Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Smt. Kavita M. Gaidhani vs Union Of India on 6 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, Mumbai.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.259/2012
Dated this Friday the 6th day of May, 2016
CORAM: HON'BLE DR.MRUTYUNJAY SARANGI, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI A.J. ROHEE, MEMBER (J)
Smt. Kavita M. Gaidhani,
presently working as Senior Tax Assistant
O/o Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Nashik. R/at 2C Abhijeet Apartment,
Shingada Talav, Nashik-422 001. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri G.K. Masand )
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes
Ministry of Finance, Department o Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Aayakar Bhavan,
Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Pune -411001.
4. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan, Gadkari Chowk,
Old Agra Road, Nashik 422 022. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri V.B. Joshi with
Advocate Shri N.K. Rajpurohit )
ORDER
Per : Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A)
The Applicant was working as Senior Tax Assistant in the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax at Nashik at the time of filing of the OA in April, 2012. She has filed this OA praying for a direction to the respondents to fix her pay in the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 w.e.f. 11.09.1989.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows;
i) The applicant had joined as Data Entry Operator in the Pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040 on 25.03.1989. She had the qualification of 12th standard pass at the time of joining the service and was therefore, a non-graduate. On 11.09.1989 the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India issued Office Memorandum No.F.7(1)/IC/86(44) (Annexure A-6) creating two different scales for Data Entry Operator viz. Rs.1350-2200 for graduates and Rs.1150-1500 for non-graduates. The applicant who had joined six months earlier was drawing a Pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040 which stood abolished. After OM dated 11.09.1989 the applicants pay was fixed in the reduced Pay Scale of Rs.1150-1500 for two months but subsequently she was placed in the Pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040 as a non-graduate Data Entry Operator. The applicant claims that on 08.09.1999 the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.30/1997 directed that there should not be any discrimination between two classes of Data Entry Operators and all of them are entitled to the same Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200. The Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 16.10.2003 in OA No.371/2002 also directed the respondents in the Ministry of Defence to adopt uniform scale of Rs.1350-2200 to all Data Entry Operators working in the Ministry. Subsequently the Bombay Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal also decided in a similar fashion on 06.06.2006 in OA No.781/2003 for Data Entry Operators in the I.T. Department.
ii) In the year 2006, the applicant submitted representations to the respondents for grant of Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 to her and in the meanwhile she obtained a graduate degree and the respondents passed orders on 11.10.2007 to grant her the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 from November 2004. However, the applicant alleges that this order was not implemented and she was not re-designated as Senior Tax Assistant despite the order dated 11.10.2007. She made various representations to the higher authorities. She filed OA No.453/2010 in this Tribunal which in its order dated 20.07.2010 directed the respondents to dispose of her representation (Annexure A-18). The applicant submitted a fresh representation on 09.09.2010 (Annexure A-19). On 01.02.2011 she submitted another representation to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) Pune (Respondent No.3) drawing his attention to the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.4441/2003 decided on 27.01.2008 wherein the order of the Bombay Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.07.2002 and another order dated 09.01.2003 were upheld. While dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Government the judgment of the Honble High Court had mentioned the Governments decision to accept the decision of the Lucknow Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.150/2001.
iii) It is the applicants contention that in all the above pronouncements including those of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Honble High Court the decision has been given in favour of having uniform Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 (pre-revised) for all Data Entry Operators.
iv) In reply to her representations the respondents have rejected her claim. At Exhibit A-1 is the order of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance dated 01.12.2011 wherein it has been mentioned that the applicant was only 12th standard pass at the time of her initial appointment as Data Entry Operator. She acquired graduation degree only in the year 2004 hence she is not eligible for getting the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200. The Department of Revenue was advised by the Ministry of Finance to reject her claim since it is not in consonance with the OM dated 11.09.1989. At Exhibit A-2 is the letter dated 15.12.2011from the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance (Respondent No.1) to the Chief Commisioner of Income Tax (CCA), Pune (Respondent No.2) forwarding the comments of the Department of Expenditure for necessary action. At Exhibit A-3 is the letter from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune (Respondent No.3) to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik (Respondent No.4) dated 03.01.2012 informing that the CBDT has rejected the claim of the applicant in their letter No.F.No.C-18013/50/2010 dated 15.12.2011. At Exhibit A-4 is the letter from the office of Respondent No.4 dated 12.01.2012 informing the applicant that her representation for grant of the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 has been rejected by the Respondent No.1. The applicant has challenged the above mentioned four letters (Exhibit A-1, A-2, A-3 & A-4) and has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to call for the records and proceedings leading to the issue of Note in F.No. C-18013/50/2010, signed by Shri R.K. Thapar, Under Secretary (E-III B) on 2/12/11 (Exhibit A-1), letter dated 15/12/2011 issued by CBDT , New Delhi (Exhibit A-2), letter dated 03/01/2012 issued by Respondent No.3. (Exhibit A-3), and letter bearing No.NSK/CCIT/Staff Griev/2011-12/3236 dated 12.01.2012 addressed by Respondent No.4 to the Applicant (Exhibit A-4) and after going through the legality or otherwise thereof, this Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to quash and set aside the same.
