Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yash Pal Singh vs Union Of India Through on 20 December, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.917/2011 With O.A. No. 2726/2011 Order reserved on: 29.10.2013 Order pronounced on: 20.12.2013 Honble Shri George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) OA No.917/2011 1. Yash Pal Singh Aged about 51 years S/o Shri M.P. Singh R/o H.No.938, Sector-7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 2. Mrs.Kavita Devi aged about 36 years D/o Shri Sukhbir Singh R/o H.No.350, Khera Khurd, Delhi. 3. G.C. Rudola, aged about 52 years S/o Late Shri N.D. Rudola R/o H.No.76, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi. 4. Praveen Kumar, aged about 43 years S/o Late Shri N.D. Bhardwaj R/o B-104 Gali No.6, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053. 5. Prakash Sinha, aged about 35 years S/o Shri Achal Deo Prasad R/o 5/770 (F-1), Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP-201012. 6. Shailesh Kumar Singh, aged about 37 years S/o Late Shri Yogender Singh R/o H.No.5-A, S.D. Vihar 23, Suraj Kund, Faridabad, Haryana. .Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Nilansh Gaur) Versus Union of India through 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department, Vidhi Sahitya Prakash, I.L.I. Building, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, South Block, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi. ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Hilal Haider) OA 2726/2011 1. Sanjay Kumar Prajapati Aged about 36 years, S/o Shri Ram Chandra Prajapati, R/o B-181/C-2, Shalimar Garden, Extn.2, Sahibabad Ghaziabad (UP). 2. Smt. Madhu Jasoria Aged about 37 years W/o Shri Ravi Dutt Jasoria R/o WZ-69/1A, Meenakshi Garden, Near PS Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. 3. Pardeep Kumar Aged about 43 years S/o Late Shri Suresh Jain R/o H.No. 14/439, Gali No.2, Dayananad Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. 4. Prem Shankar Prasad Aged about 43 years S/o Late Shri Radha Prasad R/o D-151/A1, Krishna Park, Khanpur, New Delhi-110062. 5. Smt. Sunita Aged about 42years W/o Shri Shyam Sunder R/o 30 Triveni Apartments, H-3, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. 6. Smt. Renu Bala Dhawan Aged about 46 years S/o Shri Sanjeev Dhawan R/o H.No.2587, Sector-16, Faridabad, Haryana. 7. K. Ramakrishna Aged about 41 years, S/o Shir S. Kanakaraj R/o 10/6, Block-2, New Minto Road Hostel, Minto Road Complex, New Delhi-02. 8. Shailesh J. Ganatra Aged about 34 years S/o Shri Jay Singh N. Ganatra R/o H-431, Sarojani Nagar, New Delhi-23. 9. Sibungsu Datta Aged about 37 years S/o Late Shri Gopesh Chandra Datta R/o 64, Block-2, New Minto Road Hostel, Minto Road Complex, New Delhi-02. 10. M.R. Dhakshinamoorthy Aged about 36 years S/o M.R. Ramarathinam R/o 8/7, Block-2, New Minto Road Hostel, Minto Road Complex, New Delhi-02. 11. Smt. Sulochana Das, Aged about 32 years W/o Shri Jayakrushan R/o H-431, Sarojani Nagar, New Delhi-23. 12. P. Ajayan Aged about 33 years S/o Late Shri P.V. Vijan R/o 17, B.R. Mehta Lane, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-01. Applicants (By Advocate: Shri Nilansh Gaur) Versus 1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department, 4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-01. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi. ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Rajesh Katyal) ORDER
By Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) Issue involved in both these OAs is the same and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Applicants No.1 to 4 in OA 917/2011 were appointed as Bilingual Stenographers (Hindi-cum-English)(HCE for short) and Applicants No.5 and 6 were appointed as Hindi stenographers in Vidhi Sahitaya Prakashan (VSP for short) under Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice. Except Applicant no.3, all others have been appointed in the VSP initially on deputation basis and later on they were absorbed there. Applicant No.3 has been appointed on direct recruitment basis through SSC. Applicants No.1 to 5 in OA 2726/2011, have been appointed as Stenographers/Personal Assistants (PAs for short) (Hindi) in the Official Language Wing (OLW for short) also under Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice. Applicants No.6 to 12 have been appointed as PAs in different Regional Languages in the OLW. All of them are seeking Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- with arrears with effect from 1.1.2006 on the ground of historical parity with PAs of Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS for short). The representations of the Applications in OA No.917/2011 was considered by the Respondents but the same was rejected vide the Annexure A-1 Office Memorandum of Respondent No.2 dated 10.02.2011 on the ground that in the cases of Assistants and PAs belonging to CSSS, AFHQs, IFS(B) and RBSS there is an element of direct recruitment but same is not in the case of PAs/Stenographers (Hindi) in VSP. The relevant part of the said Memorandum reads as under:-
In connection to the representations, received from Personal Assistants/Stenographers (Hindi) of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice with regard to the above mentioned subject, a proposal was sent to the E.III B Branch, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance in consultation with IF Division of Legislative Department.
Department of Expenditure, after examining the said proposal to extend Grade pay of Rs.4600/- to the Personal Assistants/Stenographers (Hindi) of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan did not agree with the proposal. They have expressed the view that it has been decided to extend the pay structure of GP of Rs.4600/- PB-2 to Assistants belonging to CSS, AFHQS, IFS (B) & RBSS and PAs in their counter-parts stenographer services w.e.f. 1.1.2006, taking into account that there is an element of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant and PA of Central Secretariat and that through an All India Competitive Examination and the post of PA/Stenographer (Hindi) in VSP does not belong to such secretariat service, therefore, the benefit of this department OM dated 16.11.2009 cannot be extended to them.
Similarly, the representations of the Applicants in OA No.2726/2011 have been rejected by the Respondent No.2 vide its Note dated 07.12.2010 and its relevant part is reproduced as under:-
With reference to representations dated 6th January, 2010 made by Personal Assistants (Bilingual) in the Official Languages Wing for upgradation of the Grade Pay of the post of Personal Assistants (Bilingual) in the O.L. Wing of this Department from Rs.4200/- to Rs.4600/- at par with Assistants/Stenographers of CSS/CSSS, they are informed that their representations have been examined by this Department in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and it is regretted that it has not been found feasible to accede to their request.
2. Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) has observed that vide their OM No.1/1/2008-IC dated 16.11.2009, the Assistants/Stenographers of CSS/CSSS have been placed in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and this dispensation has been extended to Assistants/Stenographers of CSS/CSSS, AFHQS, IFS (B) and RBSS. However, as the post of Personal Assistants (Bilingual) in the Official Languages Wing does not belong to such secretariat services/headquarter, the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- cannot be extended to them.
3. For the purpose of disposal of these cases, OA No.917/2011 has been taken as the lead case. The VSP came into existence under the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice in the year 1967. It was created for the purpose of translation of judgments in English to Hindi and vice versa of Honble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Prior to 1999, the nomenclature of the post held by the Applicants was Stenographers (HCE) and they were appointed in the pay scale of Rs.425-700. However, later on, they were brought at par with Stenographers Grade C in the CSSS with effect from 1.4.1976 and granted the pay scale of Rs.425-800. The Stenographers Grade C are recruited through Staff Selection Commission (SSC for short) and later on they were designated as PAs. The Government of India turned down the request of the Applicants for their inclusion in CSSS. The pay scale attached to Grade C/PA of the CSSS was in the scale of Rs.1400-2600. However, the Assistants in Central Secretariat Service (CSS for short) has been claiming the higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 and this Tribunal vide order dated 23.05.1989 in OA No. 1538/1987 directed the Government to grant the said scale. Accordingly, the Department of Personnel and Training vide its OM No.2/1/90-CS.IV dated 31.07.1990, prescribed the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.425-800 (revised scale of Rs.1640-2900) for duty posts included in the Assistant Grade of CSS and Grade C Stenographers of CSSS w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The same revised pay scale was also made applicable to Assistants and Stenographers in other organizations like Ministry of External Affairs which are not participating in the CSS and CSSS but the posts there are in comparable grades with same classification and pay scales and the method of recruitment was through Open Competitive Examination. The relevant part of the said OM dated 31.07.1990 reads as under:-
The undersigned is directed to say that the question regarding revision of scale of pay for the post of Assistants in the Central Secretariat etc. has been under consideration of the Government in terms of order dated 23rd May, 1989 in OA No.1538/1987 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for some time past. The President is now pleased to prescribe the revised scale of Rs.1640-60-2800-EB-75-2900 for the pre-revised scale of Rs.425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-800 for duty posts included in the Assistant Grade of Central Secretariat Service and Grade C Stenographers of Central Secretariat Stenographers Service with effect from 01.01.1986. The same revised scale will also be applicable to Assistants and Stenographers in other Organisations like Ministry of External Affairs which are not participating in the Central Secretariat Service and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service but where the posts are in comparable grades with same classification and pay scales and the method of recruitment through Open Competitive Examination is also the same.
4. Thereafter, the Bilingual Stenographers of VSP approached this Tribunal in OA No.758/1989 for grant of parity in pay scale of Stenographers of CSSS. This Tribunal, vide order dated 16.3.1994, allowed the aforesaid OA by granting the pay scale to the Stenographers (HCE) of VSP w.e.f. 10.12.1993. While so directing, the Tribunal took into consideration of the recommendation of 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC for short). The proposal before the Commission was to form a separate service of Bilingual Stenographers on the lines of CSSS. As the strength of Bilingual Stenographers was comparatively smaller, the Commission recommended for its inclusion in the CSSS with an allowance of Rs.50/-. Though the said recommendation was not sparingly accepted by the Government of India, they were also granted the same pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. However, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Commission that the revised pay scales shall apply to all posts other than those for which specific recommendations have been made. This Tribunal has also held that it was implicit in the recommendations of the Commissions and it was also implicit in the acceptance of the same by the Government in so far as the same relate to the Bilingual Stenographers that they (Bilingual Stenographers) would be paid the same emoluments which are being paid in the Stenographers Grade C of the CSSS in praesenti and in futuro. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
7. The question to be decided in this original application is whether the applicants are entitled, as of right, to be given the pay scale as claimed by them. For examining this question, we have to revert to the recommendations of the Commission. If we find that such recommendations had been made, then the second step would be to find out as to what was actually accepted by the Government vis-`-vis the Bilingual Stenographers. We have already extracted paragraphs 10.335 and 10.336 of the recommendations of the Commission. The Commission outright rejected the proposal of the Bilingual Stenographers that a separate service for them on the lines of CSSS may be carved out. However, the Commission recommended that the Bilingual Stenographers may be included in the CSSS with an allowance of Rs.50/- per month for tested proficiency in each additional language. Reading the recommendation as contained in para 10.336 again and again we cannot get away from the conclusion that other matters apart, the Commission clearly had in its mind that the Bilingual Stenographers should be placed at par with the Stenographers should be placed at par with the Stenographers of the CSSS in so far as the payment of emoluments was concerned. The Commission also recommended an additional allowance of Rs.50 per month for tested proficiency in each additional language. It is the respondents own case that as a consequence of the acceptance of the recommendations of the Commission, the Bilingual Stenographers were given the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 as in the case of Stenographers of the CSSS. We have already indicated that the Government accepted the recommendation of the Commission that the revised pay scales shall apply to all posts other than those for which specific recommendations have been made in Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 27. The specific recommendations made by the Commission in Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 27 in regard to revised scales of certain posts or categories of staff, were accepted by the Government subject to certain changes in the pay scales of police personnel. This acceptance was acted upon as, admittedly, the Bilingual Stenographers were given the revised pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. Further, the recommendation was acted upon by giving to the Bilingual Stenographers a special allowance of Rs.50/- per month. It is implicit in the recommendations of the Commission and it is also implicit in the acceptance of the same by the Government in so far as the same relate to the Bilingual Stenogrpahers that they (Bilingual Stenographers) would be paid the same emoluments which are being paid to the Stenographers Grade C of the CSSS in praenseti and in futuro. We have, therefore, no hesitation in recording the finding that the respondents are acting arbitrarily in withholding the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from the applicants.
