Delhi High Court
Bureau Of Indian Standards Emp. Union & ... vs Dir. Gen., Bureau Of Indian Standards ... on 21 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999IIIAD(DELHI)789, 80(1999)DLT35
Author: K. Ramamoorthy
Bench: K. Ramamoorthy
ORDER K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner No.1 is a Union and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are employees of the Bureau of Indian Standards. They have prayed for the following reliefs:
"So, under the above facts and circumstances, the above-named petitioners most respectfully prays before your Lordships to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, appropriate order, direction to the respondents.
a) directing/commanding the respondents to revise the pay scale of the Assistants/Stenographers from Rs. 1400-2600 to 1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
b) be pleased to quash the Office Memorandum dated 11.12.90 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) bearing F.No. 744/IC/90.
c) be pleased to call for the record in the above matter".
2. The petitioner-Union and the petitioners 2 and 3, the employees of the first respondent claim for the grant of scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986 in terms of Notification dated 29.10.1986 on par with pay scales granted to other servants in the Central Government and Public Sector Undertakings. The first respondent is a Government rganisation and that is not in dispute. The claim of the petitioners is that the Central Government had granted the scale of pay to the employees similarly situated and the other Public Sector Undertakings had also granted the pay scales following the Government of India and the first respondent has not been granting the same scale of pay to the petitioners 2 & 3 and also to the members of the first petitioner Association holding the post to which the pay scales of Rs. 1640-2900 would be applicable.
3. The stand taken by the respondents is that on 31.12.1997 a Notification was issued by the first respondent by virtue of powers conferred under Section 38 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 amending the Bureau of Indian Standards (Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulations, 1988 granting the scale of pay with effect from the date of the Notification. In the same Notification the first respondent had decided to fill up the posts, 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. According to the first respondent the Government of India insisted on this condition and therefore the scale of pay could not be granted to employees by the first respondent organisation and now provision has been made for recruitment and Notification has been issued. The pay scale could be granted only from the date of the Notification and not from 1986.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J.P. Singh submitted that once the Pay Commission had revised the scale of pay and the Government had accepted the same, the first respondent is bound to follow the suit and the employees are not concerned with the process of recruitment. All persons holding the post as on 1.1.1986 would be entitled to scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900. The petitioners has mentioned in the petition the categories of persons who have been doing the same work as that of their counterparts in the Government of India and that has never been disputed by the first respondent and that is the reason why whenever the Pay Commission fixes the scale of pay and when it is accepted by the Government all the Public Sector Undertakings follow the decision of the Government of India with reference to the same class of employees.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent, Mr. B.K. Sood submitted that the pinciple of equal pay for equal work would not apply as the first respondent is a statutory organisation and it is at the discretion of the first respondent to revise the scale of pay and that would not depend upon the decision of the Government of India. Mr. B.K. Sood, learned counsel for the first respondent relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. M.R. Alagappan and others, etc., wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the doctrine of equal pay for equal work.
6. B.K. Sood, learned counsel for the first respondent also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. & others Vs. Ramashraya Yadav & another, wherein, according to the learned counsel, the Supreme Court had held that where there is difference in mode of recruitment the principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent.
7. Mr. B.K. Sood, learned counsel for the first respondent also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India, wherein, according to the learned counsel the Supreme Court had recognised the position that it is in the discretion of the employer to grant pay scale depending upon the nature of the work.
8. Mr. B.K. Sood, learned counsel for the first respondent also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and others Vs.Union of India and others, .
9. This Court in WP 3342/95 titled as Shri M.C. Vats Vs. DDA decided on 27th May, 1998 with reference to DDA had considered the point and it was brought to the notice of this Court that with reference to All India Institute of Medical Sciences this Court accepted the position in CWP 4462/94 titled as P.S. Gopinathan Nair & Others Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences decided on 16.10.1995, granted pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 claimed with effect from 1.1.1986.
10. In CWP 290/95 titled as Shri Satishwar Sharma & Ors Vs. National Institute of Health & Family Welfare & Another decided on 29.11.1995 this principle was applied to National Institute of Health and Family Welfare.
11. In CW 3248/94 titled as National Cooperative Development Corporation Employees Welfare Association & Anr. Vs. National Cooperative Development Corporation & Anr. decided on 16.1.1996 the same principle was applied to National Cooperative Development Corporation.
12. In CW 4414/94 titled as Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Staff Association & Ors. Vs. Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan & Ors. decided on 16.7.1997 this principle was applied to Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan.
13. The same principle had been applied to Food Corporation of India also.
14. In the light of this position I am unable to accept the submission put forth by Mr. B.K. Sood, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners 2 and 3 and the employees similarly situated who are members of the first petitioner Association would not be entitled to pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900.
15. The first respondent shall grant the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986 and shall continue to pay on the basis of that scale of pay. Regarding the arrears from 1.1.1986 up to 30.4.1999 the first respondent shall keep the amount in the account of the Provident Fund account of the employees subject to the rules of the Provident Fund Account.
16. The writ petition stands allowed.