Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This application was filed on 12.05.2011 claiming parity in pay scale with other similarly qualified and designated Statistical Assistants in various Ministries by virtue of his designation as Senior Statistical Assistant in the Market Research Wing of the Textiles Committee. This parity was declined while implementing the 6th Pay Commission recommendations by Office Order No. 131/64/2002/AD dt. 19.12.2008, issued by Respondent No.2. The applicant has also challenged the orders implementing the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations in Office order No. 131/64/2002-AD.IV dt. 05.06.2008 by which the applicant's pay scale was upgraded from 4500-125- 7000 to 5500-175-9000 w.e.f. 27.11.2007. Based on the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, the applicant's pay was fixed in the scale of 4000- 100-6000 and later, on promotion as Senior Statistical Assistant on 19.03.2002, he was fixed in the pay scale of 4500-125-7000. Again, based on his representation dt. 24.04.2007, an order was issued in No. 131/64/2002-AD.IV dt. 05.06.2008 upgrading his pay scale to 5500-175-9000 but this was revised by office order No. 131/64/2002/AD dt. 19.12.2008 downwards to 5200-20200(PB-1)+ GP 2800, which amounted to a reduction in his pay. Within the Textile Committee, other categories of Assistant, Senior Stenographer etc., had been granted higher pay scales and anomalies between them and other departments had been resolved but his category of Senior Statistical Assistant remained unresolved not only within the Textiles Committee but also with reference to several other Ministries and Departments. Therefore, the applicant claims the following reliefs:

3. The applicant was recruited on 15.10.1986 as Junior Statistical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040 in Grade S7 by the Textiles Committee who are Respondent No.2. At the time of appointment, he was a graduate as against the requirement of the post for a person aged 20-25 years and with "at least" second class graduate in Mathematics or Statistics or Economics or Commerce and with the pay that was equated under the Fifth Pay Commission at Rs. 4000-100- 6000. The Rules also show that there is a post of Punch Operator with the same pay scale but with the requirement of being a graduate and prescribed data entry speed. There are also posts of Junior Investigator in pay sclae of 4500-125-7000, Senior Statistical Assistant with pay scale of Rs. 4500- 125-7000 and Statistical Investigator with pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 with differing and increasing levels of qualification including for experience and published papers. After the Fifth Pay Commission, the applicant was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. Consequently, on 18.03.2002, the applicant was promoted as Senior Statistical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 under the Fifth Pay Commission Rules. On 24.04.2007, which was consequent to the 6th Pay Commission recommendations and prior to issue of orders based on this Pay Commission recommendations, the applicant made a representation to the respondents for the first time, addressed to the Chairperson of the Textiles Committee arguing that following Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, upgraded scales of pay were granted to Statistical function posts of Group B and C in various Ministries and Departments of Government of India but not in the Market Research Wing of the Textiles Committee. He had, therefore, requested upgradation of his pay from 4000-6000 for Junior Statistical Assistant/Punch Operator to 5000-8000, for Senior Statistical Assistant/Juinor Investigator from 4500-7000 to 5500-9000 and for Field Officer from 5500-9000 to 6500-10500. He also pointed out that higher pay scales were provided in the Textiles Committee to posts like Hindi Officer, Senior Translator, Junior Translator, Assistants and Senior Stenographers and attempted a comparison between the qualifications of jobs in his field and the other fields. It appears that the 97th Meeting of the Textiles Committee Counsel held on 27.11.2007 considered his representation and accorded approval to the request of the applicant based on which an Office Memorandum was issued on 05.06.2008[Annexure A-3] upgrading his pay scale from 4500-125-7000 to 5500-175-9000 in the pay scales under the Fifth Pay Commission. Thereafter, a letter was received from the Ministry of Textiles, addressed to the Secretary, Textiles Committee on 25.11.2008, stating that the proposed amendment made in the Textiles Committee Employees' Recruitment Regulations, 2007 as decided in the 97th meeting of the Textiles Committee held on 27.11.2007, was under

5. The applicant's claims can be divided into two parts. The first part is his claim that he was similarly placed as with persons with the same designation and who were carrying out similar functions in various other Ministries and Departments of the Government of India. Those posts, he alleges, had similar qualifications as in his post at the entry level. Those Statistical Assistants were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 and if the Junior Statistical Assistant was held in parity, he would then get the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 which would then place him in PB-II with GP Rs. 4200 under the 6th Pay Commission. Specifically in his application, he has referred to the Statistical Assistants and Investigators in a few Departments as below:-

25. While emphasizing the recent character of the applicant's claims for parity, by virtue of his first representation in this matter in April 2007 and his specific options in regard to pay scale and pay fixation obtained while being promoted as Sr. Statistical Assistant in 2002 and later for grant of 6th Pay Commission fixation in 2008, they argue that he cannot now seek to retrace the entire path and get benefits from an earlier point in time. On the issue of parity, they point out that parity has been claimed as a matter of right without any proper comparative analysis. They refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association[(2002) 6 SCC 72] which held that parity was not a fundamental right and that its determination was a complex matter which devolved on the executive to discharge and for which there had to be a detailed comparative analysis of the nature of duties, responsibilities and qualifications. On the aspect of comparison with Ministries such as the Ministry of Agriculture, they refer to the decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2951/2003 dt. 21.04.2010 of a Junior Accounts Officer deputed from the Ministry of Finance and absorbed in CAT where it was held that the case was examined in detail by a comparative analysis and it was held that parity could be extended to the applicant. The second case cited by the applicant was the decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 3052/2009 where a Private Secretary and PA in the AIIMS sought historical parity with counterparts in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Tribunal found that historical parity had always been maintained between the applicants and their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Service(CSS) and therefore, any violation of that historical parity was incorrect. The Respondents distinguish the case by saying that there is no historical relationship between the Textiles Committee and the various Ministries including the Ministry of Agriculture cited by the applicant. On the third decision of this Tribunal in its Bangalore Bench, relied upon by applicant in OA 80/2002 dt. 25.11.2011, the comparison between a Technical Assistant and a Statistical Assistant was made after a detailed examination and it was found that both were employed in the same office and the applicant who held a Master's Degree in Statistics was appointed as Technical Assistant with a pay scale matching the colleagues posted as Statistical Assistant with Graduate qualification. After the 5th Pay Commission recommendations, the situation altered and the Technical Assistants who were performing the same tasks as Statistical Assistants received lower pay. The Tribunal made a comparative analysis and considering the origins of the two posts and the relative advantage of keeping the two cadres together for enabling the rational distribution of workload, allowed the application.