5. The Applicants aggrieved by the non-extension of benefit of revised pay scale with their counter parts in CSSS w.e.f. 01.01.1986 itself approached the Honble Supreme Court against the aforesaid order of this Tribunal vide Civil Appeal No.8348/1995. The Supreme Court considered the aforesaid findings of this Tribunal that it is implicit in the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission and the acceptance of the same by the Government, in so far as the same relates to Bilingual Stenographers, that they would be paid the same emoluments which are being paid to Stenographers Grade C of the CSSC in praesenti and in futuro and that the respondents were acting arbitrarily in withholding the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from the Applicant. Thereafter, the Supreme Court allowed the said CA and directed the Respondents to fix the pay of the Applicants notionally with effect from 1.1.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 at par with Stenographers of CSSS. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
The only contention that has been raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals is that the Tribunal was in error in not extending the benefit of notional fixation in the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from January 1, 1986. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the said contention must be accepted. The Tribunal has found that the Bilingual Stenographers have been paid the same emoluments which are being paid to the Stenographers Grace C of the CSSS and that the respondents in withholding the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from the appellants were acting arbitrarily. In the circumstances, the claim of the appellants for notional fixation in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from January 1, 1986 cannot be held to be unjustified especially when the benefit of the said scale had been extended to Stenographers Grade C of the CSSS with effect from January 1, 1986 by order dated July 31,1990. It is, therefore, directed that the appellants should notionally be placed in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from January 1, 1986 and, as a result of such placement, their pay as on December 10, 1993 should be revised on that basis and arrears found payable on the basis of such revision should be paid to them within three month. The impugned orders of the Tribunal are modified accordingly and the appeals are partly allowed to this extent. No orders as to costs.
6. The Respondent No.1 amended the VSP (Group C) Recruitment Rules in the year 1998 whereby the nomenclature of the post was modified to that of Stenographers (Hindi) but the essential and desirable qualifications required for the posts as existed in the earlier RRs were retained. However, the Stenographers appointed earlier were allowed to discharge the stenographic bilingual duties. The Respondent No.1 carried out another amendment in the VSP (Group C posts) Recruitment Rules in the year 2005 introducing an element of direct recruitment in the mode of appointment as a failing which clause. The Respondent No.1 has also vide its Office Order dated 27.01.2006 changed the nomenclature of the posts of Stenographers of VSP as Personal Assistants without any kind of change in nature of duties or scale of pay attached to the post.
7. Consequent upon the recommendations of the 5th CPC, Stenographers (HCE) in VSP were placed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 + Rs.100/- as a special pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Stenographers of Grade C of CSSS were also placed in the same pay scale on the recommendations of the 5th CPC. The Government of India, vide its OMs dated 15.09.2006 and 25.09.2006, upgraded the pay scale of Steno Grade C of CSS and CSSS from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500. The Applicants, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court dated 09.10.2006 and directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.758/1989 (supra), having an established historical parity with the Stenographers Grade C (PA) of CSSS and its continuance in praesenti and in futuro as observed by the judicial fora, preferred representations to the Respondents claiming the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 15.09.2006. As no response was received from the Respondents, they filed OA No.590/2008 seeking parity in the pay scale. The said OA was dismissed in limine vide order dated 26.03.2008 by this Tribunal giving liberty to seek remedy if their grievance is not satisfied after the recommendations of the 6th CPC.
8. The 6th CPC, vide its recommendations, placed the Stenographers Grade C of CSSS in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4200. The Applicants were also placed similarly with an additional special allowance of Rs.200/- for additional language w.e.f. 01.0.2006. Thus, the 6th CPC also maintained the historical parity with CSSS. Consequent upon the demand for higher Grade Pay, the Government of India vide its OM dated 16.11.2009 decided to grant the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to the Stenographers Grade C in CSSS and to Assistants in CSS because an element of direct recruitment was attached to the post. As a result, PA/Stenographers of CSSS were brought to the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the Pay Band-2 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide OM dated 16.11.2009. The said OM reads as under:-
F.No.1/1/2008-IC Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure Implementation Cell New Delhi, dated the 16th November, 2009 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Grant of pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 to Assistants and Personal Assistants of Central Secretariat Service, Armed Forces Headquarter Service, Indian Foreign Service B and Railway Board Secretariat Service and their counterpart Stenographer Services.
Consequent upon the Notification of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, Department of Expenditure received a large number of references from administrative ministries/departments proposing upgradation of the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.12006 by granting them gradepay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2. After considering the matter, vide O.M. of even number dated 13th November, 2009, the Government has approved grant of the pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 to posts that existed in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2. Separately, the Government also received references from various sections regarding upgradation of the grade pay of Assistants in the Central Secretariat. After considering the matter, it has been decided to extend the pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 to Assistants belonging to Central Secretariat Service, Armed Forces Headquarter Service, Indian Foreign Service B and Railway Board Secretariat Service and Personal Assistants (Pas) in their counterpart Stenographer Services w.e.f.1.1.2006.
2. Consequent upon the above upgradation, the pay of the above category of Government servants will be fixed again in accordance with illustration 4A annexed to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. As a result of refixation of pay, in case a Government servant desires to revise his earlier option for coming over to the revised pay structure, he may be permitted to do so without making any reference to this Department.
3. On account of pay fixation in the revised pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2, arrears of pay will be recalculated and difference of arrears in respect of the entire amount will be paid immediately. The matter of drawal of arrears has already been indicated in this Departments O.M. of even number dated 20.8.2008.
4. While considering the case of granting upgraded grade pay of Rs.4600 to Assistants and Pas in the Central Secretariat, it is noted that Sixth Pay Commission had recommended parity in terms of hierarchical structure of Office Staff in Field and Secretariat offices upto the level of Assistants and this recommendation had been accepted by the Government. However, one of the reasons due to which Assistants of Central Secretariat are being granted grade of Rs.4600 is the fact that there is an element of direct recruitment to the post and that too, through an All-India Competitive Examination. With the issue of this Departments O.M. of even number dated 13th November, 2009, the grade pay of Rs.4600 has already been introduced in the case of Office Staff in Field Offices. As far as Central Secretariat is concerned, in order to continue to maintain parity between Field and Secretariat offices, introduction of a level in the hierarchy of Central Secretariat having grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2 between the grades of Upper Division Clerks and Assistants is necessary.
5. The manner in which the new grade in the hierarchy of Central Secretariat should be introduced may be decided by DOPT in consultation with Department of Expenditure. Introduction of this new grade in the hierarchy will be applicable in the case of all the four Headquarter Services viz. Central Secretariat Service, Armed Forces Headquarter Service, Indian Foreign Service B and Railway Board Secretariat Service and their counterpart Stenographer Services. The decision to introduce the new grade in the hierarchy of Central Secretariat Service will be implemented from a prospective date.
Sd/-
(Alok Saxena) Director To Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training (Shri Shantanu Consul), North Block, New Delhi.
