Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh Kumar Sareen vs Union Of India on 9 April, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3750/2009 New Delhi this the 9th day of April, 2010. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Chhotray, Member (A) 1. Rakesh Kumar Sareen, S/o Shri S.K. Sareen, R/o B-1/494, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058. 2. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Shri V.D. Kaushik, R/o H.No. 266, Shahbad Mohd.Pur, New Delhi-110 061. 3. N.S.N. Rao, S/o Shri N.Kameshwar Rao, R/o H.No. F-354, Sec.9, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. 4. Naresh Ahuja, S/o Shri Gopal Dass, R/o H.No. 376, Gali No. 12, Madanpuri, Gurgaon 122 001 (Haryana). 5. Radhakrishnan P.K. S/o late Shri K.C. Raman Nair, N-539, Sector-8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-22 6. Smt. Vinita Virmani, W/o Shri Subhash Virmani, R/o 150, Bannu Enclave, Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi 110 034. 7. Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Shanti Sarup, R/o H.No. 1708-A/4, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19. -Applicants. (Applicant nos. 1 to 7 are working as Private Secretaries in Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi). (By Advocate Shri Harpeet Singh) -Versus- 1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. 2. The Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi. 3. The Principal Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri A.K. Bhardwaj) O R D E R Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Private Secretaries working in the Central Administrative Tribunal by virtue of this OA have impugned respondents order dated 1.12.2009 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) whereby in consideration of the request made by the applicants for providing residential telephone facility from 29.12.2006 has been denied to them on a prescribed ceiling as per Ministry of Finance OM dated 14.11.2006.
2. Applicants, who are working as Private Secretaries (PSs) in the Tribunal are attached with Members who after the amendment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 vide Amendment carried out in 2006 are deemed to have been attached with a Member with equivalence in the service conditions with that of a High Court Judge as per Section 8 of the Administrative Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2006 promulgated on 29.12.2006. Earlier, Ministry of Finance on a reference by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in consultation with Department of Expenditure and DoP&T agreed to sanction residential telephones to the PSs of Honble Chairman and Honble Vice-Chairmen of all the Benches of the CAT, who were in the pay scale of Rs.650-1200. As a result thereof, PSs who were attached with the Vice-Chairmen have been accorded the telephone facility at residence subject to the ceiling of Rs.800/- per month.
3. On implementation of the VI Central Pay Commissions recommendations a notification dated 9.4.2009 on re-designation accorded the PS of the CAT as holder of Group A post. It is pertinent to note that the applicants are attached with Members and Chairman of the CAT and have been utilizing telephone facilities outgoing and incoming for official purposes from their residential telephones. It is an integral part and parcel of their duties as well assigned to them. It is also no more res integra that PSs attached to the Secretary in CSSS are being allowed promulgation of respondents OM dated 14.11.2006 residential telephone facility with a ceiling amount of Rs. 800/- per month, which has not been affected by the OM of Ministry of Finance dated 14.11.2006.
4. When the applicants have sought parity in pay both pre and post VI Central Pay Commissions recommendations in OA-164/2009, S.R. Dheer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 19.2.2009, it was held by the Tribunal as follows:
48. The word historical has been defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition (Revised) as belonging to or set in the past. Historical parity is the parity or equality maintained in the context of the present Original Application between the pay scales of PSs/SOs with that of their counterparts in CSS/CSSS in the wake of the recommendations by several Pay Commissions. A historical parity would be when it is established as an obligation to one who is claiming parity of pay scales with the class or category had been situated in the past at par in the equivalent pay scale with the counterparts with whom such parity is claimed. It is no more res integra as transpired from the Chart, which is not disputed by the respondents, that earlier in the cadre of Stenographers Grade C/Assistants in the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the scale of pay was Rs.1400-2600, which had been upgraded in case of CSS/CSSS to Rs. 1640-2900 by issuing an O.M. but it has not been effected in CAT. The litigation resulted in an order passed by the DOP&T in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal in OA No. 2865/1991 and CCP No. 262/1993 wherein it has been decided to grant pay scale to the counterparts CAT employees of Rs. 1640-2900 even without amending the recruitment rules. However, subsequently the rules were amended. In S.K. Sareen vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 777/1992 decided on 20.12.1999), the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 from 01.01.1986 was sought on the principle of equal pay for equal work at par with their counterparts in CSSS. When order was affirmed by the Delhi High Court on 19.04.2002 and SLP against which was also turned down, in CP 405/2003, an order was passed on 09.02.2005 upgrading the 16 posts of Private Secretaries to Principal Private Secretaries and one post of PPS to Senior Principal Private Secretary in the relevant pay scales at par with CSSS. This clearly shows that the parity in the pay scale has been maintained in the CAT relating to two categories upto the stage of Fourth CPC.
