Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S.S. Yadav S/O Sh. B.S. Yadav vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 5 September, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.3860/2011 NEW DELHI THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 HONBLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A) HONBLE MR. RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER (J) 1. S.S. Yadav s/o Sh. B.S. Yadav, r/o H.No.25, Vill. & PO Surhera, New Delhi-43. 2. Satbir Singh Dahiya S/o Sh. Kartar Singh Dahiya, r/o H.No.675, Vill. & PO Nahra, Distt. Sonepat(Har.) 3. D. Bera s/o Sh. A.N. Bera, r/o RZ.F 776/23A, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam, New Delhi-45. 4. P.K. Choudhary s/o Sh. M. Choudhary, r/o L-8, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi. 5. R.K. Satia s/o Sh. G.L. Satia r/o K-49, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 6. Smt. Shashi Chawla w/o Sh. H.K. Chawla, r/o G-84, South City-II, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, (Har.). 7. Smt. Santosh Gosain, W/o Sh. Deepak Gosain, r/o K-62, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 8. Smt. Neelam Murtija W/o Sh. Yash Pal, r/o C-8/192, Sector 8, Rohini, New Delhi-85. 9. Smt. Anam Baby w/o Sh. T.L. Baby, r/o C-II/124, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi-03. 10. K.R. Sharma s/o Sh. D.R. Sharma, r/o T-510, F15D/1, Gali No.4, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi-08. 11. J.P. Chug s/o Sh. A.S. Anand, r/o E-37A, Nanakpura, New Delhi-21. 12. A.K. Bansal s/o Sh. Kamal Kishore, r/o C-127, East of Kailash, New Delhi-56. 13. Kailash Chand s/o Sh. Om Prakash, r/o RZ-C-3198B, Gali No.13, Gurudwara Road, Mahavir Enclave, Palam, New Delhi. 14. R.P. Nautiyal s/o Sh. C.M. Nautiyal, r/o K-29, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 15. Smt. Rita Rani w/o Sh. A.K. Bakshi, r/o H. No.16, Ward No.1, Behind Police Station, Mehrauli, New Delhi-30. 16. S.N. Sharma s/o Sh. M.P. Sharma, r/o C-7/337, Brijpuri, Wazirabad Road, New Delhi-94. 17. O.P. Khurana s/o Sh. R.C. Khurana, r/o B-1/20, Kiran Garden, New Delhi-59. 18. Smt. Shakuntla Rani w/o Sh. Dharambir, r/o G-134, Subh Enclave, Pitampur, New Delhi-34. 19. S.R. Sahu s/o Sh. M.L. Sahu, r/o K-19, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 20. Sushil Chandra s/o Sh. S.K. Boda Koti, r/o c/o Accts. Sec., 412 AFS, Race Course, New Delhi-03. 21. S.S. Negi s/o Sh. U.S. Negi, r/o K-42, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 22. S.K. Khandelwal s/o Sh. V.S.Khandelwal, r/o K-72, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 23. A.K. Ghai s/o Sh.G.L. Ghai, r/o Joy Appt. Flat No.4835, Sector-2, Plot No.2, Dwarka, New Delhi-75. 24. Jagvir Singh s/o Sh. Dharam Chand, r/o D-38, Mahindra Park, Pankha Road, Opp. Janakpuri, New Delhi-59. 25. Shashi Pal s/o Sh. Fattoo Ram, r/o K-43, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 26. A.K. Bansal s/o Sh.Bhoormal Bansal, r/o B-277, Nanakpura, Type-III, Moti Bagh-II, New Delhi-21. 27. S.S. Negi s/o Sh. Shekhar Singh Negi, r/o L-16, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 28. K.S. Bhardwaj s/o Sh.Tara Chand, r/o K-23, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 29. B.D. Deshmukhya s/o Sh. T.K.Deshmukhya, r/o Civil Admin.Sec. No.22, WG, AF c/o 99 APO. 30. Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Laxmi Narayan, r/o K-100, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 31. Smt. Ratna Das w/o Sh. S.S. Das, r/o K-20, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 32. Smt. Urmila Kapoor w/o Sh. J.M.Kapoor, r/o K-33, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 33. Vinod Mehta s/o Sh. Mulkraj Mehta, r/o L-07, Civil Zone, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 34. N.K. Malhotra s/o Sh. M.L. Malhotra, r/o 73, New Layalpur, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi-51. Applicants (By Advocate: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Sharma) VERSUS 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2. The Chief of the Air Staff, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi-11. 3. The Dy.Director PC-3, Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi-6. 4. The Air Officer Commanding (AOC) Air Force Record Office, Subroto Park, New Delhi-10. 5. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. B.L. Wanchoo) :ORDER: SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
