Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioners in these writ proceedings claim pay scales higher to what has been prescribed to them, and allege that the scales of equivalent to what is prescribed for Assistants, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; they claim pay parity with those who worked as Stenographer Grade II, at the relevant time.

2. All the petitioners were recruited, at the relevant time, on various dates between 1983-1986, as Stenographer-III. The relevant facts, uncontroverter by the respondent-employer (the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, hereafter called "ONGC") are that as per the recruitment rules applicable in the respondent organization, there were three categories of Stenographers- Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III. In 1968, ONGC decided, as a matter of policy to discontinue direct recruitment to the post of Stenographer-III; it commenced recruitment directly to the post of Stenographer Grade-II. Sometime in 1974, Recruitment Rules were framed, which altered the situation, in that the entry level for Stenographers was changed to Stenographer Grade III. The 1974 rules were replaced by a fresh set of rules, in 1980; in material particulars, so far as this case is concerned, there was no change; the entry level for Stenographers continued to be in Grade III. The petitioners joined the services of ONGC as Stenographers-III.

4. It was submitted that Stenographers were treated with discrimination as they were placed in the same pay scales granted to Assistants, despite the former being better qualified than the Assistants. Learned Council relied upon the fact that in all the Oil Companies, differential pay scales had been prescribed between two categories. Assistants were always placed in a grade lower than Stenographers-II. Therefore the equation of two unequal categories was contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel submitted that with effect from 08-05-1968, ONGC abolished the category of Stenographers Grade-III and raised the induction level to Stenographers-II. It was submitted that the Regulations framed in 1974 reintroduced the induction level to stenographer Grade-II but without assigning any reason; however this decision was never implemented.

Further, their case needs special consideration as stay no grafters graded-I are mostly rendering secretarial assistance to very senior officials, hence they are mostly under great pressure of work and often required to set late to make the secretarial and co-ordination requirements of the respective officers....

7. It was submitted that ONGC had constituted an appeals committee to look into the grievances of the petitioners; the committee had by its report dated 03-05-1998 observed that the ONGC could not explain the new situation which warranted introduction of the post of stenographers grade III despite the circular of 1968 which had prohibited it from creating that Grade in the future. The committee had also served that induction level of clerical posts is lower in most public sector units than the induction level of stenographers on account of differences in duties, responsibilities etc. Counsel also pointed out that the report noted that induction level of the post of stenographers with effect from 1974/1980 was Grade III and Grade-II was only a promotional post; the committee also noticed irregularities by the ONGC. Council further submitted that another, two member committee examined the grievances once again and by report dated 26-10-1998 confirmed the facts and accepted that the induction level was changed, after a gap of 21 years and 18 years and that seniority were also changed, which should not have been done. Counsel submitted that after recruitment and Promotion Regulations were framed in 1980, no Stenographer could have been appointed in Grade II; she placed reliance on the report of the two member committee to say that there were precedents whereby some stenographers were given the induction level Grade -II despite the fact that under the 1980 regulations, that post was promotional in nature.

19. The second question is whether the petitioners grievance about grant of Stenographer "Grade-II to several persons initially recruited in Grade-III, between 15 and 20 years after their initial appointment is justified. The factual narrative shows that up to 1974 the induction level prescribed was Stenographer-II. This was changed, with the introduction of Stenographer' III grade as the induction level in the Regulations of 1974. It is also an undisputed position that the induction level continued to be Stenographer Grade-III in the 1980 Regulations. The respondents' defense for granting higher pay scale of Stenographer 'II, to certain persons, is two fold. It is firstly stated that between 1974-80, although the Regulations required induction at Stenographer-III level, in practice appointments were made to the post of Stenographer-II. The benefit of upgradation although given much later to the concerned employees, (it was averred and contended), was due to the selection process in their case having been undertaken during the currency of the 1974 Rules, when the practice of appointment to Stenographer-II was in vogue. It was also claimed that while appointing the said persons, as Stenographer-III, the ONGC had overlooked the guidelines applicable for appointment to the reserved vacancies. As a consequence, this benefit of existing practice could not be extended to employees eligible to be appointed in reserved categories.