Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"6.

Now Chandra Prakash Dadwa, the petitioners in SLP No. 16646 of 1995 and Kamlakar and others in this Special Leave Petition No. 19257 of 1995 before us filed the respective SLPs against the same order dated 7-3-1995 in OA No. 625 of 1990 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay. In fact, all of then were petitioners in the same OA and claimed relief in regard to the same impugned orders of the Union Government dated 2-7-1990 by which the Government changed (i) the designation of the petitioners from Data Processing Assistants to Data Entry Operators (and gave them a particular scale) which according to them was reversion to an entry grade below that of Data Processing Assistants namely, as Data Entry Operators, Grade B. They also claimed that a lower scale of pay Rs. 1350-2200 was given to them than that was to be given. They were in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 when OA 625 of 1990 was filed and they claimed that the revised scale of Rs. 1600-2660 meant for Data Processing Assistants was to be given and not Rs. 1350-2200. The grievance of all the petitioners in the OA was same. Now unfortunately while those who filed SLP 16646 of 1995 have got relief, the present petitioners who filed SLP 19257 of 1995 did not get relief so far.

12. We have considered the limited issue. We are of the view that all these appellants should get the same relief as the appellants in the earlier Civil Appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition No. 16646 of 1995. Once they were all in one cadre, the distinction between direct recruits and promotees disappears at any rate so far as equal treatment in the same cadre for payment of the pay scale given. The birth marks have no relevance in this connection. If any distinction is made on the question of their right to the post of Data Processing Assistants they were holding and to its scale - which were matters common to all of them before the impugned order of the Government of India was passed on 2-7-1990, - then any distinction between Data Processing Assistants who were direct recruits and those who were promotees, is not permissible. We, therefore, reject the respondent's contention. We have examined the record and the common points arising in this case and those in Civil Appeal which arose out of Special Leave Petition 16646 of 1995 and we are unable to find any lawful distinction between the appellants and those in the other appeal which has been allowed."