49. The only anomaly which had occurred on account of grant of pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 has been set right on a judicial dicta which holds the field and was complied with.
50. In Fifth CPC the PSs/SOs were recommended the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and also the counterparts in CSS/CSSS. However, the NFSG scale of Rs. 8000-13500 to the merged grade of A & B of PSs of CSSS has been allowed notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 03.10.2003. The applicants have raised this issue before the Ernakulam Bench where the CP converted into Misc. Application, an affidavit filed by the Government clearly indicates that the Commission has examined and recommended the issue of parity of employees of CAT with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS cadre in para 7.32.15 of the Report of the 6th Pay Commission. It is further reiterated on acceptance by the DOP&T vide letter dated 27.03.2008 where the parity, recommended by the 6th CPC in para 3.1.9 and 7.32.15 of the Report, with counterparts in CSS/CSSS has been accepted.
51. In the above view of the matter regarding the parity of pay scale in 5th CPC in the wake of an admitted fact of the historical parity between the CSS/CSSS with counterparts in CAT, a final decision is awaited for grant of NFSG grade of Rs.8000-13500 notionally and actually to the employees of the Tribunal. However, as this is not the issue before us, except reiterating in law their demand, the issue of historical parity between the PSs/SOs of CAT and on the other hand SOs/PSs of CSS/CSSS is no more res integra and once accepted by the government and recommended by 6th CPC, the aforesaid recommendations contained in paragraphs 3.1.9 and 7.32.15 having been accepted by the Government, the stand now taken by the respondents that what is applicable to the applicants in the present OA is para 3.1.14 of the recommendations of the 6th CPC is absolutely misconceived. It is pertinent to note that this para applies to non-secretariat offices and to those for whom there is no historical parity with CSS/CSSS and in favour of whom a criteria of recommendations has not been laid down in the 6th CPC recommendations. On a juxtaposition, 6th CPC while making its recommendations in para 7.32.15 as to cadre structure of higher pay scale in CAT reiterated that Assistants and Stenographers in CAT have demanded pay scales at par with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS and as the Commission has already recommended parity between the similarly placed posts in field offices and Secretariat, no separate recommendation has been made. The only logical and rationale inference to be drawn is that whatever has been recommended in para 3.1.9 is to be applied mutatis mutandis to the employees of the CAT on the condition precedent being fulfilled, which is establishment of historical parity with CSS/CSSS. The recommendations contained in para 3.1.14 of 6th CPC Report where the field organizations and non-secretariat organizations have been recommended the pay scale are not at all applicable to the employees of the CAT, as a specific recommendation made in paragraph 7.32.15 Commission having recommended parity between the similarly placed posts in field offices and secretariat the instant demand has been fulfilled. It is trite that when there is a specific recommendation made as transpired from para 3.1.9 as to parity with pay scale of CSS/CSSS structure the asterisk (*) clearly shows that even to the non-secretariat offices and organizations being carved out as an exception to the recommendations contained in para 3.1.14 is that those organizations which are not exhaustive but includes departments and organization which have had a historical parity the pay scale would be at par with CSS/CSSS. It is trite that under the principle of interpretation that in case of interpretation of a service rule, if two views are possible then the rule has to be interpreted with the practice followed in the department for long time as held in Shailendra Dania & Ors. vs. S.P. Dubey & Ors., 2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 202, a marginal note with a provision is an integral part of it and being an exception in the instant case as an asterisk (*) to para 3.1.9, the same has applicability to all field offices and non-secretariat organizations, all departments