(b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to direct the Respondents to fix the Applicant's pay in the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 from 11.9.1989 i.e. when the Respondent Union of India issued Office Memo whereby two new Pay Scales were introduced namely Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 and Rs.1150-1500 in place of earlier Pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040
(c) That Respondents be directed to grant to the Applicant all consequential benefits including re-designation as Senior Tax Assistant after the re-structuring of the Cadre under th e Central Board of Direct Taxes and payment of all the arrears to which Applicant becomes entitled to.
(d) That costs of this application be awarded in favour of the Applicant: And
(e) That such other and further orders as are expedient be granted in favour of the Applicant.
3. The applicant has based her prayer on the following grounds:
i) The order passed by the Department of Expenditure has been issued with a closed mind, without appreciating the points raised by the applicant in her representation.
ii) The various judicial pronouncements including the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.4441/2003 have not been taken into consideration while rejecting her representation. This shows arbitrariness in the action of the Department of Expenditure and the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.
iii) The Applicant has specifically used the ground that in the judgment of the Hyderabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.371/2002 both the graduate and non-graduate Data Entry Operators were placed at par and the scale of Rs.1350-2200 was granted to them. Subsequently in CP No.16/2003 the Hyderabad Bench of CAT directed the respondents to extend the scale of Rs.1350-2200 to all the applicants from the same date as their counter-parts were placed.
iv) Although the applicant obtained the graduate degree in November 2004 she was not placed in the re-designated Grade of Senior Tax Assistant. The benefit of the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 was not given to her which shows hostile attitude on the part of the respondents towards the applicant.
v) She was also subjected to hostile discrimination as she was not re-designated as Senior Tax Assistant when her counter-parts who were in the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 and were Group 'B' Data Entry Operators, were automatically re-designated as Senior Tax Assistants without insistence of passing any departmental qualifying examination. The Applicant having passed the departmental examination in the year 2006 was promoted as Senior Tax Assistant only w.e.f. July 2007 and not re-designated as Senior Tax Assistant earlier on par with her counter-parts.
vi) The Applicant also alleges hostile discrimination since her representation addressed to the CBDT was deliberately not forwarded by Respondent No.3 although her immediate superior Respondent No.4 had forwarded it to the Respondent No.3 immediately after the receipt of the representation.
4. The Respondents in their reply dated 25.11.2012 have contested the claim of the applicant. It is their contention that the applicant had the qualification of 12th standard pass at the time of appointment as Data Entry Operator and consequent to the bifurcation of the post of Data Entry Operator to Grade 'A' and Grade 'B', the DEOs who were graduates were designated as DEO Grade 'B' in the scale of Rs.1350-2200/- and the non-graduates were designated as DEO Grade 'A' in the Pay Scale of Rs.1150-1500/. Consequent to the restructuring in 2001 the post of DEO Grade 'A' was re-designated as Tax Assistant and the applicant was re-designated as such. On 09.03.2003 the applicant applied for revision of her Pay Scale as the Pay Scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 ceased to exist, post restructuring, since the next higher Pay Scale of Rs.5000-150-8000, the applicant requested to be placed in that scale. However the CCIT, Pune in his letter dated 20.08.2008 rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that the Pay Scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 is for Senior Tax Assistant and only Grade 'B' DEOs were given that scale. Since the applicant was a Grade 'A' DEO she was not eligible for it. Moreover, she had also not passed the Departmental Examination for Ministerial Staff. The Board vide its letter No.F.No.A-11019/1/2000-Ad.VII dated 04.09.2003 has extended the benefit of Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 to DEOs Grade 'B' w.e.f. 01.1.1986 or from the date of joining the Income Tax Department, in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench in OA No.2067/2001 vide order dated 29.09.2002. This was done in consultation with the Department of Expenditure.
