Delhi High Court
Suresh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 March, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: March 05, 2013
+ WP(C) 6569/2011
SURESH & ORS. .....Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.B.K.Berera, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Sunil Kumar and Mr.Rajiv
Ranjan Mishra, Advocates for R-1 to R-3.
Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates for
R-4 & R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The issue pertaining to pay-scale in which Assistants and Stenographers Grade-II working in subordinate and attached offices of the Union of India vis-à-vis Assistants and Stenographers working in the Central Secretariats and appointed through competitive examination and becoming members of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) became the bone of contention when the 3rd Central Pay Commission placed the two in different pay- scales giving reason:-
"By the very nature of work in the Secretariat, the volume of dictation and typing work was expected to be heavier than in a subordinate office, the requirement of secrecy even in civil offices of the secretariat could be WP(C) 6569/2011 Page 1 of 10 very stringent. Considering the differences in the hierarchical structures and in the type of work transacted in the Secretariat and in the subordinate offices, the Commission was not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern in respect of matters listed in the preceding paragraph."
2. Litigation ensued. Some Assistants and Stenographers working in subordinate offices under the Union obtained orders favourable to them. Some failed. Those who succeeded had their pay re- fixed in the higher pay-scale. When the 4th Central Pay Commission submitted its report, recommendation was to place Assistants and Stenographers working in the Central Secretariat in the pay-scale `1640- 2900/- and those in the non-Secretariats in the pay-scale `1400-2600/-. These pay-scales were brought into force in the year 1998 but with retrospective effect from January 01, 1986.
3. Further litigation ensued. The first judgment on the subject after 1986 rendered by the Supreme Court is reported as AIR 1988 SC 1291 Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. Pay parity was denied noting that the process of recruitment was different and nature of duties performed by Assistants and Stenographers in the Central Secretariat was onerous. Indeed, in the decisions reported as (1997) 3 SCC 568 Union of India & Anr. v. P.V.Hariharan & Anr., (1996) 11 SCC 77 State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jasmer Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 408 Alvaro Noronha Ferriera & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 243 State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Madan Mohan Sen & Ors., it has categorically been held that apart from other factors having a bearing on parity for equating posts, the nature of work in relation to volume, evaluation of duties and responsibilities had an important role to play.
WP(C) 6569/2011 Page 2 of 104. In spite of the decision of the Supreme Court in Fedaration of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers' case (supra), a number of decisions came to be pronounced by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which were upheld by the Supreme Court, and one of which was the decision dated January 19, 1996 allowing OA No.1448/1993 V.R.Panchal & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. in which Stenographers and Assistants working in subordinate offices obtained favourable verdicts requiring them to be placed in the pay-scale `1640- 2900. But some failed.
5. We find that the divergence of opinion in various judicial pronouncements up to the Supreme Court is a result of the fact that some autonomous bodies or the Central Government drew attention of the Supreme Court as also the High Courts to the fact that the 3rd and the 5th Central Pay Commission had specifically addressed themselves on the subject of parity and had found fault with the decisions which had directed that all Assistants and Stenographers be placed in the same pay- scale ignoring that even under the Central Government only Assistants inducted in the Central Secretariat Service and who work in the Central Ministries were placed in a higher pay-scale as against Assistants and Stenographers working in the subordinate offices under the Ministries. In other words, even under the Central Government, Assistants and Stenographers were being placed in the pay-scale `1400-2600/- as also in the pay-scale `1640-2900/-. Those under the Union and members of the Central Secretariat Stenographers‟ Service and working in the Ministries were placed in the pay-scale `1640-2900/- and others in the pay-scale `1400-2600/-. We additionally highlight one fact : That the Government of India had permitted autonomous bodies to pay Assistants and WP(C) 6569/2011 Page 3 of 10 Stenographers salary in the pay-scale `1640-2900/- but only for those who were working in the headquarters of the said organizations.