where there has been historical parity with the pay scale of their counterparts in CSS/CSSS. We cannot read para 3.1.14 in isolation of para 3.1.9 and 7.32.15 where both the recommendations having been accepted by the Government, only applying para 3.1.14 to the exclusion of 3.1.9 would amount to approbating and reprobating simultaneously, as a conscious and well taken decision when transformed into an affidavit of the Government before the Ernakulam Bench, an admission to acceptance of parity and acceptance also of established parity as a historical background leaves no doubt in our mind that there has been a historical parity of SOs/PSs in CAT with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS. They cannot now, as a contradictory stand, deny the same as it would not only be unfair but also is a misuse of their discretionary power which is to be exercised by an administrative authority judiciously after balancing all the relevant factors as ruled by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Kuldip Singh, 2004 (2) SCC 590. A discretion vested in the administrative authority is neither unfettered nor absolute. It is to be exercised in consonance with the rights of a government employee and Constitution of India. A consideration worth in law is one, which thinks over on active application of mind all the relevant consideration and factors as ruled by the Apex Court in Bhikubhai Patel (supra). As a model employer just to deprive the applicants their rights and legitimate dues without any justifiable reasons and on misreading of their CSSS Revised Pay Rules, 2008, irrelevant considerations have been grounded to deprive the applicants the requisite pay scales on established historical parity with those of their counterparts in CSS/CSSS. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of High Court in Mohinder Pal Singh (supra) and in M.V.R. Rao (supra) by a Larger Bench of this Tribunal. In this regard it is pertinent to note that this issue of parity of CAT employees with CSS/CSSS has been dealt with by this Tribunal in S.K. Sareens case (supra) which, on affirmation from the High Court, and also rejection of SLP, on implementation by the respondents not only attained finality but also is an admission to the effect by the respondents that the SOs/PSs of CAT are maintaining historical parity with those of their counterparts in CSS/CSSS. It is worthwhile to note that there is even a finding recorded that the duties and functional requirements of the CAT employees are more onerous than their counterparts in CSS/CSSS, which has not been overturned by any dicta. A judicial dicta when holds the field and the arena in which it operates, it is impermissible in law to the administrative authorities to infiltrate it as ruled by the Apex Court in Anil Rattan Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, 2001 (5) SCC 327. The Apex Court has also ruled in Dhampur Sugar Mill v. State of Uttranchal, 2007 (11) SCALE 374 that when a public authority acts with oblique motive, bad faith or takes into account extraneous or irrelevant consideration, the exercise has to be held as not in accordance with law.
52. In the above view of the matter the contention that the Government has not accepted the claim of the applicants as to the parity with CSS/CSSS is founded on a ground and justification, which has been misconceived by them and wrongly applied. Such a consideration cannot be a consideration worth in law.
53. In the matter of pay scale equation though the prerogative lies with the Government but any action taken especially when such a recommendation covers the claim of the applicants and accepted by the Government, no reasonable justification has come forth, which would deprive the applicants the grant of identical pay scale. Had there been a case where recommendations having been accepted by the Government in its discretion, the applicants would have no indefeasible right to claim the pay scale. One of the points raised is financial constraint in accord of benefits, which as a trite law, has not been found to be a valid defence by the Government, as a right of an employee cannot be defeated on this technical issue. In the matter of parity of pay scale, financial constraint cannot be a defence as ruled by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Atonomic Engery Workers Staff Union, 2005 (1) ATJ (HC) (Bombay) 92.
