Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The respondents, who are seven in number, entered the service of the petitioner as Data Processing Assistants (for short 'DPA')Tape Librarians on various dates from 1987 to 1990. They were placed in the grade of Rs. 1200 to Rs. 2040 as was admissible to DPA/Tape Librarians. It needs to be emphasised that all the respondents were appointed before July 2, 1990, a date which has a bearing on the merits of the case.

3. On July 2, 1990, the Government of India issued a notification whereby it redesignated the Data Processing Supervisors in the scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300 as Data Processing Assistants in the scale of Rs. 1,600-2,660 rather than in the revised scale of Data Processing Supervisors of Rs. 2,000-3,200. Similarly, Data Processing Assistants in the scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040 were redesignated as Data Entry Operators Grade 'B' in the scale of Rs. 1,350-2,200 rather than in the revised scale meant for Data Processing Assistants i.e. Rs. 1,600-2,600. The order dated July 2, 1990, besides the aforesaid posts, redesignated several other posts as well.

4. We may mention that much before the issuance of the order dated July 2, 1990, the Fourth Pay Commission (1986) felt that all matters concerning data entry and data processing staff be decided by an expert body. On the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, a Committee known as Dr. Seshagiri Committee went into the question of revision of pay-scales and restructuring electronic data processing posts on various departments of the Government. Thereafter Dr. Seshagiri Committee appointed a sub-committee to go into certain aspects of the matter. Dr. Seshagiri Committee endorsed the recommendations of the sub-committee on May 15, 1987 and made its recommendations accordingly. On September 11, 1989, the Government of India accepted the recommendations of the Committee with slight modifications and accordingly issued the requisite order. It may be pointed out that all the Ministries and Departments with Electronic Data Processing posts were directed to review the designation, pay-scales and recruitment qualifications in accordance with the rules. The order did not expressly or by necessary implication indicate that persons recruited as Data Processing Assistants under the rules were to be redesignated as Data Entry Operators. Model rules were prepared by the Departmental of Personnel on February 13, 1990 in keeping with the recommendations of Dr. Seshagiri Committee as modified by the Government order dated September 11, 1989. The trouble started when the petitioner changed the designation of the respondent from Data Processing Assistants to Data Entry Operators pursuant to the order of the Government of India dated July 2, 1990. The respondents not being satisfied with their placement made a representation but the same was rejected by the petitioner on September 19, 1997.

On this factual issue, the following averments in the affidavits are important. It was clearly stated by the appellants in para 4.6 of their affidavit filed on OA before the Tribunal as follows:

"Para. 4.6...the applicants submit that because of rotation of the Data Processing Assistants for doing the three trades which were earlier being done by Computer, Key Punch operator and Machine operator each of the Data Processing Assistants has been doing the work of data processing. In fact data processing is an integral part of the job of Data Processing Assistants employed by the organisation".

(7) The affidavit of the Union of India dated 6.6.97 repeatedly mentions that it has become necessary to redesignate the appellants (i.e. Data Processing Assistants) as Data Entry operators inasmuch as the appellants do not possess certain skills attributed to the post of Data Processing officers for performing the various additional functions required of them. It is stated that in addition list of functions of Data Entry operators grade B, the new Data Processing Assistants under the 2.7.90 order are required to perform 7 other functions which are assigned to the date processing orders in the function now list in the orders DOS/EDP/90 dated 26.9.90 as well as the function referred to in the enclosure to the order No. 12018/1/96-ANN.IV dated 16.3.98.