The applicants, in this OA, have questioned the action of the respondents for not considering and not granting the applicants the grade pay of Rs.4600/- in the Pay Band-2. The applicants were working on the post of Assistant in Field Offices in the Air Force. On the other hand, vide OM dated 16.11.2009, it has been decided by the Government to grant the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to all the Assistants w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicants have been working against the posts of Assistant in various units of Air Force under Air Force Head Quarters (AFHQ) and Command Head Quarters (CHQ). The hierarchical structure, duties, functions and responsibilities of the post held by the applicants are the same as that of the post of Assistant in the Field units as well as in the AFHQ. Prior to 6th Central Pay Commission, the Assistants working in the Field units/subordinate offices were getting the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, whereas Assistants working in AFHQ were getting the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. There was, therefore, a demand on behalf of Assistants in the Field Units to maintain parity between the Assistants working in Field Units and Assistants working in the AFHQ. This was considered by the 6th Pay Commission and it was recommended that parity between Field Offices and Secretariat, as has been proposed, be given to the Field Offices in order to ensure better delivery. The Commission had recommended parity between similarly placed posts in Field and Secretariat Offices and hence no separate recommendation was, therefore, necessary. The 6th Central Pay Commission recommended merger of three pre revised scales of pay of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 and the post of Assistants were also merged with that of Office Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-.
3. Government, vide OM dated 13.11.2009, decided to grant Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 01.01.2006. Vide OM dated 16.11.2009, Ministry of Finance decided for upgradation of Grade Pay of Assistants from Rs.4200/- to Rs.4600/-, which was granted to all Assistants working in AFHQ w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, this revised Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- was not granted to Assistants working in Subordinate Office/Field Units, meaning thereby that in the same Department, Assistants, who were posted in Headquarter, were granted Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006, whereas Assistants posted in Field Units, such as the applicants, were only granted Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, thereby denying the benefit of per para-4 of the OM dated 16.11.2009. Representations were made to AFHQ, followed by reminders and ultimately in OA No.3558/2010 filed by the applicants, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.05.2011, directed the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants taking into account various grounds taken in said OA. Respondent no.3 vide order dated 23.08.2011, rejected the representations of the applicants on the sole ground that Assistants working in the Field Offices of Air Force are not part of the Secretariat services, and hence OMs dated 13.11.2009 and 16.11.2009 are not applicable to applicants and they were only entitled to replacement grade pay.
4. The following reliefs have been sought in this OA:-
(i) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 23.8.2011(A/1), declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondent not granting the benefit of OM dated 16.11.2009 to the applicants by way of granting the upgraded grade pay of Rs.4600 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently pass an order to directing the respondents to grant the grade pay of Rs.4600 to the applicants w.e.f. 01.01.2006 at par with the Assistant working in Headquarter Office with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay allowances with interest.
(ii) Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant.