9. Though the historical party in VSP and their counter parts in CSSS was being maintained throughout, yet it was disturbed in contravention of the decision of the Supreme Court on the basis of the aforesaid OM dated 16.11.2009. Applicants represented against the same requesting for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006. However, as stated earlier, by the impugned Annexure A-1 Office Memorandum dated 10.02.2011 (supra), the Ministry of Law and Justice turned down their proposal on the ground that the post of PA/Stenographer (Hindi) in VSP does not belong to such secretariat service, i.e., CSSS wherein there is an element of direct recruitment.
10. According to the Applicants the aforesaid decision of the Ministry of Finance is illegal and wrong as the historical parity in the pay scale of Stenographers (HCE)/PA of VSP and Stenographers Grade C/PA of CSSS has been maintained since IIIrd CPC. The aforesaid facts has also been accepted by this Tribunal in OA No.758/1989 (supra) as well as the Apex Court in CA No.8384/1995 (supra). They have also stated that the ground of element of direct recruitment on which the Ministry of Finance have rejected their case is absolutely wrong as the said ground has already been considered by this Tribunal as well as the Apex Court and it has been overruled. Therefore, they cannot raise that ground again to deny benefits to the Applicants. The historical parity maintained throughout was disturbed by the Respondents vide orders dated 25.09.2006 and 16.11.2009 on the ground which have not been found favour by this Tribunal and the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and no new grounds have been taken by the Respondents to deny pay parity to the Applicants.
11. The learned counsel for the Applicants has also relied upon this Tribunals order dated 19.02.2009 in OA No. 164/2009 S.R. Dheer and Others Vs. U.O.I. & Others wherein the concept of historical parity has been considered. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
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.
12. The Honble High Court of Delhi also in Writ Petition ( C) No.3349/2010 in Union of India Vs. V.K. Sharma & Others decided on 15.05.2010 maintained and reiterated the aforesaid legal position. The Respondents case was that the Government vide order dated 13.11,2003 granted non-functional pay scale of Rs 8000-13500 to the Section Officers (SOs) of the Central Secretariat Staff (CSS) with effect from 01.01.1996 notionally and with all financial benefits w.e.f 03.10.2003. In so far as Section Officers (SOs) of ICAR HQ were concerned, out of 51 eligible SOs, 33 were allowed the non-functional pay scale of Rs 8000-13500 exactly in the same manner as for CSS. When the proposal for remaining 18 SOs was processed, the Ministry of Finance raised objections stating that the non-functional pay scale was meant only for CSS. In the result, those SOs working in ICAR HQ who were drawing non-functional pay scale when retired, did not get pensionary benefits in that non-functional pay scale. Further, others also did not get the non-functional payscale. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
7. However, the Tribunal after considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties observed that though the implementation of equal pay for equal work is the domain of the expert body like Pay Commission yet judicial review is not altogether excluded. However, the SOs post of ICAR HQ are similar to the post of SOs in the CSS, as also the functions discharged by the SOs of both ICAR and CSS were similar. Hence when the work is equal, the equal pay for equal work does arise. In this regard, the Tribunal relies upon the extracts of the relevant Government order, i.e.:
Recommendation No.03.01.09 of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (Pages 65-66) 3.1.9 Accordingly, the Commission recommends upgradation of the entry scale of Section Officers in all Secretariat Services (including CSS as well as non participating ministries/departments/organizations) to Rs. 7500-12000 corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4800. Further, on par with the dispensation already available in CSS, the Section Officers in other Secretariat Offices, which have already had an established parity with CSS/CSSS, shall be extended the scale of Rs. 8000-13500 in Group B corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4800 on completion of four years service in the lower grade. This will ensure full parity between all Secretariat Offices. It is clarified that the pay band PB 2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4800 is being recommended for the post of Section Officer in these services solely to maintain the existing relativities which were disturbed when the scale was extended only to the Section Officers in CSS. The grade carrying grade pay of Rs. 4800 in pay band PB-2 is , otherwise, not to be treated as a regular grade and should not be extended to any other category of employees. These recommendations shall apply mutatis-mutandis to post of Private Secretary/equivalent in these services as well. The structure of posts in Secretariat Offices would now be as under:-
Post Pre revised scale Corresponding revised pay band and grade pay LDC Rs.3050-4500 PB-1 of Rs.4860-20200 along with grade pay of Rs.1900 UDC Rs. 4000-6000 PB-1 of Rs. 4860-20200 along with grade pay of Rs. 2400 Assistant Rs. 6500-10500 PB-2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4200 Section Officer Rs. 7500-12000 Rs. 8000-13500* (on completion of four years) PB-2 of Rs. 4700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4800 PB-2 of Rs. 8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 5400* (on completion of four years) Under Secretary Rs. 10000-15200 PB-3 of Rs. 15600-39100 along with grade pay of Rs. 6600 Director Rs. 14300-18300 PB-3 of Rs. 15600-39100 along with grade pay of Rs. 7600 *This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS /RBSS and Ministerial/ Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments organizations like MEA, Ministry of parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would therefore be covered. II. Section II of part B on the revised pay scales for certain common categories of staff notified in the Gazette of India on 29.08.2008. (pages 68-69) Sl.No. Post Present Scale Revised Scale Corresponding Pay Band & grade Pay (In Rupees) Para NO. of the report Pay Band Grade Pay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I Office staff in the Secretariat*
1. Section Officer/PS/ Equivalent 6500-10500 7500-12000, 8000-13500 (On completion of four years PB-2 PB-3 4800 5400 (on completion of 4 years) 3.1.9 (Modified by Govt.) *This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments organizations like MEA, Ministry of parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would therefore be covered. III. Para 2 (i) of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell U.O. No. 7.1/1/2008-IC dated 30.10.2008.(Page-70) Department of Agricultural Research & Education may please refer their file No. 7 (28)/2008-Estt. I regarding the subject cited above.