6. The 5th Central Pay Commission once again went into the issue and in its report, as per paras 46.31 to 46.34, discussed the subject as under:-
"46.31 The pay scale of Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Stenographers in the CSSS was revised by the Government on 31.7.1990, effective from 1.1.1986. Some of the Assistants/Crime Assistants and Stenographers Grade II working in the CBI, Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Directorate of Field Publicity filed a number of petitions before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking benefit of the orders dated 31.7.90. Rejecting the contention of the Union of India that Stenographers Grade II and Assistants in the non-Secretariat offices could not be compared with Stenographers Grade „C‟ of CSSS and Assistants of CSS because of the different classification, method of recruitment, nature of duties and responsibilities and eligibility for promotion to higher grade, the CAT directed the UOI to place the petitioners in the pay scale of `1640- 2900. The judgment of the CAT has been implemented.
46.32 The comparative position of Stenographers in the Secretariat and offices outside the Secretariat as it existed at the time of constitution of the Fifth CPC is as under:-
Secretariat Non-Secretariat
a) Stenographer Grade D a) Stenographer Gr.III
(`1200-2040) (`1200 - 2040)
b) Stenographer Grade C b) Stenographer Gr.II
(`1640-2900) (`1400-2300)
(`1400-2600)
WP(C) 6569/2011 Page 4 of 10
(`1640-2900)
c) Stenographers Grades c) Stenographer Gr.I
„A‟ & „B‟ (Merged) (`1640-2900)
(`2000-3500)
d) Principal Private d) Senior Personal
Secretary Assistant
(`3000-4500) (`2000-3200)
e) Private Secretary
(`2000-3500)
f) Principal Private
Secretary
(`3000-4500)
46.33 Associations representing stenographers
have urged before us that there should be complete parity between stenographers in non-secretariat offices and in the Secretariat in matters relating to (a) pay scales, (b) designations, (c) cadre structure, (d) promotion avenues, (e) level of stenographic assistance to officers in technical, scientific and research organizations, etc. Suggestions have also been made for a higher pay scale for stenographers in the entry grade, treating advance increments granted for acquiring proficiency in stenography at higher speed as pay, allowing stenographers in non- Secretariat offices to compete in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), and grant of Special Pay for operating computers, fax machines, etc. 46.34 We have given our careful consideration to the suggestions made by Associations representing stenographers in offices outside the Secretariat in the light of observations made by the Third CPC. The Commission had observed that as a general statement, WP(C) 6569/2011 Page 5 of 10 it was correct to say that the basic nature of a stenographer‟s work remained by and large the same whether he was working with an officer in Secretariat or with an officer in a subordinate office. The Commission was of the considered view that the size of the stenographer‟s job was very much dependent upon the nature of work entrusted to that officer and that it would not be correct, therefore, to go merely by the status in disregard of the functional requirement. By the very nature of work in the Secretariat, the volume of dictation and typing work was expected to be heavier than in a subordinate office, the requirement of secrecy even in civil offices of the secretariat could be very stringent. Considering the differences in the hierarchical structures and in the type of work transacted in the Secretariat and in the subordinate offices, the Commission was not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern in respect of matters listed in the preceding paragraph. To our mind, the observations of the Third CPC are as relevant today as they were at that point of time and we are not inclined to overlook them totally. In view of the above mentioned distinguishable features, we do not concede the demand for absolute parity in regard to pay scales between stenographers in offices outside the Secretariat and in the secretariat notwithstanding the fact that some petitioner stenographers Grade II have got the benefit of parity in pay scale through Courts. However, pursuing the policy enunciated by the Second CPC that disparity in the pay scale prescribed for stenographers in the secretariat and the non- secretariat organizations should be reduced as far as possible, we are of the view that Stenographers Grade II should be placed in the existing pay scale of `1600- 2600 instead of `1400-2300/`1400-2600. The next available grade of stenographers in non-Secretariat offices is `1640-2900 (Grade I). We do not recommend any change in the existing pay scale of Stenographers Grade I. Senior Personal Assistants and Private Secretaries are at present in the pay scale WP(C) 6569/2011 Page 6 of 10 of `2000-3000 and `2000-3500 respectively. Giving the Senior PAs the benefit of rationalization of pay scales, we recommend that both Sr.PAs and Private Secretaries should be placed in the pay scale of `2000-3500 and known as Private Secretaries. Stenographers in the newly recommended grade of `2500-4000 should be known as Senior Private Secretaries and those in the pay scale of `3000-4500 shall continue to be known as Principal Private Secretaries."
