Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. On behalf of the Respondents Shri V.P. Uppal, learned Senior Counsel of the Government argued the case by controverting the contentions raised by Shri Barera. Respondents submitted written submission on 3.6.2011. (i) It was stated that the Applicants are Assistants in the office of DG Income Tax (Investigation)  an attached office of Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. They are claiming pay scale of `5500-175-9000 which was granted to the Assistants in DGIT (Investigation) on the basis of the plea that a few Assistants in that office have been given the said pay scale in terms of the orders passed in the case of V.R. Panchal & Ors. (supra). It is contended that in Shri M.V.R. Rao & Others case (supra), Full Bench of this Tribunal considered the issue of parity of pay scale of Assistants in the Subordinate and attached offices with the Assistants of CSS and dismissed the claim on the grounds that appointing authorities are different and Assistants nature of duties and responsibilities were qualitatively and quantitatively dissimilar. Based on the decision of the Full Bench, OA No.12026/1999 and OA No.1278/1999 filed by the Assistants of the same office were dismissed. (ii) Shri Uppal would contend that the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in V.R. Panchals case (supra), though mentioned about the dismissal of SLP on merits, but the same being a non-speaking and non-reasoned judgment, would not have binding effect in subsequent cases including the present OA. In this connection, he placed his reliance on the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in Govt. of India Versus Workmen of State Trading Corporation [1997(11) SCC page 641] where it was held that when neither facts nor reasons are stated in earlier order of the Supreme Court such an order was not a binding precedent. In State of U.P. Versus Synthetic & Chemicals [1991 (4) SCC 139] it was held that if facts and reasons were not given, such orders would not be a binding precedent. In this context, Shri Uppal submitted that had the Honble High Court considered the decision in V.R.Panchals case (supra) as a binding precedent, the High Court would have allowed the OA and there was no question of remanding back the case to the Tribunal for examining duties and responsibilities of Assistant working in the office of D.G.I.T. (iii) Shri Uppal referring to the judgment of 5 Member Full Bench of this Tribunal in M.V.R. Raos case (supra), submitted that the Honble High Court of Delhi has upheld the judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal while deciding CWP No.2344/99 and number of LPAs by their order dated 31st May, 2002 (DG,ESI Corporation Versus All India ESIC Employees Federation) . Based on these decisions, a number of other Writ Petition like CWP No.3091 of 1999 were dismissed by the Honble High Court on 26.11.2008. It is noticed that the question of parity of pay scales of Assistants of public sector Undertakings with the pay scales of Assistants of CSS was the issue before the High Court, where it noted the judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal more specifically the question of parity of pay scales of Assistants of Subordinate office vis-`-vis the Assistants in the C.S.S. and upheld the orders of the Full Bench. He further contended that the recommendation of 5th CPC maintained that the pay scales of the subordinate office should be lower than those in the Secretariat office. Even the 6th CPC has maintained the pay differentials. The same issue was also examined in Civl Writ No.102 of 2001 Mohinder Pal Singh Versus UOI in two other Writs decided on 11th July, 2002 and Honble High Court upheld the pay disparity of Assistants working in the CSS vis-`-vis their counterparts in the subordinate and attached offices. (iv) He further submits that there are large number of judgments of Honble Supreme Court with regard to the various factors that are to be taken into account while considering the question of parity of pay scale. He referred to he judgment in Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Das (2004(1) SCSLJ-47) to state that equality cannot be claimed merely on the basis of designation or the nature of work alone- other factors like, responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, confidentiality involved, functional need and requirements commensurate with the position in the hierarchy, the qualifications required are relevant factors to be considered while allowing the claim for equal pay for equal work., He placed his reliance on the judgment of three judge Bench of Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Versus Charanjit Singh reported in 2006(1) SCSLJ pages 1-12, where, after analyzing number of cases, it was held that even though persons would do the same work, their quality of work would differ. The judgment quoted by him relates to Govt. of West Bengal Versus Tarun K. Roy, [(2004) 1 SCC 347], a three judge Bench of Honble Supreme Court considered the doctrine of equal pay for equal work in the following terms : Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India envisages the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The said doctrine, however, does not contemplate that only because the nature of the work is same irrespective of an educational qualification or irrespective of their source of recruitment or other relevant considerations the said doctrine would be automatically applied. One of the later judgments of the Honble Supreme Court [State of Punjab Versus Surjit Singh and Others (AISLJ-IV-2010-403] has reiterated the decision in earlier cases that experience, process of recruitment, qualifications, quality of work, nature of work, functions, responsibilities etc. are all relevant to decide on equal pay for equal work. (v) Our attention was drawn to the short reply filed by the Respondents on 18.4.2011 to submit that the Assistant in CSS is Non-Gazetted Group B post whereas the Assistants in the Directorate are Non-Gazetted Group C posts. Assistants in the CSS have the duties to contribute in the policy making whereas Assistants in the Directorate look after the duties in the subjects assigned to the Directorate which are not policy matters. He also indicates that the method of recruitment and promotion avenues are different for both Assistants in the CSS and Directorate. IT should be noted that there is no common element not only in regard to duties and responsibilities but also in regard to all other aspects stated in the short counter. (vi) It is contended that the Applicants next post of promotion is Senior Technical Assistant which is in the pay scale of `1640-2900 (pre-revised) and thereafter Technical Research Assistants (`2000-3200) while in the case of Assistants in the CSS the next promotion is to the post of Section Officer which is in the pay scale of `2000-3500 (old pay scale). Shri Uppal, therefore, states that in case the pay scale of `5500-9000 is granted to the Applicants it would tantamount to placing holders of lower as well as the higher posts in the same pay scale which would be treating dissimilar persons similarly and would be directly violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. In fact there would be cascading effect as there would be demand from the holder of Senior Technical Assistant and Technical Research Assistant for upward revision of their pay scales. In this connection, Shri Uppal places his reliance on the observation of Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Versus Pratip Kumar Dey [2000 (8) SCC 580] . In view of his above contentions, Shri Uppal submits that the OA should be dismissed with costs awarded to the Respondents.

