Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The applicants approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal also misconstrued. They observed that once the matter was referred to Pay Commission as per the order of the Principal Bench in an identical situation no further order need be passed in the application filed by the Kolkata staff. Pertinent to note, the 6th Pay Commission by that time already rejected the claim of the applicants. Hence, the Tribunal should have gone into the merits of the matter to find out whether such rejection was justified or not. Mr. Sagar Bandyapadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants contended before us that the CBI was sympathetic to its Ministerial Staff as would appear from the minutes of the meeting held by the Joint Director as well as his recommendation to the Ministry for extension of such benefit. Earlier the Ministry rejected the prayer on the ground that it would be considered by the Pay Commission. Subsequently, Ministry rejected the prayer as it was turned down by the Pay Commission. Pay Commission, according to Mr. Bandyapadhyay, totally misconstrued the issue as would be apparent from the extract quoted above. According to him, the Tribunal should have considered the issue going into the merits of the matter instead of mechanically disposing of the matter on the strength of the order of the Principal Bench passed in an identical situation. Mr. Bandyapadhyay further contended that the Central Government never addressed the issue as to how there could be discrimination between two groups of staff discharging identical duty, one in CBI and the other in RAW and I.B. Such discrimination was apparent and must be removed, as it would offend the basic structure of our Constitution. He relied on the following decisions :-