Delhi High Court
Dr. Sagheer Ahmed Siddiqui And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 28 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 VIAD Delhi 83, 106 (2003) DLT 385, 2003 (71) DRJ 667
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain
JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Rule.
2. This petition has been filed by Assistant Research Officers working with respondent No. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that they have been denied the scales of pay recommended by 5th Pay Commission. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 1/UOI issued letter dated 2.8.2002, conveying the approval of the competent authority to the upgradation of the scale of Asstt. Research Officers(Unani) in the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine and Asstt. Research Officers (Homoes) in Central Council for Research in Homeopathy from the existing scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/- to Rs. 8000-13,500/-. It was also stated in the said letter that revision of pay scale will be effective from the date of issue of this Order and pay fixation in the revised scale may be implemented as per rules. My attention has been drawn to bye-law 44 of Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine which is to the following effect:
"The scales of pay and allowances applicable to the officers and establishments in the services of the Central Council shall be those prescribed by the Government of India for similar personnel employed under them."
3. Another bye-law which is important to note is bye-law 47. The same is to the following effect:
"In respect of matters not provided for in these regulations the rules as applicable to Central Government servants regarding the general conditions of service, pay allowances, or T.A. and daily allowances, foreign services terms, deputation in India and abroad, etc. and orders and decisions issue in this regard by the Central Government from time to time shall apply mutates mutants to the employees of the Central Council."
4. Another contention which has been raised before me by the counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner's are entitled to career advancement scheme and in similar circumstances a writ petition being C.W.4379/2001 was filed in this Court by C.C.R.H. Scientists Welfare Association where a direction was issued on 10.10.2002 to respondent No. 1/UOI that respondent No. 1 should take decision.
5. The respondent/Union of India itself by issuing letter dated 2.8.2002 has admitted that revised pay scale has to be granted to the petitioner. The only controversy which remains is as to from which date the petitioners are entitled for revised pay scale. In view of aforesaid specific regulations the letter dated 2.8.2002 issued by respondent No. 1/UOI is silent as to why the revised pay scale has been given from 2.8.2002 when similarly situated Central Government Employees have been given revised pay scale after recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission from 1st January, 1996. A direction is issued to respondent No. 1/UOI to pass speaking order within four months, detailing the reasons as to why petitioners can be treated in a different manner in view of specific provision in bye- laws 44 and 47 for grant of pay scales from the date when other similarly situated Central Government employees availed the benefit of 5th Pay Commission. I also issue direction to respondent No. 1/UOI to take a decision within a period of four months with regard to assured career advancement/progression scheme.
6. Rule is made absolute.
7. With this direction writ petition stands disposed of.
