Sh. Riyazuddin Siddique And Ors. vs Central Tibetan Schools ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 718 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. This writ petition raises question of grant of parity in the pay scales to the employees of respondent No. 1 i.e. Central Tibetan Schools Administration (for short 'CTSA') who are presently holding the post of Assistants, Audit Assistants and Senior Stenographers. It was contended before me that right from their appointments they got the same pay scales as their counterparts in the Government of India so much so that the recommendations of 2nd, 3rd, 4th Pay Commission respectively had been implemented in their case as in the case of their counterparts in the Government of India.

3. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended that the petitioners are not performing the same duties as are done by similarly situated persons in the Secretariat. It has been further contended that the duties and responsibilities of the stenographers working in the Secretariat are also not comparable with their counterparts in subordinate offices/autonomous bodies. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has relied upon a decision in Federation of A.I.C. & C.E. Stenographers (Recgd). v. Union of India, . He contends that the classification has been founded on intelligible basis which distinguishes persons who are grouped together in the Secretariat and those who are working in CTSA/respondent No. 1.

4. On the other hand counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the office of respondent No. 1 except the petitioners all other employees from under Secretary to Peon are getting the same pay scale as has been granted in the Central Government.

5. Following is the illustrated chart which has been filed by the petitioner:

------------------------------------------------------------------

S. No.     Designation          Pay Scale in the  Pay Scale in
                                Central Govt./      CTSA 
                                Secretariat.        
------------------------------------------------------------------
1.         Under Secretary      10000-325-15200    10000-325-15200

2.         Section Officer      6500-200-10500      6500-200-10500
3.         Assistant/Audit      5500-175-9000       5000-150-8000
           Assistant
4.         Upper Division       4000-100-6000       4000-100-6000
           Clerk
5.         Lower Division       3050-75-3950-       3050-75-3950-
           Clerk                80-4590             80-4590
6.         Daftry               2650-65-3300-       2650-65-3300-
                                70-4000             70-4000
7.         Peon                 2550-55-2660-       2550-65-2660-
                                60-3200             60-3200
SECRETARIAL CADRE 
1.         Stenographer         5500-175-9000       5000-155-8000
           (Group-C)
2.         Stenographer         4000-100-6000       4000-100-6000
           (Group-D) 
 

 

6. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon various authorities of this court. In similar circumstances this court allowed the writ petition titled Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Union of India CW 4414/94 decided on 16.7.97. Against the said petition LPA is pending. However, no stay is granted in the said LPA. Counsel for the petitioner also contends that in Director General, E.S.I. Corpn. and Anr. v. All India Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr. SLP filed against the judgment of this Court was dismissed by Supreme Court on 23.8.99. Similarly in Union of India and Ors. v. P.C. Garg and Ors. SLP filed by the Union of India was also dismissed by Supreme Court on 1.5.95. That SLP as dismissed against the decision of Central Administrative Tribunal as at that relevant time special leave petition was to be filed against the decision of Central Administrative Tribunal. Ms. Maninder Acharya further contended that other decisions on this point of this court in LPA 286/99 decided on 26.7.99 and Indian Institute of Foreign Trade v. Union of India CW. 6198/99 decided on 7.8.2001 deals with the cases like the present one.

7. I have/ given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. The reliance placed by counsel for respondent No. 2 upon the decision in Federation of A.I.C. & C.E. Stenographers (Supra) is misconceived. In the present case apart from the fact that all other officers and employees who are working with respondent No. 1/CTSA are getting similar pay scales what has been given to the corresponding officers and employees of the Secretariat would falsify the stand of Union of India that the nature and duty of the petitioner and the employees working with respondent No. 1 are not similar. Had it been so Union of India ought not have allowed same pay scales which are admissible to the employees in the Secretariat to those who are working in CTSA. Even otherwise to my mind the best judge to decide whether status are similar or not on this subject in respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has filed counter affidavit and in the said counter affidavit respondent No. 1 has stated that they have recommended the case of the petitioners for the revision of the pay scales o Assistants, Audit Assistants and Senior Stenographers from Rs. 1400-2600 to Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.86 for approval in May 1998 and again in November, 1998, but respondent No. 2 has not agreed with the approval. The case of the petitioners stands on different footing de horse the argument that they are performing similar duties as has been performed by the same class of employees working in Secretariat. There are regulations framed by CTSA. Regulation 39(a) is important as well as relevant to decide the controversy. The same is reproduced below:

"39(a) the scales of pay applicable to the officers and establishments in the service of the Admn. shall not be in excess of those prescribed by the Govt. of India for similar personnel, same in the case of specialists.

(b) In regard to all matters such as T.A., Leave, increments pay etc., the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules framed by the Gvernment of India and such other rules and orders issued by the Govt. of India from time to time will apply to the officers of the Admn."

8. In view of the said Regulations of respondent No. 1, pay scales applicable to the petitioners could not be in excess to what pay scales are applicable to those prescribed by the Government of India for similar personnel but it cannot be read to mean that it may not be the same for the petitioners as has been argued before my by the counsel for respondent No. 2. In the case of Federation of A.I.C. & C.E. Stenographers (Supra), no such regulations were before the Supreme Court. In view of the Regulation 39(a) and in view of the fact that for all other class of officers as well as employees similar pay scales are made applicable by respondent No. 2, as given to the officers and employees working with the Government of India, I am afraid action of Union of India in not acceding to the recommendation of respondent No. 1 suffers from vires of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Therefore, I issue a direction to respondent No. 2 to immediately grant same benefits to the petitioners as has been recommended by respondent No. 1, w.e.f. 1.1.86 with all consequential benefits, within a period of eight weeks.

9. Petition stands allowed.