2. The proposal of the administrative department has been considered in this Department. The proposal is concurred with subject to the following modifications which are in consonance with the pay scales granted by the Government to various common category posts in the Central Government:- (i) Government has approved the following pay structure for Assistants and Section Officers in the Central Secretariat and the same may be extended to Assistants/Pas and Section Officers/Private Secretaries in the ICAR Headquarters only:-
Post Pre revised scale Corresponding revised pay band and grade pay Assistant/Personal Assistant Rs.6500-10500 PB-2 of Rs. 9300-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4200 Section Officer/ Private Secretary Rs. 7500-12000 Rs. 8000-13500 (on completion of four years) PB-2 of Rs. 9300-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4200 PB-3 of Rs. 15600-39100 along with grade pay of Rs. 5400 (on completion of four years) IV. Office Memorandum F.No. 7 (28)/2008-Estt. I dated November 7, 2008.(Page 72) The undersigned is directed to state that in pursuance of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure_s O.M. No. 7/23//2008-E.III (A) dated 7.10.2008, the applicability of Part B of the First Schedule to the CCS ( Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 in ICAR was examined by a Group of Officers constituted vide Council_s O.O. No. 7 (28)/2008-Estt.I dated 3.10.2008. The recommendations of the Group of Officers was accordingly referred to the Ministry of Finance for soliciting their approval. In this regard, the Ministry of Finance vide their U.O. No. 7.1/1/2008-IC dated 30.10.2008 has approved that the pay structure for Assistants and Section Officers in the Central Secretariat may be extended to the Assistants/ Personal Assistants and Section Officers/ Private Secretaries in Indian Council of Agricultural Research Hqrs. as follows:
Post Pre revised scale Corresponding revised pay band and grade pay Assistant/Personal Assistant Rs.6500-10500 PB-2 of Rs. 9300-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4200 Section Officer/ Private Rs. 7500-12000 Rs. 8000-13500 PB-2 of Rs. 9300-34800 along with grade pay of Rs. 4200 PB-3 of Rs. 15600-39100 along Secretary (on completion of four years) with grade pay of Rs. 5400 (on completion of four years) * As applicable and implemented in the Central Secretariat. 8. Thereafter the analysis of the Tribunal revealed that (i) there had been an established parity? of the Section Officers in other Secretariat offices with the SOs of CSS/CSSS; (ii) The pre-revised pay scale for other Secretariat offices had been acknowledged by the 6th CPC and the main pay scale for Section Officers, had been shown as Rs.7500-12000, and non-functional pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 ( On completion of four years); (iii) The non-functional pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 shall be available only in such of those organizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS?; (iv) The Ministry of Finance in its U.O. No.7.1/1/2008-IC dated 30.10.2008, while approving the proposal of ICAR for the 6th CPC recommendations has acknowledged Rs.8000-13500 ( on completion of 4 years) as the pre revised non-functional pay scale for SOs/PS and (v) The PB-3 of Rs. 15600-39100 along with- Grade pay of Rs.5400 ( On completion of 4 years) has been accepted as the non-functional pay scale for SOs/PS w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in the 6th CPC.
9. Thus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the 6th CPC has accepted the historical and established parity between the ICAR HQ, SO/P.S. with the SO of CSS, so the pre-revised non-functional pay scale as admissible to SO of CSS would mutatis mutandis would be applicable for the SO/PS of ICAR HQ.
10. Thus the argument of the petitioners made before us that there is no parity between the employees of ICAR with the officers of CSS as there are differences in the mode of recruitment, nature of duties and responsibilities, organizational hierarchy etc. is misconceived in the light of Government order dated 30.10.2008 where it has been approved that the pay structure for Assistants and Section Officers in the CSS may be extended to the Assistants/Personal Assistants and Section Officers/Private Secretaries in ICAR HQ. One more argument advanced before us is that granting of pay scales is purely an executive function and hence the Courts should not interfere with the same as it may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and the authorities. However, this argument cannot be sustained as it is observed by the Tribunal that though fixation of pay and removal of anomalies is a domain of expert bodies like pay commission and the forum to decide it, is of the executive, yet judicial review is not altogether excluded.
11. In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the petition filed by the petitioner as we do not find any reason to exercise jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts of this case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. They have also relied upon the recent judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition ( C) No.6522/2012 - Manoj Kumar and Others vs. High Court of Delhi represented by: its Registrar General and Others and connected cases decided on 02.05.2013. Petitioners in the said petition are working as Personal Assistant, Judicial Assistant, Junior Translator and Assistant Librarian, all posts in Pay Band-II (PB-II Rs.9300-34800). Their claim was for the grade pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
10. As regards W.P.(C) No.6751/2012, the undisputed position is that working in the Central Secretariat, members of the Central Secretariat Service and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service working as Private Secretary/Section Officers were hitherto fore in the pay scale `6500-10500 which was the same pay scale in which Senior Personal Assistants, Senior Judicial Assistants, Senior Judicial Translators, Senior Assistant Librarians and Readers in the Establishment of the Delhi High Court were placed when the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission were implemented and prior thereto when the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission were implemented the parity was in the pay scale `2000-3200. That those working in the Central Secretariat hold Gazetted posts and their brethren in the Delhi High Court do not work on Gazetted post would make no difference firstly for the reason the pay rules do not draw any such distinction, secondly historically when non-functional upgradation by placing them in non-functional scale of `8000-13000 was granted to those working in the Central Secretariat, similar benefit was granted to the petitioners in the Delhi High Court in the past. And lastly when in the past when recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission were implemented by the Central Government pertaining to those working in the Central Secretariat the pay was fixed in sum of `6,900/- in the pay scale `6500-10500 i.e. with benefit of two increments and similar was the position in the Delhi High Court. This would be evidenced from the orders dated August 25, 2006 and April 23, 2007 annexed as Annexure PX-3 and PX-4 to the rejoinder affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.6751/2012.
11. Accordingly, it has to be held that writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.6751/2012 would be entitled, on being placed in PB-II, to be granted Grade Pay in sum of `4,800 with effect from January 01, 2006 instead of `4,600/- and after rendering 4 years service to be granted the non-functional scale at par with their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat, and for which the Establishment of the Delhi High Court would ascertain as to what is the Pay Band and Grade Pay applicable when non-functional scale benefit on rendering 4 years service is accorded to by the Central Government to Section Officers and Private Secretaries. W.P.(C) No.6751/2012 is disposed of accordingly requiring arrears to be paid with effect from January 01, 2006 within 12 weeks from today and if not paid within 12 weeks to be paid with interest @ 9% per annum reckoned 12 weeks hereinafter till date of payment.