In the case before us, Assistants in the Driectorates attached to CBDT and Assistants in CSS were in the same scale prior to issue of OM dated 31.7.90. Thus, for more than 4 decades since establishment of the Directorate, all the previous Pay Commissions till the 4th PC the parity of the pay scales between the two were maintained. There is nothing on record to show that after recommendation of the 4th PC. Which was accepted by the Govt. any new developments occurred to create differentiation between the status of the Assistants working in the Directorates attached to CBDT and that of CSS. The OM dated 31.7.90 has, thus, created disparity between the two and, therefore, the order dated 4/9.12.92 refusing the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- to the applicants cannot be sustained on the ground of discrimination.

18. We may also refer to other judgments of Honble Surpeme Court to get guidance of legally well settled position in the matters of pay parity, historical parity of pay scales and equal pay for equal work. Equal pay for equal work has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as held by Honble Supreme Court in Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union Versus Union of India, [(1991) 1 SCC 619], and also Union of India Versus Dineshan K.K., [(2008) 1 SCC 586] and State of Kerala Versus B. Renjith Kumar [(2008) 12 SCC 219]. However, as observed by the Honble Apex Court in State of Orissa Versus Balaram Sahu [(2003) 1 SCC 250] pay parity would depend upon not only on the nature or volume of work but also on quality of work as regards the reliability and responsibility as well. Different pay scales may be prescribed on the basis of such reliability and responsibility. This ratio has also been reiterated by Honble Apex Court in State of Bihar Versus Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturers Assns.,[(2008) 7 SCC 231].

23. In view of the above legal setting on pay parity and equal pay for equal work, it is noted that 6th CPC has already considered the issue raised by the Applicants and the 6th Central Pay Commission has recommended two distinct and exclusive pay scales and grade pay.

24. It is trite law that pay fixation is a complex matter, the best authority to analyze and fix the pay is the Pay Commission. Further, it is legally well settled that even if the persons doing the same work having the same nomenclature like PSs, ASOs, Stenographers and Assistants, the pay parity need not be admissible as their recruitment, educational qualification, experience, promotion prospects, responsibilities, reliability and confidentiality matters which they may be handling would be different from other groups. These are sufficient reasons to maintain pay disparity between two groups even with same designation. In the present case, we find that the pay disparity which started earlier was continued in the 5th CPC. Even the 6th CPC has allowed the disparity between the Assistants working in the Secretariat and the Attached/Subordinate Offices. It is noted that the Chapter 3.1 of the 6th CPC recommendation dealt very comprehensively the issues brought before it on the subject of disparity between Secretariat and Field Offices. The role and responsibilities of the Secretariat and Field Officers have been identified to be different. Parity of certain posts, disparity in other posts, anomaly in pay scale have been analysed in Para 3.1.7 and the 6th CPC has given its recommendations in Para 3.1.8 to 3.1.15. Para 3.1.9 provides the pay structure of LDC to Director levels in the Secretariat in Pay bands and grade pay whereas Para 3.1.14 gives the pay structure for non-Secretariat Organisation. We perused Swamys Compilation of 6th CPC Report (Part I pages 141 to 147 ) and Swamys Manual on Office Procedure 2006 and 2009. In the definition Chapter at entry 53, Secretariat Offices are defined as those which are responsible for formulation of the policies of the Government and also for the execution and review of those policies. As per this definition, the Organisations viz DGIT (Investigation) where the Applicants are working cannot be termed as Secretariat. On the contrary, the Non-Secretariat Organisations where the Applicants are working are either attached offices or subordinate offices. The attached offices connotes that such offices are generally responsible for providing executive direction required in the implementation of the policies laid down by the department to which they are attached. They also serve as repository of technical information and advise the department on technical aspects of question dealt with by them. The meaning of subordinate offices signifies that these function as field establishments or as agencies responsible for the detailed execution of the policies of Government. They function under the direction of an attached office or directly under a department. Having examined the definitional aspects and the averments made by the Respondents, we are of the opinion that there exist distinction in the works, functions and responsibilities between the Secretariat and non-Secretariat Organisation. If there is functional dissimilarities, there is bound to be financial disparity in pay and allowances.