Ashok Nath Chakravarty vs Union Of India
2009 Latest Caselaw 2712 Del

*            HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

+     Writ Petition (Civil) No. 250/1999

                       Judgment reserved on: July 15, 2009
%                      Judgment delivered on: July 20, 2009

      Ashok Nath Chakravarty                       ..... Petitioner

                       Through: Petitioner in person

                 Versus

      Union of India                            ..... Respondent

                       Through: None
      Coram:

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

      1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?           Yes

      2. To be referred to Reporter or not?            Yes

      3. Whether the judgment should be reported
         in the Digest?                      Not Necessary



A.K. PATHAK, J.

1. Petitioner and one Shri.K.C.Ghosh were appointed as

Assistants in the Home Ministry after they cleared Assistants'

Grade Examination, 1968. Shri K.C.Ghosh was junior to the

Petitioner in the merit list. Both Petitioner and Shri K.C.Ghosh

were included in the 1978 select list (seniority quota) and

pursuant thereof Petitioner was appointed as Section Officer in

the Ministry of Home Affairs; whereas Shri K.C.Ghosh was

appointed as Section Officer in the Rural Development Ministry.

Pay of Shri K.C.Ghosh was stepped up w.e.f.1st June, 1983 with

reference to his junior Shri A.K.Dey, Section Officer in the

Ministry of Rural Development.

2. Petitioner claimed stepping up of his pay equal to that of

Shri K.C.Ghosh w.e.f. 1st June, 1983 on the ground that he was

senior to Shri K.C. Ghosh. His request was declined vide office

memorandum dated 4th October, 1991. On Petitioner filing OA

bearing No.1181/1992 Tribunal set aside the order dated 4th

October, 1991 with the direction to the Respondent to pass a

speaking order. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a representation dated

24th December, 1996 for stepping up of his pay but same was

rejected by the Respondent vide order dated 12th February, 1997.

3. Petitioner challenged this order by filing OA No.1188/1997

before the Tribunal and prayed therein that his pay be stepped

up in the grade of Section Officer at Rs.960/-p.m. in the pre-

revised scale of Rs.650-1200 w.e.f.1st June, 1983 at par with his

junior Shri K.C.Ghosh with consequential benefits. Vide order

dated 11th August, 1998 Tribunal dismissed OA of the Petitioner.

4. Tribunal held that Shri K.C.Ghosh upon his appointment as

Section Officer was placed at the disposal of Rural Development

Ministry and was in different cadre than that of Petitioner who

was placed under the Ministry of Home Affairs; therefore, his pay

was not liable to be stepped up viz-a-viz Shri K.C.Ghosh. Pay of

Shri K.C. Ghosh was stepped up and was brought at par with his

junior Shri A.K. Dey, who was working in the same Ministry i.e.

Rural Development Ministry and belonged to same cadre.

Petitioner was working as Section Officer in the Ministry of Home

Affairs, which was different cadre. Plea of petitioner regarding

"equal pay for equal work" was not tenable as it was not

mandatory that all the members of cadre must receive the same

pay, irrespective of their seniority, source of recruitment,

educational qualification etc.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 11th August, 1998 of the

Tribunal, Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying therein

that the order passed by the Tribunal be quashed and his pay be

ordered to be re-fixed in the grade of Section Officer at Rs.960

p.m. in the pre-revised scale of Rs.650-1200 w.e.f. 1st June, 1983

with consequential increments and re-fixation of pay in the

revised scale of Rs.2000-3500, Respondent shall pay arrears of

pay along with interest @ 18% p.a.

6. Petitioner has argued that he as well as Shri K.C.Ghosh

were recruited through Assistant Grade Examination, 1968 on

the basis of open competitive examination conducted by the

Union Public Service Commission. The rank of Shri K.C.Ghosh

was 151 whereas Petitioner was placed at No.111 in the merit

list. Both of them were recruited in the same cadre and their

names were included in the 1978 Select List (Seniority Quota).

Petitioner was appointed in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Being

junior to the Petitioner in the list, Shri K.C. Ghosh was promoted

as Section Officer on a later date and was placed at the disposal

of Ministry of Rural Development. Since Petitioner as well as Shri

K.C. Ghosh were working as Section Officers and as per common

seniority list Shri K.C. Ghosh was junior to the Petitioner, his pay

was liable to be stepped up at par with Shri K.C. Ghosh. He has

further contended that since Petitioner as well as K.C. Ghosh

were working as Section Officers and performing same nature of

duties he was entitled to equal pay viz-a-viz Shri K.C. Ghosh on

the well known settled principles of "equal pay for equal work".

7. We have considered the arguments of the Petitioner.

However, in the factual matrix as stated above as also in law

applicable to the context, we do not find any merit in the present

case and are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the

Tribunal. Merely because Petitioner and Shri K.C.Ghosh were

appointed as Assistants together after having been selected

through open competition and were working as Assistants in the

Home Ministry, at given point of time, would not make much

difference. Subsequently, both were promoted to the post of

Section Officer and placed at the disposal of different Ministries.

Petitioner joined as Section Officer in Home Ministry whereas Mr.

K.C. Ghosh joined Ministry of Rural Development. After they

were placed in different Ministries on their promotion as Section

Officers their cadre changed.

8. Rule 2 (e) of the Central Secretariat Service Rules 1962 (CSS

Rules) defines the cadre as group of posts in the grades of Section

Officer and Assistant in any of the Ministries or offices as

specified in that schedule. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides that

a separate cadre in respect of Section Officers' grade and the

Assistants' grade shall be constituted for each Ministry or office

specified in column (2) of the first schedule and all the Officers

specified against such Ministry or office in column (3) of that

schedule and officers of these grades in each cadre shall be borne

on a separate gradation list drawn up for that cadre. It is thus,

clear that on their promotion to the post of Section Officer cadre

of Petitioner and Shri K.C. Ghosh changed. Petitioner was

assigned cadre of Ministry of Home Affairs; whereas Shri K.C.

Ghosh was assigned cadre of Ministry of Rural Development.

Since Petitioner and Shri K.C. Ghosh belonged to different cadre

on their promotion to the post of Section Officer, pay of the

Petitioner could not have been stepped up merely because pay of

Shri K.C. Ghosh was stepped up by the Ministry of Rural

Development. Pay of Shri K.C. Ghosh was stepped up by the

Ministry of Rural Development since Shri A.K. Dey who was

working as Section Officer in the same Ministry was drawing

more pay though he was junior to Shri K.C. Ghosh. The same

principle would not be applicable in the case of the Petitioner as

he was in the different cadre.

9. We also do not find any force in the plea of Petitioner that

his pay is liable to be stepped up as he was performing same

nature of work, which was being performed by Mr. K.C. Ghosh.

10. We do not find any infirmity or impropriety in the impugned

order; accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

A.K. PATHAK, J

MADAN B. LOKUR, J

July 20, 2009 ps