Delhi High Court
Gulab Bhati vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 September, 2002
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: A D Singh, R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 4.4.2002 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, (for short 'the Tribunal'). The case of the
petitioner before the Tribunal was that pursuant to an advertisement for the post of Research
Assistant (German) the petitioner applied. He was appointed against one of the three posts
on ad-hoc basis which appointment was extended from time to time. No separate
recruitment rules for these posts were made. On 13.12.1985, the petitioner moved O.A.
No. 39/85 for regularisation of his services which was allowed vide order dated 13.11.1992.
In this order it was held that the post of Research Assistant (German) was analogous to the
post of Research Assistant (Hindi) for which recruitment rules were in existence. The
petitioner was directed to be regularised with effect from the date of his ad-hoc appointment
in consultation with the UPSC and on evaluation of ACRs. This order was given effect to
and the petitioner was regularised as Research Assistant (German) in the pay-scale of
Rs. 1640-2900. The petitioner raised no objection to the fixation of pay-scale at any time on
being regularised. However, by representation dated 12.11.1997 he stated that the Fifth Pay
Commission had placed Research Assistant (Hindi) in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-6500, revised
to Rs. 6500-10500 and accordingly he had also been placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-6500,
revised to Rs. 6500-10500 which was grossly unjust as the work done by the petitioner was
different and that the petitioner worked in the capacity of a foreign language Research
Assistant. He claimed a higher grade on the basis of his qualification. The petitioner filed
O.A. No. 2053/2000 challenging the orders dated 16/19.6.1998 and 30.7.1998 in which an
order was made directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation by a
speaking order. Pursuant to the above order, the respondents disposed of the representation
of the petitioner vide order dated 4.1.2000. This order dated 4.1.2000 was challenged by the
petitioner in C.P. No. 183/2000 alleging that the respondent had disobeyed the order dated
19.10.2000 passed in O.A. No. 2053/2000. The aforesaid C.P. No. 183/2000 was dismissed
after giving the petitioner opportunity to agitate his grievances in accordance with the rules
and law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application being O.A. No. 1670/2001. The
learned Tribunal noted the contention that while those with B.A. Degree at entry level in
the relevant foreign languages were enjoying higher pay-scale, the petitioner with Master's
degree was in an inferior scale. The petitioner contended that others are engaged only in
bilingual translation/typing work while the petitioner was engaged in a highly academic
bilingual research work and was entitled to the pay-scale equivalent to them. The
contention of the petitioner did not find with the learned Tribunal which dismissed the
O.A. vide order dated 4.2.2000. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has moved the present writ
petition.
2. It may be pointed out that the finding of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 39/1985
to the effect that the post of Research Assistant (German) is analogous to the post of
Research Assistant (Hindi), has not been challenged. Even otherwise, the post of Research
Assistant (German) cannot be equated with the posts of translators, interpreters, tutors,
instructors, examiners, editors, advisers etc. for these posts are different in duties and
responsibilities, nature of work etc. The claim of the petitioner to equal work and equal pay
cannot be acceded to since the posts are not similar. Further the contention of the petitioner
that the post that carry a higher pay-scale require bachelor degree in a foreign language as
entry level qualification while the petitioner possesses a Master's degree, is of no avail. It
is well settled that the qualification at the entry level is the only relevant factor while fixing
pay-scale in a service. He find the reasoning of the learned Tribunal to be sound.
Consequently, we decline to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in our writ jurisdiction.
The petition fails and is dismissed.