14. The Respondents have submitted that the 6th Central Pay Commission recommended, the 6th Central Pay Commission recommended the pay band (PB-2) of Rs.9300-34800 plus grade pay of Rs.4200/- to the following pre revised scales of pay:-
S-9 Rs.5000-150-8000 S-10 Rs.5500-175-9000 S-11 Rs.6500-200-6900 S-12 Rs.6500-22-10500 Consequent upon the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commissions recommendations, the Government placed Assistants (CSS) and Stenographer Grade C who were in the pre revised scale of pay of Rs.6500-200-10500 and the Personal Assistants who were in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.5500-175-9000 in the pay band PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 plus grade pay of Rs.4200/- with effect from 01.01.2006. The Department of Expenditure vide their OM dated 16th November, 2009 extended the higher grade pay of Rs.4600/- to the Assistants of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Stenographer Grade C of the Central Secretariat Stenographic Service (CSSS) w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The Personal Assistants working in the Official Languages Wing of the Legislative Department had represented that they may also be granted the grade pay of Rs.4600/- at par with Central Government employees belonging to the cadre of Central Secretariat Services (CSS) and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS). Before implementation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, both the Stenographer Grade C of CSSS and Stenographers in the Official Languages Wing were in the same scale of pay of Rs.425-800. The Fourth Central Pay Commission in its report recommended that Bilingual Stenographers may be included in the CSSS with an allowance of Rs.50/- per mensem for tested proficiency in each additional language. The recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission in respect of Bilingual Stenographers was accepted by the Government as regards the pay scale and they were placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.1400-40-1600-52300-EB-2600 along with the Stenographers Grade C of the CSSS. However, the recommendation regarding inclusion of the Bilingual stenographers in the cadre of CSS was not accepted by the Government.
15. Thereafter, in pursuance of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1538/1987 filed by the Central Secretariat Service Direct Recruit Assistants Association, the Assistants of CSS and Stenographers Grade C of CSSS were placed in the scale of Rs.1640-2900. The Bilingual Stenographers moved an OA being No.758/1989 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi wherein they sought the relief that they may be included in the CSSS. Later on in the said OA, an MA No.3674/1994 was filed seeking the direction of the Tribunal that the Respondents be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the Bilingual Stenographers from the date it was made applicable to the CSSS Stenographers with all consequential benefits. The Honble tribunal in its Order dated 16.3.1994 held that it is implicit in the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission and the acceptance of the same by the Government, in so far as the same relates to Bilingual Stenographers that they would be paid the same emoluments which are being paid to the Stenographers Grade C of the CSSS in praesenti and in futuro future and that the Respondents were acting arbitrarily in withholding the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from Applicants. The Tribunal ordered for the extension of the benefit of higher pay scale allowed to the Stenographer Grade C of CSSS to the Bilingual Stenographers w.e.f. 10.12.1993. Having being aggrieved by the decision of CAT, the applicants then approached the Honble Supreme Court by way of a Civil Appeal No.8348/1995 and the Honble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 9.10.1996 held that the claim of the appellants for notional fixation in the sale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 cannot be held to be unjustified especially when the benefit of the said scale has been extended to Stenographers Grade C of the CSS w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide order dated 31.7.1990. The Honble Supreme Court further directed that the appellants should notionally be placed in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and as rule of such placement, their pay as on 10.12.1993 should be revised on that basis and arrears found payable on the basis of such revision should be paid to them within 3 months. In pursuance of the Honble Supreme Court, this Department vide order dated 7.1.1997 revised the scale of pay attached to the posts of Stenographers (Hindi) and Stenographer (RL) in the Official Languages Wing of the Legislative Department from R.1400-2600 to Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. After the implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission, both the Stenographer Grade C of CSSS and the Bilingual Stenographers/Personal Assistant in the OL Wing were placed in the same scale of pay of Rs.5500-175-900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The pay of Assistants (CSS) and Stenographers Grade C were, however, revised to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 15.9.2006. The Personal Assistants working in the Official Languages Wing of the Legislative Department who were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and were granted the normal replacement Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in PB-2, had represented that they may also be granted the grade pay of Rs.4600/- at par with Central Government employees belonging to the cadres of CSS and CSSS. The representation of the PAs in the Official Languages Wing was examined in detail in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) who is the nodal Ministry for taking decision regarding the pay scales for various posts in the Central Government Ministries/Departments and it was observed that there is no case for the grant of higher Grade Pay of Rs.4600 to the PAs in the Official Languages Wing for the following reasons:-
(i) While highlighting the CATs decisions dated 16.3.1994 wherein the Tribunal had held that it is implicit in the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission and the acceptance of the same by the Government; in so far as the same relates to bilingual Stenographers, that they would be paid the same emoluments which are being paid to Stenographers Grade C of CSSS in praesenti and in futuro and that the Respondents were acting arbitrarily in withholding the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from the Applicants, PAs (Bilingual) are demanding the extension of the higher Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- as granted to Assistant of CSS and PA of CSSS based on this departments OM dated 16.11.2009 wherein the post of Assistant of CSS and PA of CSSS have been placed in the higher Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006;
(ii) Further, as regards the judgment dated 09.10.1996 of the Honble Supreme Court, it is respectfully submitted that the said judgment was implemented for the applicants only not on the basis of the merit of the case but since no legal recourse was available with the Government. The benefit of the said judgment has already been extended to the applicants and cannot be made applicable in the instant case;
(iii) That perusal of CATs order dated 16.03.1994 and Supreme Court judgment dated 09.10.1996 reveals that directions have been given to grant the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. However, there has not been any direction to grant such higher pay scale at par with Stenographer Grade C of CSSS in praesenti and in futuro, as alleged by the applicants in the instant case; and
(iv) Vide the Legislative Departments OM dated 16.11.2009, the Assistant/Stenographers of CSS/CSSS have been placed in the GP of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. This dispensation has been extended to Assistant/Stenographers working in the CSS/CSSS, AFHQs, IFS (B) and RBSS. However, the post of Bilingual Stenographers does not belong to such Secretariat Services/Headquarters and there is, therefore, no case of rthe grant of higher Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to them.
16. They have further submitted that there was no traditional parity of pay scales of Stenographers (Hindi) with that of CSS/CSSS. Moreover, the acceptance of the Applicants request would have wider repercussion from certain category of officials cutting across the Government.
17. The Respondents have also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.C. Chandra and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others JT 2007 (10) SC 272 wherein it has been held that the courts should exercise restraint and not interfere with the executive instructions. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
13. In our opinion fixing pay scales by Courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high Constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realizing this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an expert committee appointed by the Government instead of the Court itself granting higher pay).
