Delhi High Court
S.C. Pahlajani And Ors. vs Comptroller & Auditor General Of ... on 31 May, 2002
Author: S Sinha
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. The petitioner, who are twenty in nos. and are working as Stenographers Grade II in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (in short, 'CAG of India') have filed this writ petition being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 04.02.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1852 of 1995.
FACTS :-
The scale of pay of the petitioner was at par with the Central Secretariat Stenographer Grade 'C' (in short, 'CCS Grade 'C'), as the functions and responsibilities of both the post are similar/identical.
The grievance of the petitioner is that they had not been extended the scale of pay of Rs.1,640/- - Rs.2,900/-, which has been given to their counterparts in CSS Grade 'C'.
A contention had been raised that the petitioners have been denied the said scale of pay, as the method of their recruitment was different from that of Stenographer in CSS service.
It was further contended that the said original application was barred by limitation.
The learned Tribunal determined the said preliminary objection in favor of the respondent.
Despite the said finding, the learned Tribunal considered the matter on merits.
2. The learned Tribunal is its judgment noticed a decision of the Apex Court in State of M.P. & Anr. v. Pramod Bhatia & Ors., It held that only because at one point of time they had been getting the same scale of pay would not entitle them to a higher scale of pay, which was recommended by the Central Pay Commission having regard to the fact that it is for the similarity of functions and responsibilities of the posts should be left for determination by an expert body like the Central Pay Commission.
3. So far as the contention as regard validity of O.M. dated 31.07.1990 is concerned, the Tribunal having regard to its earlier decision in O.A. No. 515/96 decided on 03.12.1999 as also the decision of the Apex Court in Federation of All India Custom and Central Excise Stenograhpers (Recognized) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1988 SCC (L&S) 673 rejected the same.
SUBMISSIONS :-
4. Mr. Ahuja, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the decisions of this Court in the case of Sangeet Natak Academy and Sahitaya Academy and only such decisions had prompted the petitioners to file an original application before the learned Tribunal.
5. According to the learned counsel having regard to the recommendations of the First, Second and Third Central Pay Commissions in terms whereof both the categories of the employees had been getting the same scale of pay, there was no reason as to why a distinction shall be made at this stage.
It has been submitted that there is absolutely no reason as to why the benefit of the same pay-scale would not be extended to the petitioners.
6. Mr. Andley, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
FINDINGS :-
7. It is not is dispute that the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension issued O.M. dated 31.07.1990 revising the pay-scale of Grade 'C' Stenographers of CSS and extended the benefit of the same to other organizations.
FINDINGS :-
8. A representation was made by the petitioners to the respondents for implementation of the said pay-scale to the Stenographers working with the respondent No. 1 i.e., the CAG of India on the basis of parity. Such representations were reiterated on several occasions or by way of a representation or otherwise including one made on 08.09.1992.
9. In a meeting held on 09.11.1994, disparity in the scale of pay of Stenographers in Subordinate Services and the CSS was noticed and the same was remitted to the Fifth Central Pay Commissioner for consideration.
10. The matter as to whether the petitioners herein would automatically be held to be entitled to the revised scale of pay as has been granted in favor of the CSS came up for consideration before this Bench in C.W.P. No. 3844 of 1999 Director General ESI Corporation & Anr. v. All India ESIC Employees Federation & Anr. and other cases, which are being disposed of today, i.e., 31.05.2001 wherein such a contention had ben negated by this Court.
11. However the learned Tribunal, in our opinion, in a case of this nature was not correct in dismissing the said original application on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.
12. The learned Tribunal is correct in its finding that a Court or the Tribunal would not embark upon the question as regards the parity in functions and/or responsibilities and consequences of the parity in the scale of pay of employees of different organizations.
13. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment being unassailable, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.