5. Some of the main grounds taken in the OA are that the duties and responsibilities of Assistants working in the Field Units are much higher than Assistants working in Headquarters and hence denial of the upgradation of Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- as per OM dated 16.11.2009 to the Assistants working in Field Units or Subordinate Offices like applicants is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Secondly, applicants as well as their counterparts in AFHQ serve the same set of Commissioned Officers and are governed by separate parallel orders issued by Ministry of Defence. The 6th Central Pay Commission not only recommended parity between Field and Secretariat Offices vide para 2.1.14 but also clarified that no separate recommendation was necessary to maintain parity between similarly placed posts/analogous posts in Field Offices and Secretariat/Headquarter formations. Moreover, three consecutive Central Pay Commissions had maintained party between the clerical cadre working in the Central Secretariat, AFHQ and Command Headquarters/ Major Field formations, which was disturbed without any justification. The 6th Central Pay Commission took a holistic view and declared parity between Assistants of Subordinate Offices and AFHQ, which was duly approved by Government in the Note under Section II of Part B of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which specifically provided that the scale prescribed shall be available only in such of those Organizations/Services where a historical parity existed. Command Headquarters is a Field Office and is an Organization falling under the same genesis just like other Departments and Autonomous Body and hence Section II of Part-B of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 is applicable to the applicants also. Although posts in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, 5500-9000 and 6500-10500 have been merged after 6th Central Pay Commission as per OM dated 13.11.2009, not only posts carrying pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 have been granted Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- but Assistants working in Headquarters in the pre-revised scale of Rs.5500-9000 have also been granted the same Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-.
6. Various other grounds have been urged and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, which decided an identical question of law for equal pay for equal work in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Versus Dinesh Anand KK; JT 2008 (Vol-I) SC 231 has been relied upon.
Similarly, the order of the Tribunal dated 17.10.2008 in OA No.402/2006 is stated to be fully applicable since an identical issue in the same department in respect of posts of Junior/Senior Translators was decided in that OA.
7. In their counter reply, respondents have stated that OM dated 16.11.2009 is applicable to the post of Assistant and Private Secretary of Central Secretariat Service, Armed Forces Head Quarters Service, Indian Foreign Services B and Railway Board Secretariat Service. The said OM nowhere states that Assistants working in the Field Offices of Air Force should also be granted Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- at par with those of the Assistants working in Central Secretariat or AFHQ. Prior to the 6th Central Pay Commission, the AFHQ Civil Service was in a higher pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 (Group B) whereas Assistants in Air Force were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 (Group C). According to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission which were accepted by Government, the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, 5500-9000 and 6500-10500 were merged and granted a common Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. Subsequently OM dated 13.11.2009 granted Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to all posts carrying pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and the post of Assistants in the CSS had been upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 15.09.2006 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- because of the historical parity between CSS, Assistants of AFHQ along with other Secretariat Services, who were also granted the revised Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-. This was not applicable to the Assistants working in the Field Organizations of Air Force because this was only applicable to the said posts specified in the OM, and secondly, because the said post in Air Force was in the pre-revised scale of Rs.5000-8000 and was not part of the Secretariat Service. One of the reasons to grant higher pay to the post of Assistants in CSS was stated to be an element of direct recruitment through an All India Competitive Examination. Assistants in the AFHQ were engaged in the formulation of policy, Rules and Regulations where their duties, responsibilities and functions were strenuous, intricate and arduous, vis-`-vis duties of Assistants in the Field Offices. Moreover, 50% Assistants in Headquarters Services are recruited through open competition on All India basis whereas those in the Field Office are 100% promotional posts. For this reason, respondents have contended that there cannot be any parity between the two.
8. Apart from the counter reply, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in pursuance of order dated 08.02.2013 calling for some documents, which were relevant in the matter.
9. Applicants were heard through Ms. Jyoti Singh with Shri Yogesh Sharma. Mr. B.L. Wanchoo argued on behalf of respondents.
10. The grounds stated in the OA and in the counter reply as highlighted by both parties have been considered by us and the record of case has been perused in detail.