i) The Board vide letter No.F.No.C-18013/3/2011-Ad.VII dated 31.03.2011 issued a comprehensive clarification regarding grant of 'Consequential Benefits' in respect of DEOs in the Income Tax Department so as to arrive at a uniform conclusion to maintain consistency regarding the grant of consequential benefits. In the said letter it was decided that in all such cases of DEOs who were recruited against the Recruitment Rules that prescribed matriculation as the minimum qualification but were graduates at the time of recruitment/entry in service will be given all the consequential benefits with effect from their entry in the service, including grade (DEO Grade 'B')and Pay Scale.
ii) In the case of the applicant, although the Advertisement for DEO prescribes Matriculation as the qualification and a few graduates were given the benefit as per the above mentioned letter of the CBDT dated 31.03.2011, the applicant being a 12th standard pass at the time of initial appointment was not eligible.
iii) The Respondents claim that the representation submitted by the applicant was given due consideration and after referring the matter to he Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance her claim was rejected. It is also the respondents' contention that the Seshagiri Committee had recommended that the nature of duties and responsibilities of both Junior Key Punch Operators and Senior Key Punch Operators were the same. However in the Income Tax Department there was only one post of DEO in the scale of Rs.1200-2040 and the subsequent bifurcation to DEO Grade 'A' and Grade 'B' was only on the basis of qualification at the time of entry into service viz. Graduates and Non-Graduates.
iv) In the reply filed by the respondents they have mentioned the various judgments on which the applicant has relied. It is their contention that in the judgment of the CAT, Madras Bench in OA No.30/1997 dated 08.09.1999, CAT Lucknow Bench in OA No.150/2001 dated 09.10.2001, CAT Hyderabad Bench in OA No.371/2002 dated 16.10.2003 & CAT Mumbai Bench in OA No.06.06.2006 the main issue of extending the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 to the non-graduates has not been covered.
v) In none of the orders it has been specifically mentioned that non-graduates will be eligible for the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200. In the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.34/2004 dated 24.11.2004 it was held that the qualification of Matriculation was stipulated in the Recruitment Rules which were issued on 22.07.1988 and the advertisement was issued on 23.07.1988. The Principal Bench held that since the Recruitment Rules were not notified in the official Gazette, the qualification of Matriculation in the advertisement was illegal. Therefore all the DEOs who were graduates and recruited against the advertisement were granted the scale of Rs.1350-2200 from the date of their recruitment. The case of the applicant is not covered under that judgment.
5. The Applicant in her Rejoinder filed on 06.02.2013 submits that she had joined as DEO in the Pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040 in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 23.07.1988 which prescribed Matriculation as the minimum educational qualification. She is not aware that prior to the insertion of the said Advertisement the minimum qualification required for the post of DEO was graduation as alleged by the respondents. In the Department of Income Tax there was only one scale of Rs.1200-2040 for DEOs as against the post of Junior Key Punch Operators and Senior Key Punch Operators in other Departments of Government of India. Seshagiri Committee had recommended that Pay Scales of Rs.1150-1500 & Rs.1350-2200 for Junior Key Punch Operators and Senior Key Punch Operators should be given and they should be classified as DEO Grade 'A' and DEO Grade 'B' respectively. This situation was not applicable in the Income Tax Department since there was only one cadre of DEO which had matriculates as well as graduates although the minimum requirement was Matriculation. Both were placed in the Pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040 and both graduates as well as non-graduates were doing the same work and performing the same duties. However only after the OM dated 11.09.1989 the graduates among the DEOs got the higher Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 and non-graduates got the scale of Rs.1150-1500. The Applicant was placed in the scale of Rs.1150-1500 which was absolutely illegal on the part of the respondents since she was already drawing the scale of Rs.1200-2040. The act of the respondents in creating the artificial discrimination between graduates and non-graduates by the OM dated 11.09.1989 was illegal and impermissible in law since both had been recruited against the same Advertisement which had Matriculation as the minimum qualification and both the graduates and non-graduates were performing the same duties. The Pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040 ceased to exist after the OM dated 11.09.1989 and since the applicant could not be placed in the lower scale of Rs.1150-1500 she should have been placed in the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200. The act of placing the applicant in the lower scale of Rs.1150-1500 and subsequently Rs.1200-2040 was an act of hostile discrimination against the applicant. The Applicant claims that in the judgment of the Madras Bench of the CAT in OA No.30/1997 dated 08.09.1999 in para 6 the Tribunal has observed that when the applicants are performing the very same work with same responsibilities and duties, we do not see how the applicants can be put on a different Scale of Pay. It is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is the applicant's contention that it is immaterial whether the issue of graduates versus non-graduates was adjudicated in various cases before the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court. What is important is that the issue of discrimination and payment of different Pay Scale for similar kind of work has been adjudicated and nowhere the judgments have stipulated that the scale of Rs.1350-2200 will be granted only to graduates appointed in pursuance of Advertisement dated 23.07.1988 while denying the same to non-graduates appointed against the very same Advertisement. The applicant has been artificially placed in a non-existent Pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040 and should therefore be granted the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 on par with others who were recruited against the same Advertisement dated 23.07.1988. The Applicant also claims that she has been illegally denied placement in the cadre of Senior Tax Assistant on par with those who were recruited along with her in response to Advertisement dated 23.07.1988.