18. They have also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hironmoy Sen Vs. Union of India Civil Appeal No.7232/2003 wherein it has been held as under:-
To give an illustration, if post A and post B have been carrying the same pay scales, merely because the pay scale of post A has been increased that by itself cannot result in increase in the pay scale of Post B to the same level. It is entirely on the Government and the authorities to fix the pay scales and to decide whether the pay scale of post B should be increased or not. The judiciary must exercise self restraint and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain.
19 Further, they have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Haryana Vs. Tilak Raj 2003 (6) SCC 123 wherein it has been held as under:-
The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not always easy to apply. It has been held that there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organization or even in the same organisation. It has been held that this is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. It has been held that the problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula.
20. Again they have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Charanjit Singh and Others 2006 (9) SCC 321 wherein it has been held as under:-
The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. Moreover, even for finding out whether there is complete and wholesale identity, the proper forum is an expert body and not the writ court, as this requires extensive evidence. A mechanical interpretation of the principle of equal pay for equal work creates great practical difficulties
21. They have also relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Chairman, National Productivity Council and Another Vs. Association of Employees of National Productive Council 150 (2008) DLT 618 (DB) decided on 30.01.2008 wherein parity between Stenographers and Assistants working in National Productivity Council vis-`-vis Assistants/Stenographers Grade C working in Central Secretariat Service. The High Court held that such a parity is not permissible. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:-
7. We may, at this stage, also refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tarit Ranjan Das reported in (2003) 11 SCC 658. In the said case, the Supreme Court was called upon to answer a similar issue as raised in the present appeal. The facts of the said case before the Supreme Court were that the respondent working as Stenographer Grade II in the Office of Geological Survey of India, submitted a representation before the Deputy Director General, GSI, Shillong seeking parity of pay scale with that of Stenographer Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat. A view was taken by the Union of India in that case that Stenographer Grade II is not in comparable grade with Stenographer Grade 'C' in the Central Secretariat and according to it, services in Stenographer Grade 'C' in the Central Secretariat belong to Grade 'B' whereas Stenographer Grade II in Geological Survey of India are classified as Grade 'C' (Ministerial). In the said case also, when the claim was raised for parity of pay scale of the aforesaid Assistants/Stenographers working in the Geological Survey of India with that of Assistants/Stenographers Gr.'C' of the Central Secretariat, the Central Administrative Tribunal before whom the petition was filed seeking the relief of parity initially dismissed the same, but in a review petition, the Tribunal held that all the relevant facts were not placed before the Central Pay Commission and that it had not given any reason as to why different scales were to be fixed. It was also held by the Tribunal that the nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the two categories of Stenographers clearly indicate that the relevant aspects were not considered by the Commission and it proceeded on a different basis and held that the Stenographer Grade II should be placed in a same pay scale of Stenographer Gr.'C' of the Central Secretariat. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the said judgment of the Tribunal. Both the Tribunal and the High Court judgments were set aside by the Supreme Court, holding that the equality is not based on designation or the nature of work alone and that there are several other factors like responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, confidentiality involved, functional need and requirements commensurate with the position in the hierarchy as also the qualification required which were equally relevant. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj reported in (2003) 6 SCC 123 and Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology vs. Manoj K. Mohanty reported in (2003) 5 SCC 188 as also the case of State Bank of India vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu reported in (2002) 4 SCC 556. The Supreme Court also referred to paragraph 46.34 of the report of the Fifth Pay Commission, which states as follows:
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, 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 the 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, the Commission was not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern in respect of matter 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 abovementioned distinguishable feature, 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 other benefits 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 Rs.1600-2660 instead of Rs.1400-2300/Rs.1400-2600.
8. Thereafter, referring to its earlier decision in State of U.P. vs. J.P. Chaurasia reported in (1989) 1 SCC 121 wherein it was stated by the Supreme Court that whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay depends on several factors and does not depend upon either the nature of work or the volume of work done, and that whether there could be a parity of pay could not be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties and must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission or the Government, who would be the best judges, to evaluate the nature of duty, responsibility and all relevant factors, the Supreme Court in the case of Tarit Ranjan Das (supra) allowed the appeal.
9. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521, it was stated that a claim for equal pay by a group of pharmacists was rejected saying that the classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate that the classification made was unreasonable. This decision was also referred to and relied upon in the case of Tarit Ranjan Das (supra).
10. In our considered opinion, in view of the Division Bench decision in LPA No.271/1997, which is also upheld in the order passed on 18.12.2003 on the review application, and the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarit Ranjan Das and other similar cases referred to above, there is merit in this appeal. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and hold that the Stenographers/Assistants of National Productivity Council cannot get the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- in lieu of Rs.1400-2600/- effective from 01.01.1986. They shall be entitled only to the aforesaid pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- effective from 01.01.1986.
11. In terms of the aforesaid order, the appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
22. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicants Shri Nilansh Gaur and the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri Hilal Haider in OA No. 917/2011 and Shri Rajesh Katyal in OA No.2726/2011 and we have also perused the record in which OM dated 16.11.2009 has been issued by the Department of Personnel and Training.
