* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.7231/2007
Reserved on: May 19, 2009.
% Pronounced on: 29th May, 2009.
Union of India ........Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.K. Gangwani, Adv.
VERSUS
Shri R.K. Sharma & Ors. ..........Respondents
Through Mr. V.S.R. Krishna Adv.
with Ms. Bimla Devi, Adv.
CORAM:-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be
allowed to see the Judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the
Digest? YES
V.K.Jain, J.
1. The respondents, who are working as Junior Accounts Officers in the Department of Economic Affairs, were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000. Some posts of Junior Accounts Officer in the Department of Economic Affairs were W.P.(C) No.7231/2007 Page 1 of 7 encadred in the Organised Accounts Cadre. It was, therefore, decided to allow them higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 23.11.2005, as a special case, as they were working side by side with the Accounts posts encadred in Civil Accounts Service and those who were holding encadred posts in Organised Accounts Services, were drawing pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. Since, the Junior Accounts Officers belonging to Organised Accounts Service were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and actually w.e.f. 19.2.2003 the respondents also represented for according similar placement to them. Their request having been turned down, OA No. 969/06, was filed by them before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Vide order dated 10.5.07, the Tribunal held that once the Govt. had agreed to accord to the applicants, same pay scale as was accorded to the incumbents of the Organized Accounts Services, the benefit should have been granted to them from the same date from which it was accorded to their counterparts, as they are identically situated and were equal in all respects.
W.P.(C) No.7231/2007 Page 2 of 7
2. The order of the Tribunal has been assailed mainly on the ground that the respondents are not members of an Organised Accounts Service and the higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 was accorded to them as a special case vide order dated 23.11.2005, and therefore, they cannot claim this scale notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and actually w.e.f. 19.2.2003.
3. In our view, the stand taken by the petitioner is not justified in law. This is not the case of the petitioner that higher scale of Rs.6500-10500 was accorded to the respondents as a matter of concession without finding any justification for it. The higher scale was given to them as they were working side by side with the persons holding Accounts posts encadred in Civil Accounts Service. Once the petitioner agreed that the functions being performed by the respondents were identical to the functions being performed by those who were encadred in Civil Accounts Service and who, by virtue of being from Organised Accounts Service, were drawing the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and the Govt. decided to extend the higher pay scale to them, there was absolutely no justification for not granting the revised pay scale to them retrospectively when those who were holding W.P.(C) No.7231/2007 Page 3 of 7 encadred posts were given that pay scale notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and actually w.e.f. 19.2.2003. The petitioner has not been able to give any justification at all for not extending benefit of revised scale to the respondent from the same date from which it has been extended to those who were holding posts encadred in Civil Accounts Service and has not been able to assail the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the respondents as well as their counterparts are identically situated and equal in all respects.
4. In State of Mizoram and Anr vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Associations and Ors. 2004 6 SCC 218, the Govt of India accepted the 4th Central Pay Commission Report regarding revision of pay scales in Central Civil Services w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and made the recommendations applicable also to the Civil Services in Mizoram. The CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 were also made applicable to the employees forming part of Civil Services in Mizoram. On the recommendations made by the Employees Anomalies Committees were set up by Govt of Mizoram. Ultimately, Notification dated 19.1.1989 was then issued accepting recommendations of the Second Anomalies W.P.(C) No.7231/2007 Page 4 of 7 Committee. Soon thereafter, the State Govt issued another Notification dated 3.2.1989 whereby the scales of Rs.5900-6700 and Rs.4500-5700 were denied to the Chief Engineers and Additional Chief Engineers, respectively though it was being allowed to the incumbents holding equivalent posts in CPWD. The writ petition filed by the Association of Employees assailing the decision of the State Govt having been allowed by the High Court, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the State of Mizoram. It was contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that since Engineering Service in the State was not an organized service, the higher scale of Rs.5900-6700 which was admissible for Senior Level Posts, could not be given in Engineering Service. The main reason given for treating Engineering Service as an organised service was absence of Recruitment Rules for this service.
5. The contention raised by the State Govt was repelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following observations:
"Who is responsible for not framing the recruitment rules? Are the members of the engineering Service responsible for it? The answer is clearly "No". For failure of the State Government to frame W.P.(C) No.7231/2007 Page 5 of 7 recruitment rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organised service, the engineers cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the reasons of absence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service, we see hardly any difference in organised and unorganised service so far as government service is concerned. In government service such a distinction does not appear to have any relevance. Civil service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what is sought to be conveyed by use of the words "organised service" and "unorganised service". Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf. The argument is wholly misconceived."
6. In the present case, the petition does not disclose on what basis the respondents are being treated as members of an unorganised service while those holding cadre posts in Civil Accounts Service are being treated as belonging to Organised Accounts Service. This is not the case of the petitioner that they are performing different functions or that their qualifications for entry in service or promotion etc are different. The very fact that the petitioner has accorded the higher scale to the respondents, W.P.(C) No.7231/2007 Page 6 of 7 albeit from a later date, indicates that the petitioner accepts that there is no such distinction between the respondents and those holding cadre posts, as would disentitle them from the same pay which is being drawn by the holders of cadre posts.
7. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.
(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE May 29, 2009.
W.P.(C) No.7231/2007 Page 7 of 7