Delhi High Court

Union Of India vs Shri R.K. Sharma & Ors. on 29 May, 2009

Author: V. K. Jain

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.7231/2007

                              Reserved on:     May 19, 2009.
%                             Pronounced on: 29th May, 2009.

Union of India                            ........Petitioner

                          Through: Mr. H.K. Gangwani, Adv.

       VERSUS

Shri R.K. Sharma & Ors.               ..........Respondents

                          Through Mr. V.S.R. Krishna Adv.
                                  with Ms. Bimla Devi, Adv.



CORAM:-

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

       1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be
          allowed to see the Judgment? YES
       2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
       3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the
          Digest?      YES



V.K.Jain, J.

1. The respondents, who are working as Junior Accounts

Officers in the Department of Economic Affairs, were placed in

the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000. Some posts of Junior

Accounts Officer in the Department of Economic Affairs were

encadred in the Organised Accounts Cadre. It was, therefore,

decided to allow them higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f.

23.11.2005, as a special case, as they were working side by side

with the Accounts posts encadred in Civil Accounts Service and

those who were holding encadred posts in Organised Accounts

Services, were drawing pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. Since, the

Junior Accounts Officers belonging to Organised Accounts

Service were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500

notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and actually w.e.f. 19.2.2003 the

respondents also represented for according similar placement

to them. Their request having been turned down, OA No.

969/06, was filed by them before the Central Administrative

Tribunal. Vide order dated 10.5.07, the Tribunal held that once

the Govt. had agreed to accord to the applicants, same pay

scale as was accorded to the incumbents of the Organized

Accounts Services, the benefit should have been granted to

them from the same date from which it was accorded to their

counterparts, as they are identically situated and were equal in

all respects.

2. The order of the Tribunal has been assailed mainly on the

ground that the respondents are not members of an Organised

Accounts Service and the higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500

was accorded to them as a special case vide order dated

23.11.2005, and therefore, they cannot claim this scale

notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and actually w.e.f. 19.2.2003.

3. In our view, the stand taken by the petitioner is not

justified in law. This is not the case of the petitioner that higher

scale of Rs.6500-10500 was accorded to the respondents as a

matter of concession without finding any justification for it. The

higher scale was given to them as they were working side by

side with the persons holding Accounts posts encadred in Civil

Accounts Service. Once the petitioner agreed that the functions

being performed by the respondents were identical to the

functions being performed by those who were encadred in Civil

Accounts Service and who, by virtue of being from Organised

Accounts Service, were drawing the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500

and the Govt. decided to extend the higher pay scale to them,

there was absolutely no justification for not granting the revised

pay scale to them retrospectively when those who were holding

encadred posts were given that pay scale notionally w.e.f.

1.1.1996 and actually w.e.f. 19.2.2003. The petitioner has not

been able to give any justification at all for not extending

benefit of revised scale to the respondent from the same date

from which it has been extended to those who were holding

posts encadred in Civil Accounts Service and has not been able

to assail the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the

respondents as well as their counterparts are identically

situated and equal in all respects.

4. In State of Mizoram and Anr vs. Mizoram Engineering

Service Associations and Ors. 2004 6 SCC 218, the Govt of

India accepted the 4th Central Pay Commission Report

regarding revision of pay scales in Central Civil Services w.e.f.

1.1.1986 and made the recommendations applicable also to the

Civil Services in Mizoram. The CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986

were also made applicable to the employees forming part of

Civil Services in Mizoram. On the recommendations made by

the Employees Anomalies Committees were set up by Govt of

Mizoram. Ultimately, Notification dated 19.1.1989 was then

issued accepting recommendations of the Second Anomalies

Committee. Soon thereafter, the State Govt issued another

Notification dated 3.2.1989 whereby the scales of Rs.5900-6700

and Rs.4500-5700 were denied to the Chief Engineers and

Additional Chief Engineers, respectively though it was being

allowed to the incumbents holding equivalent posts in CPWD.

The writ petition filed by the Association of Employees assailing

the decision of the State Govt having been allowed by the High

Court, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the State

of Mizoram. It was contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

that since Engineering Service in the State was not an

organized service, the higher scale of Rs.5900-6700 which was

admissible for Senior Level Posts, could not be given in

Engineering Service. The main reason given for treating

Engineering Service as an organised service was absence of

Recruitment Rules for this service.

5. The contention raised by the State Govt was repelled by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following observations:

"Who is responsible for not framing the recruitment rules? Are the members of the engineering Service responsible for it? The answer is clearly "No". For failure of the State Government to frame

recruitment rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organised service, the engineers cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the reasons of absence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service, we see hardly any difference in organised and unorganised service so far as government service is concerned. In government service such a distinction does not appear to have any relevance. Civil service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what is sought to be conveyed by use of the words "organised service" and "unorganised service". Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf. The argument is wholly misconceived."

6. In the present case, the petition does not disclose on what

basis the respondents are being treated as members of an

unorganised service while those holding cadre posts in Civil

Accounts Service are being treated as belonging to Organised

Accounts Service. This is not the case of the petitioner that they

are performing different functions or that their qualifications for

entry in service or promotion etc are different. The very fact that

the petitioner has accorded the higher scale to the respondents,

albeit from a later date, indicates that the petitioner accepts

that there is no such distinction between the respondents and

those holding cadre posts, as would disentitle them from the

same pay which is being drawn by the holders of cadre posts.