Delhi High Court
Uoi & Anr. vs Sanjay Kumar & Ors. on 7 September, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved On: 11th August, 2010
Judgment Delivered On: 07th September, 2010
+ W.P.(C) NO.2071/2007
UOI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gaurang Kanth and Mr.Biji
Rakesh, Advocate.
versus
SANJAY KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.
W.P.(C) NO.2094/2007
UOI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Mr.Abhishek
Birthray, Advocates.
versus
MAHENDER SINGH RANA .....Respondent
Through: Mr.A.K.Behera and Ms.Meenu
Mainee, Advocates.
W.P.(C) NO.2095/2007
UOI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Mr.Abhishek
Birthray, Advocates.
versus
LALIT KUMAR PAWAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.A.K.Behera and Ms.Meenu
Mainee, Advocates.
W.P.(C) NO.3410/2010
DIRECTOR GENERAL DOORDARSHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Mr.Abhishek
Birthray, Advocates.
versus
W.P.(C) No.2071/07, 2094/07, 2095/07 & 3410/2010 Page 1 of 8
NEERAJ BHANOT .....Respondent
Through: Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Relevant dates may be noted. 15.9.1997 is the
date when the Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of
India) Act 1990 was notified with 23.11.1997 being notified as
the appointed date being the date where from the erstwhile
Civil Servants under the Union of India in the Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting were to be treated as on
deputation with Prasar Bharti. It be noted that activity of
broadcasting through the visual and audio media i.e. radio and
television which hithertofore was with the Union Government
was transferred to a statutory corporation. Vide Section 11 of
the Act these employees could opt for service under Prasar
Bharti failing which they were to be treated as Central
Government Employees and on deemed deputation with
Prasar Bharti.
2. Issues arose, as they usually do in India, and in
particular when the Government tries to corporatize itself. The
reason is obvious, as Civil Servants Constitutional Protections
are available and as employees of statutory corporations only
statutory protections as per the relevant statute are
applicable. Besides, the lazy are wary of corporatization for
corporatization brings along the corporate culture of work
ethics.
3. Thus, the Central Government Employees in the
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting did not opt for service
under Prasar Bharti and negotiations were held between the
Management and the Union to break the impasse. With effect
from 25.2.1999 Prasar Bharti decided that employees of the
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting working under it, on
permanent absorption under Prasar Bhati would be given
wages in the scale Rs.6500-10500 as against the scale
Rs.5000-8000 which was their entitlement as employees of the
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting.
4. As time went by, appointments and recruitments as
also crystallization of various rights, the origin whereof is the
point of time when television and radio was under the Central
Government, gave birth to rights.
5. The respondents in the four captioned petitions can
be classified into three distinct groups and their cases
considered accordingly. Category-I: Casual workers working
for long as employees of the Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting whose right for regularization/confirmation as per
policy framed by the Central Government matured on various
dates after 23.11.1997 i.e. the appointed date after Prasar
Bharti Act was promulgated on 15.9.1997. They claimed
entitlement to be placed in the same scale of pay in which
erstwhile employees of the Central Government working in the
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting were placed as
employees of Prasar Bharti. Category-II: Employees who were
selected as per select list notified prior to 15.9.1997 but were
given employment after 23.11.1997 by Prasar Bharti. They
claimed entitlement to be placed in the same scale of pay in
which persons in the same select list but given appointment
prior to 15.9.1997 were placed. Category-III: Employees
whose process of employment commenced in January 1999
when Prasar Bharti was constituted and were given
appointment thereafter. They claimed pay parity with their
counterparts claiming that they should be placed in the same
scale of pay as persons holding same posts.
6. Facts which had given birth to the respective claims
are that employees of the Central Government working in the
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting were not opting for
service under Prasar Bharti and probably by way of incentive
were given a higher pay scale. Since in all the writ petitions
we are concerned with employees appointed to the post of
Assistant Engineers, Production Assistants, etc. it may be
noted that erstwhile Central Government employees working
in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and appointed as
Assistant Engineers, Production Assistant etc. were placed in
the scale Rs.6500-10500 but to others holding similar posts
pay scale offered was Rs.5000-8000. The claim of all the
respondents has succeeded before the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has held that persons holding same posts cannot be
discriminated vis-à-vis the scale of pay in which they have to
be placed.
7. Let us highlight the factual and legal basis of the
claim for parity urged by the three categories of employees.
8. Employees in Category-I i.e. those who were
working as casual employees for long under the Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting claimed that there was a policy
framed by the Central Government to regularize their services
in a phased manner and this right enured in their favour when
Prasar Bharti was constituted on 15.9.1997. Merely because
they acquired status as regular employees under Prasar Bharti
was no ground to justify they being placed in the scale
Rs.5000-8000 and their counterparts who were regular
employees under the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
being placed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. To which the
answer of the petitioners was that higher scale of pay was
given to the erstwhile regular employees of Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting as they were on deemed
deputation and on being taken as regular employees under
Prasar Bharti were paid higher wages. In other words the
petitioners urged that erstwhile employees of Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting formed a separate category vis-à-
vis those who were appointed by Prasar Bharti.