11. At Annexure-A/4, is the extract of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission in which in para 1.2.18 the Pay Commission has recommended as follows:-
Upgradation of certain categories 1.2.18 The Commission has recommended upgradation of certain specific categories like Nurses, Teachers, Constabulary and Postmen keeping in view the important functions being discharged by these categories. Parity between field offices and secretariat has been proposed as, in Commissions view, equal emphasis has to be given to the field offices in order to ensure better delivery. (emphasis supplied) Para 7.10.15 of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation is as follows:
LDC, UDC & Assistants 7.10.15 Parity of LDCs and UDCs in the clerical cadre in EME has been demanded with the posts of Havaldar and Subedar respectively. Assistants in the organization have, however, been sought to be equated with the Assistants of Central Secretariat. No parity can be established between the clerical cadre and the colour service in the Defence Forces. The posts of LDC and UDC are in no way comparable to those of Havaldar and Subedar. Consequently, such parity cannot be recommended. Insofar as the post of Assistant is concerned, the Commission has already recommended parity between similarly placed posts in field and secretariat offices. No separate recommendation is, therefore, necessary. (emphasis supplied)
12. Thus, it is clear from both the recommendations that the 6th Central Pay Commission had recommended parity between the Field Office and Secretariat Office and no separate recommendation was, therefore, necessary for the post of Assistant. A copy of the order dated 17.10.2008 in OA No.402/2006 has also been filed which was related to Junior/Senior Translators and Translation Officers and the Tribunal in para-4 concluded as follows:-
In the light of above, on comparison of the case of the applicants to ascertain whether they are identically situated, it is seen from the impugned order that though the applicants are similarly situated, their claim has been rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order. In view of this, we are satisfied that the applicants being identically situated deserve to be extended the benefits of above judgment also. Accordingly, the OA is partly allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Applicants are entitled to the upgraded pay scales. Respondents are directed to pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of issue of this order. However, the benefit would be given to the applicants notionally from 1.1.1996 and actually from 1.2.2003. No order as to costs.
13. At Annexure-RA/1 is a copy of OM dated 15.09.2006 in which the perceived anomaly in the pay scale of Assistants/PAS in CSS/CSSS viz-a-viz Inspectors/analogous posts in Central Board of Direct Taxes/Central Board of Excise & Customs was considered. Para-2 of the OM states as under:-
2. This upgradation has been done as an exception specific to these two categories of posts. However, it has been decided that the entire issue of the pay scales of these two categories shall be referred to the Sixth Central Pay Commission who shall examine it ab initio and take a holistic view including keeping in view horizontal and vertical relativities. Therefore, DOPT may ensure that the entire issue right from its genesis (i.e. upgradation of the pay scale of Inspectors/ analogous posts in CBDT/ CBEC) with all the possible ramifications of this upgradation is referred to the Sixth Central Pay Commission for taking a holistic view. It appears from the above that the issue of upgradation of pay scale specifically was referred to the 6th Central Pay Commission for taking a holistic view.
14. It may be mentioned that by OM dated 15.09.2006 the decision to upgrade the posts of Assistants/PAs in CSS/CSSS was taken and they were upgraded and placed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. At Annexure-RA-2 is a further OM dated 25.09.2006 to the effect that the upgradation communicated vide letter OM 15.09.2006 was done as an exception specifically to Assistants of CSS and Stenographers Grade C of CSSS only. The decision so taken to upgrade the pay scales of these two posts was ad hoc and was also done as an exception. At Annexure-RA-3 is an extract of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission report. Paras 7.10.22 and 7.10.23 read as follows:
7.10.22 AFHQ Civil Services and AFHQ Stenographers Service have demanded parity with CSSS and CSS. Since the Commission has recommended parity between posts in headquarters and field offices, it is only justified that such parity also exists between similarly placed posts in different headquarter organizations. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that parity should be maintained between the posts at the level of Assistant and Section Officer in these services.
7.10.23 The demand for granting Group A status to Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service is not, however, justified and cannot be accepted.
15. It is apparent from the above that the issue of parity between AFHQ Civil Services and AFHQ Stenographers Service with CSSS and CSS was considered and based on this, the Pay Commission recommended parity between posts of headquarters and Field Offices, which was found justified and accordingly it was recommended that the parity should be maintained between the posts at the level of Assistant and Section Officer in these services. At Annexure-RA-4 is a clarification that there was no Cabinet Note for issuance of OMs dated 13.11.2009 and 16.11.2009 and that the same was approved on file. The notings in the file have been enclosed. In para-2 of the note of the Joint Secretary (Per), which was finally approved by the Honble Finance Minister, reference to the background of 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation regarding merger of the pre-revised pay scales was given and the same is reproduced below:-
2. The Sixth Pay Commission had merged the pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 and granted a common replacement pay band of PB-2 and grade pay of Rs.4200. This was primarily done with the purpose of achieving delaying in the Government as well as to grant parity in the pay scales of the Secretariat and field offices. While merging these pay scales, the Pay Commission had also recommended the following:-
Posts in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 required a degree in Engineering or in Law may be granted the higher grade pay of Rs.4600 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7450-11500.
