Delhi High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs O.P. Bansal And Ors., Birender Singh And ... on 31 July, 2002
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha, A.K. Sikri
JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. These three writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact and arising out of a common judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28th January 2002 in OA Nos. 1649/2001, 1650/2001 and 1651/2001, were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The Original Applicants before the learned Tribunal being the unofficial respondents in these writ petitions were Data Entry Operators ('DEOs' for short) having different grades. A Committee known as Seshagiri Committee was constituted by the Government of India for the purpose of consideration of infirmity of pay scales/designations of the Electronic Data Processing ('EDP' for short) personnel in terms of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. In its recommendations, the Fourth Central Pay Commission suggested that the Department of Electronics should examine and suggest review of existing EDP posts and prescribe uniform pay scales and designations in consultation with the Department of Personnel. In terms of the recommendations made by Seshagiri Committee, the Government of India introduced the following pay structure for the EDP posts:
S.No. Designation of posts Pay scale Data Entry Operators
1.
Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' Rs. 1150-1500 This will be entry Grade for Higher Secondary with knowledge of Data Entry Work.
2. Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' Rs. 1350-2200 This will be entry grade for graduates with knowledge of Data Entry work or promotional Grade for Data Entry Operator Grade 'A'.
3. Data Entry Operator Grade 'C' Rs. 1400-2300 Promotional Grade
4. Data Entry Operator Grade 'D' Rs. 1600-2660 Promotional Grade.
5. Data Entry Operator Grade 'E' Rs.2000-3500 Promotional Grade.
Data Processing / Programming Staff
1. Data Processing Assistant Grade 'A' Rs. 1600-2660 Entry Grade for graduates with Diploma/ Certificate in Computer application
2. Data Processing Assistant Grade 'B' Rs.2000-3200 Promotional Grade
3. Programmer Rs.2375-3500 Direct entry for holders of Degree in Engineering or Post graduation in Science / Maths etc. or Post graduation in Computer Application Or By promotion from Data Processing Assistant Grade 'B'.
4. Senior Programmer Rs. 3000-4500 Promotional Grade.
3. The concerned Ministries/Departments were informed about the said decision of the Central Government. On or about 17th July 1991, upon holding consultations with the Union Public Service Commission, sanction was accorded for re-designation and revision of pay scales of Electronic Data Processing posts and the scales of pay mentioned hereinbefore w.e.f. 11th September 1989.
4. The petitioners claimed that such benefit of restructured grades be extended w.e.f. 1st January 1986 and consequently monetary benefits from that date be extended to them. The afore-mentioned claims of the petitioners were denied inter alia by a letter dated 7th June 2001 in the following terms:
"With reference to his/her representation dated 06-9-2000 for grant of restructured EDI' pay scales w.e.f. 01-01-1986, Shri/Smt/Kum O.P. Bansal, Supdt (DP) in the office of Union Public Service Commission is hereby informed that the matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, who have clarified that the EDP staff of UPSC cannot be granted re-structured EDP pay scales w.e.f. 01-01-1986 as no general order has been issued for grant of re-structured EDP pay scales w.e.f. 01-01-1986."
5. It is not in dispute that several Original Applications were filed by the employees working in different Ministries and Departments claiming the said scale of pay w.e.f. 1st January 1986. The said Original Applications were allowed. The directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal admittedly had been implemented by the concerned Ministries. However, some Original Applications were dismissed. The question was referred to a Full Bench of the Tribunal.
6. It appears that the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 957/1990 by a judgment dated 10th December 1992, inter alia, held that re-fixation of pay should be allowed w.e.f. 1st January 1986 instead of 11th September 1989 to EDP/DEP personnel covered by the circular issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure on 11th September 1989. The Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India thereagainst which was marked as SLP No. 16533/93 and by an order dated 5th December 1994 the said SLP was dismissed.
7. It further appears that the matter was considered by this court also inter alia in CWP No. 7100/2000 filed by the Union of India against Rajender Kumar Pareek & Ors. and CWP No. 3612/2000 S.K. Dhawan and Ors. v. Union of India, wherein it had categorically been held that the Union of India having implemented the said judgment of the Full Bench by various Departments/Ministries denied thereof to the petitioners therein is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8. Mr. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the instant case, by reason of the afore-mentioned OM, new posts had been created. If new posts are created, the learned counsel would contend, fixation of scale of pay on a higher grade cannot be made from retrospective effect. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Union of India and Ors. v. Secretary, Madras Civil Audit and Accounts Association and Anr., .
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would urge that it is not correct to contend that new posts were created but as would appear from the circular letters issued by the Ministries themselves only re-designations were made. It has been contended that the number of posts had remained the same and re-designations in terms of the recommendations made by the Fourth Central Pay Commission had to be made having regard to the functions performed by the respondents.
10. Interpretation of the afore-mentioned OM dated 11th September 1989 undisputedly came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, several Ministries and Departments were represented. It has been held that re-designation had been made in respect of the existing posts only. Having regard to the fact that admittedly a decision of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal as also several other decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal have been implemented, we are of the opinion that there is no reason as to why the respondents should be discriminated against. The decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Secretary, Madras Civil Audit and Accounts Association and Anr. (supra), is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the same related to posts which were newly created ones. As indicated hereinbefore, in the instant case, no new posts had been created and merely they had been redesignated.
11. As noticed hereinbefore, even a similar judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench had been upheld by the Apex Court. Before us also, several office orders implementing the said decision of the Tribunal have been filed.
12. For the reasons afore-mentioned, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is absolutely no reason as to why the respondents herein should be dented the similar benefits.
13. We, therefore, do not intent to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter and these writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. But in the facts and circumstances of these cases,