23. It is seen from the fact of these two OAs, there is already a historical background to them. They have been claiming equal pay for equal work and parity in other respect with the CSSS. According to the Recruitment Rules for the posts of PAs of the Official Language Wing of the Legislative Department appointments are made by Direct Recruitment. But the vacancies caused by the incumbent being away on deputation etc., can be filled up on deputation basis from the officers of Central Government. In the case of Stenographers (Hindi) in Vidhi Sahitaya Prakashan, the method of recruitment is by deputation/absorption from among the suitable persons already working in service under the Central Government and who fulfill the essential qualifications failing which by direct recruitment. Thus, not only there is an element of direct recruitment but there is also the provision for the similarly situated Stenographers from the Central Government including CSSS to come on and get absorbed. Therefore, the pay scale of both Stenographers from Vidhi Sahitaya Prakashan and CSSS was the same, i.e., Rs.425-700 (Rs.1400-2600) till 1990. It was vide DOP&Ts OM No.2/1/90-CS-IV dated 31.07.1990 the pay scale of Stenographers of CSSS was upgraded to Rs.425-800 (Rs.1640-2900). As the said revised scale was denied to the Stenographers in Vidhi Sahitaya Prakashan, they approached this Tribunal vide OA No.758/1989. This Tribunal considered the matter and observed that the IVth Central Pay Commission recommended that the Bilingual Stenographers may be included in CSSS with an extra allowance of Rs.50/-. This Tribunal has also observed that the Vth Pay Commission had in its mind to place the Bilingual Stenographers at par with CSSS. Accordingly, the Commission placed both the sets of Stenographers initially in the scale of Rs.1400-2600. This Tribunal has, therefore, held that It is implicit in the recommendations of the Commission and it is also implicit in the acceptance of the same by the Government in so far as the same relate to the Bilingual Stenogrpahers that they (Bilingual Stenographers) would be paid the same emoluments which are being paid to the Stenographers Grade C of the CSSS in praenseti and in futuro. Accordingly, this Tribunal directed the Respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the Stenographers of Vidhi Sahitaya Prakashan also w.e.f. 10.12.1993. However, since they were not satisfied by the order granting the benefits from 10.12.1993 and not from 01.01.1986 as claimed by them, they approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8348/1995. While allowing the Appeal, the Supreme Court held as under:-
The Tribunal has found that the Bilingual Stenographers have been paid the same emoluments which are being paid to the Stenographers Grace C of the CSSS and that the respondents in withholding the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 from the appellants were acting arbitrarily. In the circumstances, the claim of the appellants for notional fixation in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from January 1, 1986 cannot be held to be unjustified especially when the benefit of the said scale had been extended to Stenographers Grade C of the CSSS with effect from January 1, 1986 by order dated July 31,1990. It is, therefore, directed that the appellants should notionally be placed in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from January 1, 1986
24. Again the aforesaid position was repeated after the acceptance of the 5th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Both the Applicants and CSSS were granted the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. The Applicants were given the additional amount of Rs.100/- also. But the Government of India, as done earlier, upgraded the pay scale of CSSS to Rs.6500-10500. The Respondents denied the same to the Applicants. They, therefore, again approached this Tribunal in OA No.590/2008 but it was dismissed on 26.03.2008 to await for the recommendation of the 6th CPC. This Tribunal has also given them liberty to approach it again, and if they were not satisfied. The 6th CPC, again placed both the Applicants and CSSS in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4200. The Applicants were also given special allowance of Rs.200/-. But, the Government of India, as done in during the 5th CPC period, vide OM dated 16.11.2009 granted the higher Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to the CSSS. The Applicants were again ignored.
25. In our considered view, the denial of the scale of pay/Grade Pay given to the CSSS to the Applicants in quite arbitrary and, therefore, illegal. As observed by us earlier, the parity in pay scale was being maintained between the Applicants and CSSS till 31.07.1990. Till then both of them were having the same scale of pay. When the DOP&T granted higher pay scale to the CSSS vide their OM dated 31.07.1990 and the similarly placed Applicants approached this Tribunal vide OA 758/1989 (supra) and this Tribunal directed the Respondents to grant them also the higher scale not only for the present but in future also. Even though the successive Pay Commissions maintained the parity and recommended the same pay scales to the Applicants and the CSSS w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006, the Government of India has granted higher pay scale/Grade Pay to the CSSS. The parity which has been existing up to 31.12.1995 between the Applicants and CSSS should not have been withdrawn or discontinued. This Tribunal has also considered the historical parity between the PSs/SOs of this Tribunal and the PSs/SOs of CSS/CSSS in its order in S.R. Dheers case (supra) and held that denying the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2 to the PSs and SOs on completion of four years service in the grade is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the parity was ordered to be maintained. Again in the case of Manoj Kumar and Others (supra), similar parity in pay scale was being maintained after the judgment in the case of K.K. Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India and Others. It was held in the said judgment that considering the nature of work and duties perform by Personal Assistants and Junior Stenographers in the Delhi High Court vis-a-vis Assistants and Stenographers of the Central Secretariat Service and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service opined that the pay scale in which Stenographers and Assistants working in the Central Secretariat and who were members of the Central Secretariat Service and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service should be made applicable to their brethren, holding analogous posts in the Establishment of the Delhi High Court. Further, the High Court held that those working in the Central Secretariat hold Gazetted posts and their brethren in the Delhi High Court do not work on Gazetted post would make no difference firstly for the reason the pay rules do not draw any such distinction, secondly historically when non-functional upgradation by placing them in non-functional scale of `8000-13000 was granted to those working in the Central Secretariat, similar benefit was granted to the petitioners in the Delhi High Court in the past. And lastly when in the past when recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission were implemented by the Central Government pertaining to those working in the Central Secretariat the pay was fixed in sum of `6,900/- in the pay scale `6500-10500 i.e. with benefit of two increments and similar was the position in the Delhi High Court.
26. The Apex Court considered the question whether the similarly placed officers in National Institute of Education and Planning were entitled for the same scale given to their counter parts in Central Government. In Yogeshwar Prasad Vs. National Institute of Education and Planning 2010 (11) SCALE 379, the Apex Court held as under:-
..the respondent Institute's stand all through was that the appellants be given the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. At this stage, respondent no.1 cannot be permitted to take a somersault in this manner. The Union of India accepted the recommendations of the Vth and VIth Pay Commissions and are giving the appellants the same pay scale which their counterparts in the Central Government are getting. It may be pertinent to observe that these appellants were getting the same pay scale as was given to the employees of their categories in the Central Government up to 1.1.1986. The Union of India accepted the recommendation of the Vth and VIth Pay Commissions and are giving them same pay scale then how only during the IIIrd Pay Commission their pay scale could be different? and how their duties, obligations and responsibilities became different only for a brief period?
15. In our considered view, the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 which their counterparts were getting in the Central Government during the relevant period. In case this amount has not been paid, the same may be paid to the appellants by the Institute within three months from today.
27. Again in the recent judgment in Union of India and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond & Others 2013(9) SCALE 749 the Apex Court considered the applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work and held 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.
5. Mr. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submitted that the two posts cannot be equated but having noted that when no material was placed before the Tribunal about the functional distinction, in our view, the order of the Tribunal could not be faulted. The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the writ petition.
6. Before we conclude, we may profitably refer to the observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J., in paragraph 8 of the judgment in Randhir Singh (supra) which reads as follows:
8. 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 right. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women' as a Directive Principe of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for every one 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. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcered with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay...........
28. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow both the OAs. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.02.2011 in OA No. 917/2001 and the impugned order dated 07.02.2010 in OA No. 2726/2011. We also direct the Respondents to place the Applicant in the OAs in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 15.09.2006 and thereafter extent to them the grade pay of Rs.4600/- at par with their counterparts working in CSSS with arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits. The Respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed in both the files.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G.GEROGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh