Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: data processing assistant in Madan Mohan vs Union Of India Through on 10 July, 2014Matching Fragments
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.
4. The Seshagiri Committee noted that the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the Data Entry Operators (DEOs) were identical in all the Departments and there was no difference in the qualifications and duties, and, therefore, recommended that the similar pay scales may be given to the EDP personnel in all the Ministries. Accordingly, the aforesaid pay scales were extended to Data Entry Operators in different departments, but only w.e.f. 11.09.1989 and not from 01.01.1986, i.e., the date on which the 4th Central Pay Commission recommended the grant of the revised pay scales.
6. ..It cannot be said that on that date the posts identified subsequently were also in existence. In such a situation the principle of equal pay for equal work is not attracted as on 1/01/1986.
8. Aforesaid decision, in our view, is clearly distinguishable. Aforesaid decision related to posts which were newly created promotional posts. As far as applicants in the instant case are concerned, no new posts have been created; they have merely been re-designated as Data Entry Operators/Data Processing Assistants. The Supreme Court in a later decision in the case of Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dawda & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1998(2) SCSLJ 390 was concerned with the interpretation to be given to the very same O.M. dated 11.9.1989 with which we are concerned in the instant case. In regard to the very same issue, the Supreme Court has concluded as under:
61. For all the above reasons, the impugned orders dated 2-7-90, 16-3-98 and all other orders which have the effect of redesignating the appellants - who were recruited as Data Processing Assistants - as Data Entry operators in the scale of 1350-2200 (or 1400-2300 by concession of counsel) are arbitrary and illegal, ultra vires and are declared violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appellants are declared entitled to the designation of Data Processing Assistants grade III (also called earlier as Gr. B) in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 with effect from 1-1-1986, the date when the IV Pay Commission scales came into force. The appellants are also entitled to the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 1-1-96 in view of the government orders passed in connection with the Vth Pay Commission recommen-dations. Aforesaid decision has been followed by a later Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamlakar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1999(3) SLJ 307 whereby the benefit which had been granted to the appellants in the earlier decision was extended also to others who had approached the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.
61. For all the above reasons, the impugned orders dated 2.7.90, 16.3.98 and all other orders which have the effect of redesignating the applicants who were recruited as Data Processing Assistants as Data Entry Operators in the scale of 1350-2200 (or 1400-2300 by concession of counsel) are arbitrary and illegal, ultra-vires and are declared violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appellants are declared entitled to the designation of Data Processing Assistants grade II (also called earlier as gr B) in the scale of Rs.1600-2660 with effect from 1.1.1986, the date when the IV Pay Commission scales came into force. The appellants are also entitled to the scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.96 in view of the government orders passed in connection with the Vth Pay Commission recommendations. Aforesaid decision has been followed by a later judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamalkar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1999 (3) SLJ 307 whereby the benefit which had been granted to the appellants in the earlier decision was extended also to others who had approached the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.