7. A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs and in particular paragraph 46.34 of the report would bring out that a lower and a higher pay-scale for Stenographers and Assistants, working in the Secretariat of the Union and working elsewhere, was considered by the 3 rd Central Pay Commission which had brought out that as a general statement, it was correct to say that the basic nature of a Stenographer‟s and Assistant‟s work remained by and large the same whether he was working with an officer in Secretariat or with an officer in a subordinate office. But the Commission was of the considered view that the size of the Assistant‟s and Stenographer‟s job was very much dependent upon the nature of work entrusted to that officer and that it would not be correct, therefore, to go merely by the status in disregard of the functional requirement. By the very nature of work in the Secretariat, the volume of dictation and typing work for Stenographers and clerical work for Assistants was expected to be heavier than in a subordinate office, the requirement of secrecy even in civil offices of the secretariat could be very stringent. Considering the differences in the hierarchical structures and in the type of work transacted in the Secretariat and in the subordinate offices, the Commission was not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern pertaining to the pay-scales.
WP(C) 6569/2011 Page 7 of 108. Now, where an Expert Body has considered the matter and recorded reasons which are prima-facie supported with objective facts, a Court would be no place to opine to the contrary.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the impugned decision dated July 06, 2011 passed by the Tribunal has overlooked the decision dated January 19, 1996 passed by the Tribunal in V.R.Panchal‟s case (supra) against which Leave to Appeal was refused by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel would urge that when on an earlier occasion vide order dated July 17, 2006 the Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed OA No.218/2005 filed by the writ petitioners, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated July 22, 2010 had allowed WP(C) No.386/2007 filed by the writ petitioners and had remanded the matter to the Tribunal for re-adjudication with a specific direction that the decision in V.R.Panchal‟s case (supra) pronounced by the Tribunal on January 19, 1996 would be kept in mind.
10. We find that in the impugned decision dated July 06, 2011 the Tribunal has noted the decision in V.R.Panchal‟s case (supra), but the same has not been distinguished, and for which the grievance of the petitioner would be only technical for the reason we find that not only different Benches of the Tribunal, but even of various High Courts, including this Court as also the Supreme Court have rendered contrary opinions on the same subject i.e. of Stenographers and Assistants working in subordinate offices under the Union being entitled to same wages as are received by their counterparts in the Central Secretariat.
11. We have noted one decision herein above where parity was declined being the decision reported as AIR 1988 SC 1291 Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) & WP(C) 6569/2011 Page 8 of 10 Ors. v. UOI & Ors. and would note one such decision where parity was allowed being the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2010 (14) SCC 323 Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors. v. National Institute of Education Planning and Administration & Ors. where-under the Supreme Court directed placement of Assistants in the National Institute of Education Planning and Administration in the pay-scale of `1640-2900/- on the principle of parity noting similar benefit granted under various judicial opinions to Assistants working in various autonomous organizations.
12. But we once again highlight that the reason for the divergence is that some decisions have noted the fact that the 3 rd and the 5th Central Pay Commissions specifically went into the issue and probably for the reason before some Benches said fact was not brought to the notice of the members of the Benches, a contra opinion was pronounced.
13. We have noted herein above that opinions of expert bodies has not to be lightly interfered with.
14. Thus, we conclude that the petitioners have no case notwithstanding they being armed with a plethora of opinions, some even pronounced by the Supreme Court in their favour, because of the reason the opinions which favour the petitioners have not considered the fact that the differential pay-scale existed since the recommendations of the 3rd Central Pay Commission which had given good reasons and that even the 5th Central Pay Commission had gone into the issue; regretfully for the reason the attention of the Courts was not drawn to the deliberations of the two Central Pay Commissions and we have contrary views where the opinion of the two Central Pay Commissions was noted.
WP(C) 6569/2011 Page 9 of 1015. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE MARCH 05, 2013 dk WP(C) 6569/2011 Page 10 of 10