54. As regards opening of flood gate litigation and administrative chaos, it is held to be no ground to take away the valuable right of a person under the Constitution by the Apex Court in Coal India Ltd vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra, 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 321. In G.S. Uppal (supra), financial constraints have not been found to be good ground on established implementation of doctrine of equal pay for equal work.
55. A discriminatory and contradictory stand is antithesis to the fairness in law. As the issue of NFSG of RS.8000-13500 to the OSs in case of CBI, a non-secretariat office at par with CSS/CSSS, decision in S.C. Karmakar (supra) was affirmed by the High Court of Delhi. Even the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R&AW Department has been implemented by the Government by grant of pay scale/NFSG to the concerned SOs, by order dated 19.01.2009 and also the SOs/PSs in AFHQ were allowed the pay scale on 25.09.2008. This clearly shows that the 6th CPC recommendations in para 3.1.9 have been adhered to not only in the case of SOs/PSs of the CSS/CSSS but also in the case of SO/PSs in other Organisations, who have had historical parity. As such, exclusion of the CAT employees and not meeting out the same treatment in respect of Grade Pay without any intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is an unreasonable classification and an invidious discrimination, which cannot be countenanced in the wake of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
56. In the light of the discussions made above, issue no. (i) framed by us is answered to the extent that as in the matter of grant of pay scale there has been an unreasonableness and accepted recommendations having not been followed and applied to the applicants at par with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS, an exception has been carved out as per the trite law to interfere with the decision of the Government in judicial review by us.
As far as the issue No. (ii) is concerned, we have already concluded that the SOs/PSs of CAT have always had historical parity with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS.
Accordingly the issue no. (iii) is answered on the basis of the above observations that such an application is misconceived, misplaced and contrary to law.
57. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that the decision of the Government to deny Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2 to the PSs and SOs of the CAT initially and Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 on completion of four years service in the grade is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, since they are having established historical parity with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS and, therefore, applicants are entitled to these Pay Bands with Grade Pay. The interim order is made absolute. The difference in arrears of pay shall be disbursed to the applicants within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OA is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
5. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid decision was not assailed before the High Court of Delhi and has attained finality on implementation by the respondents.
6. Applicants have preferred representation for grant of residential telephone facility with reimbursement of bill upto the ceiling of Rs.800/- per month.
7. The Office Memorandum of Ministry of Finance dated 14.11.2006 with a subject of Facility of telephone (landline and/or mobile connection) at the residence in respect of entitled categories of Government employees has referred to Ministry of Finance OM dated 8.6.1982 regarding ceiling on number of calls allowed and on advancement in telecommunication and technology in supersession of OM of 8.6.1982, 1.1.2003, 14.1.2004 and 5.4.2004 the maximum amount to a category of officer has been specified and in para 2 of column 5 below the rank of Deputy Secretary to Govt. of India a ceiling amount of Rs.800/- per month has been specified but restricted to 25% of Group A officers below the rank of Deputy Secretary.
8. The aforesaid has been taken as a defence to deny residential telephone facilities to the applicants.
9. Learned counsel of applicants states that once as per the Amended A.T. Act, 2006 a Member is made equivalent to a High Court Judge and an erstwhile Member appointed under the Unamended A.T. Act, 1985 being equated in service conditions with that of a Secretary to the Govt. of India once parity with CSSS has been determined by the Tribunal in S.R. Dheer (supra), meeting out a differential treatment to applicants in the matter of providing residential telephone facility to them, as compared to their counterparts in CSSS amounts to unequal treatment and invidious discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10. Learned counsel would further contend that once the Ministry of Finance having taken a decision to allow PSs attached to the Vice-Chairmen the telephone facility at residence, which by virtue of an amendment the post of Vice-Chairman being substituted by Member would imply that the PSs attached with the Members under the Amended Act are also entitled on continuation of this facility of telephone at the residence.