6. The Respondents in their Sur-rejoinder filed on 01.03.2013 have reiterated that the essential qualification required for the post of DEOs prior to the Notification dated 22.07.1988 was Graduation. In the amended Recruitment Rules, 1988, the educational qualification was reduced to Matriculation. There is a clear distinction between the DEOs who were graduates and non-graduates. Although prior to 1989 there was no distinction in the Pay Scale of DEOs, by the OM dated 11.09.1989 the graduates and the non-graduates among the DEOs were placed in different Pay Scales.
7. The Respondents in their sur-rejoinder dated 01.03.2013 have also analyzed the judicial pronouncements in various Tribunals and have reiterated their stand that the issue of extending the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 to non-graduates has not been settled in any of the judicial forum. The Respondents claim that the applicant having a lesser qualification of 12th standard pass than the graduates is not entitled to the higher scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200. After the creation of two grades namely, DEO 'A' and DEO Grade 'B' by the Notification dated 11.09.1989 the applicant was placed in the Pay Scale of Rs.1200-2040 as personal to her since she could not be given the lower Pay Scale of Rs.1150-1500.
8. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have perused all the documents submitted by them. The principal issue involved in this OA is whether the applicant is entitled to the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 w.e.f. 11.09.1989 which is the date the respondents issued the OM introducing 2 new Pay Scales for DEOs Grade 'A' and DEOs Grade 'B'.
9. During the arguments the learned counsels for the applicant and the respondents agreed that the judicial pronouncement in various Tribunals and the Hon'ble High Courts has not addressed the issue of non-graduates getting the scale of Rs.1350-2200. The orders in OA No.30/1997 dated 08.09.1999 by the Madras Bench of CAT, in OA No.150/2001 dated 09.10.2001 by the Lucknow Bench of CAT, OA No.371/2002 dated 16.10.2003 by the Hyderabad Bench of CAT, OA 781/2003 dated 06.06.2006 by the Mumbai Bench of CAT dealt with applicants who were all graduates and did not deal with the cases of non-graduates so far as the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 is concerned. The Judgment by the Principal Bench of CAT in OA No.34/2004 dated 24.11.2004 only held that the Advertisement dated 23.07.1988 prescribing the minimum qualification as Matriculation was not valid since the Recruitment Rules which were changed one day prior to the date of Advertisement had not been notified in the Official Gazette till then. Because of that the graduates who had been appointed in response to the said Advertisement were granted the scale of Rs.1350-2200 from their date of appointment instead of 11.09.1989 when the two new scales were introduced. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its judgment in WP No.4441/2003 had dealt with the issue of discrimination in difference of Pay Scale between Junior Key Punch Operators and Senior Key Punch Operators in the Ministry of Defence and had not addressed the issue of qualifications of graduation vis-a-vis non-graduation.
10. From the letter dated F.No.C-18013/3/2011-Ad-VII dated 31.03.2011 issued by the CBDT it appears that a decision was taken by the respondents that in all such cases of DEOs who were recruited against the Recruitment Rules that prescribed Matriculation as the minimum qualification but were graduates at the time of recruitment/entry in service will be given all the consequential benefits with effect from their entry in the service, including grade (DEO Grade 'B') and pay scale. This seems to be the final word in the matter so far as the respondents are concerned. However, presuming that this is a policy decision by the Government it still does not state whether non-graduates who were appointed along with the graduates in response to Advertisement dated 23.07.1988 with Matriculation/Non-Graduation as the qualification are entitled to the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 or not. So far as the applicant is concerned, the Department of Revenue in consultation with the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance has taken a decision that she, being a non-graduate with a qualification of 12th standard pass, will not be entitled to the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 on par with the graduates who were recruited as DEOs along with her. It is also pertinent to note that she got the higher Pay Scale after she acquired the qualification of graduation in 2004.
11. It is a fact that the applicant was appointed as a DEO when there was only one grade of DEO in March 1989. The distinction of DEO Grade 'A' and DEO Grade 'B' came only after the Notification on 11.09.1989 through OM No.F.7(1)/IC/86(44). The Principal Bench of CAT in their order dated 24.11.2004 held that the minimum qualification of Matriculation prescribed in the Advertisement dated 23.07.1988 is not valid since the revised Recruitment Rules prescribing Matriculation as the qualification had not been published in the official Gazette till the date of Advertisement. However, the candidates like the applicant who had been recruited through the said Advertisement, fifteen years earlier could not have been obviously thrown out of service because of this judgment. In other words the recruitment of non-graduates having minimum qualification of Matriculation had become a fait accompli when the judgment of the Principal Bench of CAT was pronounced. It is nobody's case that since the Matriculation qualification prescribed in Advertisement dated 23.07.1988 was declared invalid by the Principal Bench of CAT due to the non-publication of Recruitment Rules in the Gazette Notification, the recruitment made in response to that Advertisement had become either illegal or invalid. Having accepted that fact it is pertinent to note that neither the Advertisement nor the Recruitment Rules mentioned any difference in status or duties and responsibilities of the DEOs who were Matriculates/non-graduates vis-a-vis those who were graduates. There is nothing on record to show this. The fact that graduates and non-graduates were recruited through the same recruitment process, against the same Advertisement dated 23.07.1988 and performed the same work with identical duties and responsibilities is undisputed. The distinction between graduates and non-graduates, only on the basis of educational qualification, came through the Notification dated 11.09.1989 creating two different cadres of DEOs Grade 'A' and DEOs Grade 'B'.
12. It is our considered view that when a distinction was made between graduates and non-graduates and two new grades were created by OM dated 11.09.1989, such distinction and its consequences should have been made applicable only prospectively and should not have affected those who had already been recruited through a common recruitment process against the same Advertisement and entrusted with the job of DEO (without distinction of Grade 'A' or Grade 'B') sharing the same duties, responsibilities and work. There is nothing on record to show that the performance as DEOs of those who were non-graduates vis-a-vis those who were graduates was in any way deficient or short of expectations. We hold that the attempt to give a retrospective effect to the OM dated 11.09.1989 by giving a lesser Pay Scale to the non-graduates is illegal and arbitrary in this particular instance where the recruitment was made against a common Advertisement dated 23.07.1988 requiring a minimum qualification of Matriculation.
13. The Principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has been held to be sacrosanct in a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618, the Hon'ble Apex Court had clearly established that the principle of 'equal pay for for equal work' can be read as part of the doctrine of equality. Subsequently the ratio of the judgment in Randhir Singh's case was invoked and applied in a number of cases including Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. State of UP (1986) 1 SCC 637, Surinder Singh Vs. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD (1986) 1 SCC 639 and many others. In Randhir Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women' as a directive principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
14. This principle was also firmly reiterated in Anuj Garg Vs. Hotel Assn. Of India, (2008) 3 SCC 1. Significantly in the case of Jaipal Vs. State of Haryana, (1988) 3 SCC 354, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the difference in mode of selection will not affect the application of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' if both the classes of persons perform similar functions and duties under the same employer.
15. In the State of W.B. Vs. W.B. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn., (2010) 5 SCC 225 the Hon'ble Apex Court had gone to the extent of stating that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal.
16. In the present OA the matter of creating a reasonable differentiation and classification in two DEOs Grade 'A' and DEOs Grade 'B' through the OM dated 11.09.1989 has not been challenged. Although the action of the respondents in creating two different grades based on different qualifications cannot be questioned, such distinction should be made applicable to subsequent recruitment only. The fact that the applicant has been recruited against the same Advertisement and performing the same kind of work and has not given any reason in questioning her performance is a valid ground for her to claim equal pay with others who are graduates and have been recruited in the same recruitment process as her, on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Any difference in Pay Scale due to the classification of DEOs Grade 'A' and DEOs Grade 'B' on the basis of educational qualification should be made applicable only to those who were recruited after the Notification in OM dated 11.09.1989.
17. In view of the above, the OA is allowed. The impugned letters dated 02.12.2011, 15.12.2011, 03.01.2012 and 12.01.2012 are quashed and set aside. The Applicant is entitled to the Pay Scale of Rs.1350-2200 on par with graduate DEOs recruited through the Advertisement dated 23.07.1988 from the same date on which the scale of Rs.1350-2200 was given to them. She is also entitled to all consequential benefits in terms of designation and promotion as per rules. The respondents are directed to pass necessary and appropriate orders to this effect within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(A.J. Rohee) (Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi) Member (J) Member (A) dm.