Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. It is on the above basis that it was contended by the Respondents before the CAT that the difference in the pay scales of PAs/PSs of IARI when compared to the pay scale of their counter parts in the ICAR is discriminatory and violates the principle of equal pay for equal work on a collective reading of Articles 39(d) with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Impugned order of CAT
15. In the impugned order the CAT referred to the fact that on 18th September, 1996 the Cabinet considered a note from the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) and decided to make a special reference immediately to the 5th CPC. The 5th CPC sent a letter to the Secretary, DOE on 29th October, 1996 where inter-alia it was stated as under:

19. Following the above order of the CAT, ICAR issued an OM dated 7th September, 2012 in which it was noted that after acceptance of the recommendations of the 5th CPC the pay scale of PAs posted at the ICAR had been higher than their counter parts in the institutes. According to the MOF, since PAs posted in ICAR had "a historical parity with CSSS, they were given benefit at par with CSSS" while those in the institutes could not be given such benefit.

20. The CAT in the impugned order, after noticing the above developments observed as under:

(ii) Retired judges of Supreme Court, on consultation has clear cut mentioned I that the order of CAT dated 01.07.2014 is not correct and is required to be challenged before the High Court.
(iii) The case filed against the CAT order dated 01.07,2014 is still in progress and ICAR may wait for final outcome of the writ petition filed in the High Court. Once the court case is finalized in the High Court, further appropriate action will be considered;

49. As rightly pointed out in the impugned order of the CAT the earlier decision of this Court in ICAR Stenographer's Association v. ICAR (supra) was on the limited aspect of the retrospective nature of the proposal to equate the pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1997 and did not actually address the issue whether there was justification in differentiating in the pay scales of PAs/PSs of the IARI and their counterparts in the ICAR HQ.

50. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds no grounds having been made out by the Petitioners for interference with the impugned order of the CAT.