9. Qua employees in Category-II the argument of said
employees was that the appointment process commenced
when the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting invited
applications from eligible candidates and the select list was
prepared by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. Their
names found mention in the select list drawn much prior to
15.9.1997. But for the fortuitous fact that character
verification of some was completed prior to 15.9.1997 while for
them was completed post 15.9.1997 thereby resulting in some
being given letters of appointment by the Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting and they by Prasar Bharti would
not entitle the petitioners to place the former in the pay scale
Rs.6500-10500 and the latter in the pay scale Rs.5000-8000.
The response of the petitioners was the same as that to the
employees of Category-I i.e. the employees who came to
Prasar Bharti from under the Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting formed a separate category.
10. Qua employees in Category-III in respect of whom
selection process commenced in the year 1999 i.e. much after
23.11.1997 and was completed obviously thereafter, they
urged that employees doing similar work and holding similar
posts could not be discriminated qua the pay scale in which
they had to be placed. The response of the petitioners was the
same as that to the employees of Category-I i.e. the
employees who came to Prasar Bharti from under the Ministry
of Information & Broadcasting formed a separate category.
11. The issue of equal pay for equal work and
employees holding same posts under the same employer
requiring same pay scales to be applied is no longer res
integra. We eschew reference to various authorities where
parity is claimed by employees in different departments under
the Union, for the reason different issues arise for
consideration therein, but note only two decisions where
employees in the same department were sought to be placed
in different scales of pay, notwithstanding the employees
holding identical posts and doing same jobs. In the decision
reported as 1987 (1) SCC 582 Telecommunication Research
Centre Scientific Officers (Class-I) Association & Ors. vs. UOI &
Ors. the employees were sought to be placed in two
categories. Category-I was employees directly recruited as
officers in the Telecommunication Research Centre, a
Department of the Post & Telegraph Wing directly under the
control of the Post & Telegraph Board of the Ministry of
Communication and the second category being employees
who came on transfer in the said department but employed
under the Indian Telecommunication Service Group-A and
Group-B Posts. Two issues were urged before the Supreme
Court by the directly recruited employees vis-à-vis the
transferred employees. First pertained to denial of
promotional opportunities and the second with respect to a
special pay being paid to the transferred employees. Qua the
plea of denial of promotional opportunities, the Supreme
Court, in the absence of adequate pleadings, declined to
answer the question, but on the issue of parity of pay held that
for employees holding same post and doing same work and
there being no ground to classify the same in two categories,
the placement in different scales of pay was arbitrary. It was
noted that the technical and educational qualifications
required for both group of employees was the same. Thus, it
was directed that both groups be paid the same wages.
12. In a somewhat different factual setting, in the
decision reported as 1987(1) SCC 592 M.P.Singh vs. UOI & Ors.
it was held that where employees enter the cadre from two
different sources, if they do the same work and are similarly
placed, there can be no discrimination in payment of wages.
13. Of course, employees in the same cadre can
certainly be placed in different pay scales but that would be if
it is shown that one set of employees has higher technical or
education qualifications or performs more onerous duties vis-
à-vis the other or the like. But, where there is complete parity
it would be highly discriminatory to treat employees differently
merely on account of the two coming from two different
sources.
14. Holding so in favour of the respondents, let us see
the plea put up as a justifiable excuse by the petitioners to
place the respondents in a lower scale of pay.
15. To the Category-I employees i.e. those working on
casual basis under the Central Government but confirmed
against regular posts under Prasar Bharti, suffice would it be to
state that the claim for regularization pertained to a policy of
the Central Government and merely because some got
confirmed under the Central Government and some got
confirmed under Prasar Bharti would not result in two groups
being formed. Thus, apart from the principle that employees
holding same posts and doing same duties cannot be
discriminated in matters pertaining to wages with reference to
the source of appointment, we find no justifiable cause to treat
Category-I employees as forming a different and a distinct
category.
16. To the Category-II employees, suffice would it be to
state that their empanelment was under the Central
Government and admittedly some employees under the same
panel were inducted by the Central Government and Prasar
Bharti placed them in the scale of pay Rs.6500-10500. On the
fortuitous circumstance of some empanelled candidates not
being able to have character verification completed prior to
27.11.1997 and thereby they being inducted as employees to
the same posts directly under Prasar Bharti would not make
them a distinct category vis-à-vis their counterparts who were
in the same select panel but were appointed by the Central
Government.
17. With respect to Category-III employees the principle
of law noted by us in paras 11 and 12 above would apply.
18. The writ petitions are found to be without any merit
and hence are dismissed. However, since the issue raised was
arguable, we refrain from imposing any cost.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MOOL CHAND GARG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 07, 2010
dk
