scales. Even at the time of 4th Pay Commission, the pay scale of Assistant (CSS) was revised to Rs.1640-2900/- by the Government, whereas Assistant (Printing) were granted the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-. Accordingly, in 5th Pay Commission also, Assistant (CSS) were placed in higher pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-, while the Assistant (Printing) were allowed Rs.5000-8000/-. Inasmuch as upgradation of Pay Scale of Assistant (Printing) to Rs. 5500-9000/- vide UO Note dated 28.07.2005 is concerned, the same 12 OA No. 1294/2018 Item No.70/C-5 was allowed by the Ministry of Finance only at the instance of comparable post of Senior Technical Assistant in the Office of Registrar General of India.
9. As such, there is no documentary evidence to prove that the parity was traditionally being maintained while implementing the recommendations of referred Central Pay Commissions. Therefore, even though the nomenclature of the posts held by the applicants and those in CSS may be the same or even though the nature of duties and responsibilities be the same or similar, as claimed by the applicants, the 6th CPC had made a very clear distinction between pay scale of staff working outside the Secretariat and those of CSS/CSSS. The benefit of upgraded pay scale has been granted to personnel of CSS/CSSS w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide OM dated 16.11.2009 and this dispensation was only extended to staff working in CSS/CSSS, AFHQS, IFS(B)&RBSS. However, the post of Assistant (Printing) in the Legislative Department does not belong to such secretariat services.
10. Moreover, while examining the demand for upgradation of pay scales for Superintendent (Printing) and Assistant (Printing) by the 6th CPC, the Commission vide para 7.24.3 of its report stated that the post of Superintendent (Printing) has no relativity with that of Section Officers in CSS and no functional justification exists for extending the scale of Rs.8000-13500 on completion of four years of 13 OA No. 1294/2018 Item No.70/C-5 service to this post; and vide para 7.24.4, recommended only corresponding revised pay band and grade pay to the post of Assistant (Printing) and stated that the demand being totally unjustified, cannot be accepted. Keeping in view para 7.24.3 and 7.24.4 of the report of 6th CPC, the representations dated 05.09.2016 and 14.06.2017 preferred by the applicants for higher pay in respective grades were considered by the respondents and the Competent Authority has not agreed to the same. Hence, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 27.10.2017 passed by the respondents.
11. As per the settled position of law, normally the Court/Tribunal should not interfere in pay scale matters as these are within the domain of the Executive and is best left to be decided on the basis of recommendation of expert bodies, such as Pay Commission, unless there is prima facie arbitrariness, unreasonableness or mala fide, which elements are not present in the instant case. Even after the 6th CPC, the recommendations of the 7th CPC were implemented about a decade ago and the 8th Pay Commission has already been announced by now.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no ground to interfere in this matter and, therefore, we dismiss this O.A.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/