Specific posts in a large number of common categories such as technical supervisors, Artists, Draughtsmen, Para Medical categories, etc., who were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 may also be granted grade pay of Rs.4600.
Thirdly, the Pay Commission recommended that where it was not functionally possible to merge the 3 levels, the first two levels must be merged and those in the third level of Rs.6500-10500 may be granted grade pay of Rs.4600.
(emphasis supplied)
16. These recommendations of the Pay Commission were recommended, as is further stated in the said Note. Subsequently, a large number of representations were received for placement of those posts in the pay scale of 6500-10500 in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and specifically from the category of Inspectors/Preventive Officers in the CBDT/CBEC in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- on the ground that it was not functionally possible to merge their grade pay with the lower grade of Senior Tax Assistants/Office Superintendents. Ultimately, paras 5 and 6 of the Note contained the following proposal:-
5. The upgradation of the Inspectors/Preventive Officers cannot be considered in isolation as there are demands from many other similarly placed categories. The analysis done in this regard may be seen at pages 1 to 8/N ante.
6. As bulk of the categories who were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 already stand upgraded to the grade pay of Rs.4600 in accordance with the provisions in para 2 (i) to (iii) above, after detailed consideration of the matter, it is felt that in order to meet the demand of all affected categories as well as to correct some imbalances which have crept in the structure, all those in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 may be granted the grade pay of Rs.4600. As brought out in the preceding note, this grade pay would also need to be extended to the Assistants/PAs Central Secretariat/AFHQ/IFS(B)/RBSS, in view of the traditional parity with Inspectors, even though these Assistants/PAs were in Rs.5500-9000 as on 1.1.2006 and were granted the scale of Rs.6500-10500 in September, 2006. At the same time, so as not to dilute the Pay Commissions recommendations on parity between the Secretariat and field offices, it would be necessary to introduce the grade pay of Rs.4200 in the Secretariat. The manner in which this would be introduced is proposed to be considered separately. (emphasis supplied) Ultimately, what was approved by way of para-30 of the Note of the Director reads as follows:-
30. In view of the foregoing, following is submitted for approval:-
In accordance with the provisions of para (ii) of Section 1 of Parts A and B of the first Schedule to the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 may be granted to all the posts that existed in the pre-revised scale of rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 and which were granted in the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4200/- in the pay band PB-2. Further, in accordance with the said provisions of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, in case a post already exists in the scale of Rs.7450-11500, the post being upgraded from the scale of Rs.6500-10500 will be merged with the post in the scale of Rs.7450-11500. Since provisions of Part A and Part B are being invoked, it would mean that all the posts belonging to the common categories (Part B) and all the posts existing in specific ministries/departments (Part C) will be covered by this decicion w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
In order to maintain the parity between the pay scales of Inspector CBDT/CBEC and Assistants/PAs in the Central Secretariat, it is proposed that Assistants/PAs belonging to the 4 Headquarter services may also be granted the upgraded revised pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
In order to maintain parity in the hierarchical structure of Central Secretariat and field offices as recommended by the Sixth CPC, it is felt that introduction of a level in the hierarchy of Central Secretariat between the grades of Assistants and UDCs having grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2 is necessary. The manner in which the new grade in the hierarchy of Central Secretariat is to be introduced may be decided by DOPT in consultation with Department of Expenditure. This decision may be implemented from a prospective date. (emphasis added)
17. From the afore-noted developments, it appears that based on the recommendations of the Pay Commission that where it was not functionally possible to the merge 3 levels and grant Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, a third level was introduced segregating the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500 by giving them the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-.
18. In effect, therefore, what has happened is that the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission had merged the pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 and granted a common replacement pay band of PB-2 and Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. The parity being claimed by the applicants in this case has to be seen in the light of the classification done in terms of the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission itself. The grant of higher pay scale of Rs.4600/- was on account of perceived functional difference in merger of 3 scales, which does not appear in the case of the present applicants, as they have been granted the same Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- as granted to all others consequent upon the acceptance of recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission to merge all 3 pay scales. All of them have been granted grade pay of Rs.4200/-. The functional difference is not perceptible in the case of the present applications and, therefore, they have not been granted this pay scale.
