Union Of India & 2 Ors vs Prabhakar Wasudeo Dalal
2017 Latest Caselaw 10033 Bom

                                                       1                      221217  Judg. wp 1960.02.odt  

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                Writ Petition No.1960 of 2002 

1]      Union of India,
        Ministry of Defence through 
        Director General Quality Assurance, 
        Department of Defence, Production/D.G.Q.A.(Adm-78),
        D.H.O.P.O., New Delhi.

2]      Controller,
        Collectorate of Quality Assurance (AMN), 
        Kirkee, Pune 411 003.

3]      Senior Quality Assurance Officer,
        Senior Quality Assurance Establishment (ARMTS), 
        Ambazari, Nagpur.                                                    ... Petitioners.


                                                -Versus-

Prabhakar Wasudeo Dalal,
Draftsman-III
In Sr. Quality Assurance Establishment, Ambazari, 
Nagpur.                                                                                ... Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms   Tanna, Adv for petitioners.
Shri Narnaware, Adv for respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari  &
                                                                   Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

Dated : 22nd December, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

The respondent recruited validly as a Draughtsman as he possesses diploma in Mechanical Engineering approached Central

2 221217 Judg. wp 1960.02.odt

Administrative Tribunal [CAT] in Original Application No.239 of 1999 with a grievance that his salary needed to be revised as per policy dated 15-09-1995. The CAT at Nagpur examined his grievance and by judgment delivered on 21-03-2002 allowed it.

2] In the said judgment the CAT (Nagpur) relies upon its own identical judgment delivered at Madras Bench. It is not in dispute, that the Members constituting Bench at Nagpur and Madras are same.

3] The learned Advocate for the petitioner department, in this situation, has invited our attention to the judgment delivered by Madras High Court on 16-02-2007 in Writ Petition No.1354 of 2002 and other matters to urge that the view of Madras CAT relied upon at Nagpur is overruled and the Madras High Court has found that as the applicants before the Madras CAT were not possessing certificate or diploma in Draughtsmanship, they were not eligible to revise wages as per the policy decision dated 15-09-1995.

4] Learned Advocate Shri Narnaware for the respondent submits that the recruitment rules prescribe Diploma in Engineering as qualification and the petitioner possessing that diploma has been recruited accordingly in pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 and vide policy decision dated 15-09-1995, the pay scale of said post has been revised to Rs. 1400-2300. Accordion to him, the CAT at Nagpur has considered the controversy and relied upon Clause 4(b) of the policy decision dated 15-09-1995 to hold that the qualifications stipulated in recruitment rules would prevail and hence the wage revision cannot be denied to the applicant before it on the ground

3 221217 Judg. wp 1960.02.odt

that he does not possess certificate or diploma of Draughtsman. He submits that the Madras High Court has not considered this aspect.

5] In brief reply, learned Advocate Ms Tanna, has invited our attention to the discussion of Madras High Court in paragraph 12 of its judgment dated 16-02-2007.

6] After hearing the respective learned Advocates, we find that the respondent before us possessed necessary qualification and therefore has been validly recruited as Draughtsman and was then placed in pay scale of Rs.1200-2040.

7] The policy decision dated 15-09-1995 warrants certificate or diploma in Draughtsman with some experience. This clause 4(b) which is relevant in case of present respondent has been looked into by the CAT at Nagpur and it has held that it cannot be construed in a manner inconsistent with the recruitment rules. In other words, a person possessing qualification prescribed in recruitment rules and recruitment as Draughtsman has been accepted as sufficient and holder thereof is therefore held entitled to revise wages, if he satisfies the other part of clause 4(b).

8] This aspect was pressed into service before the Madras High Court in paragraph 12. The Madras High Court has observed as under :-

"12. Admittedly, as far as the recruitment rules of the second respondent is concerned, the required qualification is a Diploma in Engineering with one year experience. As

4 221217 Judg. wp 1960.02.odt

such, when a scale of pay has been prescribed basing on the qualification, the employee of all the departments, who did not possess the required qualification, cannot claiming the scale of pay on the ground that they possessed the higher qualification than what is required. Apart from this, as far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent cannot take a stand that the higher qualification is not equivalent to the lower qualification and consequently, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the higher scale of pay is concerned, as stated earlier, the issue is whether the petitioners are eligible for the revised scale of pay as mentioned in the latter dated 15.09.1995, when the petitioners had not possessed the required qualification. Apart from this, as per the recruitment rules, the required qualification is only a Diploma in Engineering basing on which, the petitioners were appointed, but the higher scale of pay is eligible only to the post where the required qualification is certificate or Diploma in Draughtsman from a recognized Institution of not less than two years (including 6 months practical training) with one year experience."

9] The Madras High Court has found that the policy decision dated 15-09-1995 enables only persons holding certificate or diploma in Draftsmanship to claim the revised wages. A person not holding those qualifications is held not entitled to claim higher scale of pay on the ground that he possesses higher qualification than are required by clause 4(b).

10] We are not in a position to accept this logic. This will result in an anomalous situation. The Draughtsman recruited validly with better qualification will therefore continue to work in lower scale as well as the Draughtsman with other qualification will be given benefit and higher pay

5 221217 Judg. wp 1960.02.odt

scale. Such discrimination cannot be the purpose of wage revision extended on 15-09-1995. We therefore find that the CAT at Nagpur has properly evaluated the issue and extended the benefit of revised pay scale .

11] We do not find any substance in the petition. Rule stands discharged. No costs.

                                                  JUDGE                                                    JUDGE   




Deshmukh