11. Learned counsel would further contend that the order passed by the respondents applying OM dated 14.11.2006 is misconceived and as the same determines the ceiling amount but restriction of 25% is only relevant to the officers below the rank of Deputy Secretary and is not applicable to the PSs attached to the Members in the CAT. As the earlier decision of the Ministry of Finance dated 10.6.1986 when not revoked, descended or modified, the same holds the field.
12. Learned counsel would further contend that though applicants are not equating their cases with that of PSs attached to a High Court Judge as per the conditions of service of a Member under the Amended Act, 2006, yet keeping in light the fact that their counterparts in CSSS are getting this facility, non-accord is an unfair decision on the part of the respondents to deny such a facility to applicants.
13. Learned counsel states that once a facility has been accorded to the counterparts in the CSSS it is deemed to have been included as a concession or service condition when it is treated differently in the case of applicants the administrative authorities have in a way infiltrated into an arena occupied by historical parity between the PSs of CAT and CSSS, as ruled in S.R. Dheer (supra), which has attained finality on implementation.
14. Lastly, it is stated that providing of telephone facility to the applicants by restricting it to Group A officers to the extent of 25% was not even envisaged on 14.11.2006, as the applicants being PSs in the Tribunal have attained the status of Group A only from 9.4.2009. It is also stated that whereas the utility of residential telephone has reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e. to facilitate smooth functioning of the Tribunal and to attend to day-to-day work attached to the office of the Members, which cannot be avoided and in case this facility is not given, which is part and parcel of the official duties assigned to applicants, a prejudice has been caused and a recurring loss since 29.12.2006 has been suffered by the applicants.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel of respondents though not filed any reply but with the consent argued the matter. Shri A.K. Bhardwaj contends that what is permissible to the applicants in the form of residential telephone facility has to be governed by Ministry of Finance OM dated 14.11.2006, which restricts this facility to 25% of Group A officers.
16. As regards Ministry of Finance decision dated 10.6.1986, it is stated that the same may be a noting and is superseded by the subsequent decision.
17. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. Under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 any government servant holding a civil post, including the employees of the CAT, which are notified under Section 14 of the A.T. Act, 1985 if are aggrieved in any manner as to a grievance in their service, are amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Though every litigation necessarily need not be founded on an indefeasible right but some time inequality assumes a right to be redressed as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India like pay and allowances and salary are on a quantum proportion principle has assumed a Fundamental Right of equal pay for equal work. Catena of decisions form the Apex Court affirmed this right and latest in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 142.
18. When an administrative authority acts, the power is neither unfettered nor unreasonable, being creature of the statute it has to remain within four corners of the statute and act accordingly. The discretion vested is to be exercised judiciously. Fairness and reasonableness in State action is rule of law, as ruled by the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank by Chairman & Anr. v. Astamija Dash, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 673. Any administrative instruction when comes for interpretation, the interpretation which renders the same as otiose and redundant should not be applied, as ruled by the Apex Court in C.B.I. v. D.P. Singh, (2010) 1 SCC 647. It is also trite in law that in the matter of an administrative order when the latter one precedes earlier one, which is specific, shall prevail, as ruled by the Apex Court in Secretary, Govt. of Haryana v. Vidhya Sagar, (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 437.
19. It is also trite in law that an administrative order when reviewed, causing civil consequences to the concerned, it has to be preceded by an opportunity to show cause, in consonance with the principles of natural justice, as ruled by the Apex Court in Prakash Sinha v. State of Bihar, (2009) 9 SCALE 529.