19. Applicants counsel has referred to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.17419/2009 in Civil Appeal No.1119/2013 in which, vide order dated 25.07.2013, the Honble Supreme Court in Para-4 observed as under:-
4. The respondent is a Junior Hindi Translator working in the office of Director General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics under the Commerce Ministry and he sought parity of pay with the Junior Translators who were working in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS). The Home Ministry had issued Office Memorandum dated 9.2.2003, upgrading the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators from Rs.5000-1050-8000 to Rs.5500-175-9000, which were made applicable from 11.2.2003. The respondent sought the same pay- scale but it was denied to him. It is, therefore, that he filed an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work'. The application filed by the respondent was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter, wherein amongst other things, in paragraph 9 they stated that the Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators for the Central Secretariat (CSOLS) may be applied to all subordinate offices subject to their functional requirement. However, no material whatsoever was placed before the Tribunal to show as to how the functional requirement of the concerned job in the Commerce Ministry was different from that in the Central Secretariat. Both the posts required the work of translation to be done and, therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no reason to deny parity in pay. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 618, which is a judgment granting equal pay to the drivers in Delhi Police Force as available to those in the Central Government and Delhi Administration. The petitioners herein challenged the order of the Tribunal by approaching the Calcutta High Court which dismissed the writ petition and therefore, this special leave petition.
20. On the other hand, counsel for respondents has referred to para-20 of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Hukum Chand Gupta Versus Director General, ICAR & Ors., 2014 (2) SC 199 decided on 25.09.2012, which is being reproduced below:-
20. We are also not inclined to accept the submission of the appellant that there can be no distinction in the pay scales between the employees working at Headquarters and the employees working at the institutional level. It is a matter of record that the employees working at Headquarters are governed by a completely different set of rules. Even the hierarchy of the posts and the channels of promotion are different. Also, merely because any two posts at the Headquarters and the institutional level have the same nomenclature, would not necessarily require that the pay scales on the two posts should also be the same. In our opinion, the prescription of two different pay scales would not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work. Such action would not be arbitrary or violate Articles 14, 16 and 39D of the Constitution of India. It is for the employer to categorize the posts and to prescribe the duties of each post. There cannot be any strait-jacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay scale. Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and quality of the duties performed and the responsibilities shouldered by the incumbents on different posts. Even though, the two posts may be referred to by the same name, it would not lead to the necessary inference that the posts are identical in every manner. These are matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer or the Pay Commission. Neither the Central Administrative Tribunal nor a Writ Court would normally venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts. The Tribunal or the Writ Court would lack the necessary expertise undertake the complex exercise of equation of posts or the pay scales. (emphasis supplied)
21. We have perused the two judgments. Accordingly, it is apparent that merely because the nomenclature of two posts are similar, the applicants cannot be said to be entitled to the same scale of pay. It is observed that parity in the structure of scales between the grade of Assistants and UDCs have been implemented by way of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in PB-2. The higher grade pay of Rs.4600/- in PB-2 has been granted to those posts that existed in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 01.01.2006, which had earlier been granted a normal replacement of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in the PB-2. Secondly, Parity has been maintained between the pay scales of Assistants in the Central Secretariat and in the AFHQ service by granting them an upgraded Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in PB-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The OM dated 16.11.2009 relied upon by the applicants in support of their claim nowhere provides that Assistants working in the Field Offices of Air Force should also be granted Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- as done in the case of Assistants in Central Secretariat or AFHQ. Before the 6th Central Pay Commission, Assistants in AFHQ were being given a higher pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 in Group B while Assistants in Air Force where in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 in Group A. The parity between the two scales did not exist prior to the 6th Central Pay Commission. As per the 6th Central Pay Commission grant of higher grade pay is mainly based on either functional difference or on the basis of parity between posts prior to the 6th Central Pay Commission. These issues have been duly considered by the Government while granting the grade pay in question. We, therefore, do not find it necessary to interfere with the impugned order of the respondents dated 23.08.2011 at Annexure-A/1.
22. OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/jk/