Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"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 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 is concerned. The birthmarks 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 respondents' contention."

(Emphasis supplied) 8.5 In Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Rajesh Mohan Shukla, (2007) 6 SCC 9, the Supreme Court, analogously, held thus:

"We find that the nature of duties being discharged by the Youth Coordinators who have come on deputation and have been absorbed as such and those who were directly recruited on fixed terms are discharging the same duties. The only difference is their source of recruitment. Once the deputationists are discharging the same duties and are being paid salary and other allowances then there is no reason to deny the same benefits (sic to those) who are discharging the same duties and functions. Those deputationists now absorbed obtained the order from this Court but the direct recruits did not approach this Court, they were treated as a class apart because of their source of recruitment. Once these persons are already working for more than two decades discharging the same functions and duties then we see no reason why the same benefit should not be given to the respondents. Looking to the nature and duties of these respondents we are of opinion that there is no reason to treat them differently."