20. With the above proposition of law, a brief background suggests that under the A.T. Act, 1985 before amendment there exists two-tier system, i.e., apart from Chairman of the Tribunal Vice-Chairmen and Members existed. The PSs who were attached with the Vice-Chairmen a notification was issued by the Ministry of Finance, which was in concurrence with Department of Expenditure allowed residential telephone facility to the concerned. The objection put-forth by the learned counsel of respondents that it may be an internal note cannot be sustained as the DoP&T had communicated this decision to the Tribunal on 10.6.1986. Thereafter the PSs attached with the Vice-Chairmen and Chairman have been getting this facility uninterruptedly till 2006. However, on abolition of the post of Vice-Chairman under the Unamended Act of 2006, precisely 29.12.2006 two-tier system has been discontinued and apart from Chairman there is only one nomenclature of Member, irrespective of Judicial and Administrative side or from the stream from where a Member has come in service conditions as per Section 8 has been provided all the facilities and conditions at par with a High Court Judge. The upgradation of the PS to the post of PPS has also taken place in 2009 as per the Pay Band recommended by VI CPC and PS attached with a Member in a particular Pay Band has been designated as far as classification of post is concerned as a Group A officer. However, on 14.11.2006 Ministry of Finance keeping in light their earlier OM of 8.6.1982 regarding ceiling on number of calls allowed on official account to the officers in the telephone provided at their residence with a background of modernization in the filed of telecommunication as well as advancement and with introduction of many service providers keeping in light the rationalization of expenditure with a background that the tariff rates have come down the existing instructions were reviewed which were dated 8.6.1982, 1.1.2003, 14.1.2004, 26.2.2004 and 5.4.2004. It has been decided that the existing entitlement regarding reimbursement of telephone charges of telephone facility provided to the officers with mobile phones the entitled officers of Govt. of India and Broad Band facility at home has been converged into a single facility. The ceiling in maximum amount has been made and what has been misapplied to the applicant is clause 5 whereby ceiling amount of Rs.800/- has been restricted to 25% of Group A officers below the rank of Deputy Secretary and the respondents have impliedly included the PSs as deemed coming below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India in oblivion of their own decision taken on 10.6.1986, which was neither considered for review in this OM nor was rescinded/modified or superseded. As a result thereof, the earlier decision of the Ministry of Finance and a special one concerning CAT has not been touched, according to which PSs attached to Vice-Chairmen and Chairman have been made entitled to the free residential telephone with maximum ceiling as allowed till 2006. With the promulgation of Amendment in A.T. Act on 29.12.2006 what is changed is the nomenclature of the Vice-Chairman which is substituted by a Member enjoying the erstwhile conditions insofar as Members appointed after the amendment has been carried out but the Members appointed under the erstwhile A.T. Act were enjoying the facility and service conditions at par with the Secretary to the Govt. of India whose PS has been allowed free residential telephone facility with maximum ceiling and that has not been discontinued or modified by this OM of 14.11.2006. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold that the decision of the Ministry of Finance dated 10.8.1986 concerns CAT as a special decision is in no manner in conflict with the OM of 14.11.2006, which is applicable to rest of the officers insofar as restriction of 25% to Group A officers, which does not include PSs of Members in the CAT. Accordingly, the decision holds the field and would entitle the applicants to the benefit of residential telephone facility with the maximum ceiling from 29.12.2006 onwards and shall be continued to be provided. The decision of the respondents denying the residential telephone facility to the applicants relying upon OM dated 14.11.2006 is not only misconceived, misapplied but also without application of mind. This is not fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
21. Another aspect of the matter is that when a judicial dicta holds the arena no administrative order should infiltrate into it. Undisputedly, the historical parity between the PSs of CAT and CSSS being ruled in S.R. Dheer (supra) when implemented on acceptance by the Government, including Ministry of Finance, such a facility of residential telephone when provided to the PSs in CSSS attached to the Secretary to the Govt. of India, denying the same to the applicants and treating them differently without any object sought to be achieved and distinguishing criteria is an invidious discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, hence cannot stand scrutiny of law.
22. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, OA is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to forthwith provide residential telephone facility to the PSs attached to the Members of the Tribunal with the prescribed ceiling. It goes without saying that such a facility would continue in future as well. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) /Sunil/