Chiranji Lal & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3137 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                           WP(C) No.138/2007

%                       Date of Decision: 05.07.2011

Chiranji Lal & Ors.                                    .... Petitioners

                      Through Nemo

                                Versus

UOI & Ors.                                         .... Respondents

                      Through Nemo



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1.      Whether reporters of Local papers              NO
        may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?         NO
3.      Whether the judgment should be                 NO
        reported in the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 14th August,

2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1814/2005 titled as 'Chiranji Lal & Ors.

v. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport &

Highways & Anr., dismissing the original application of the

petitioners wherein the petitioners had sought quashing and setting

aside of the OM No.A-18013/1/2004-E II dated 11th July, 2005

issued by the respondents pursuant to the directions of the Central

Administrative Tribunal in another OA No.228 of 2004 dated 13th

October, 2004 denying them the up-gradation of their pay scales.

2. While dismissing the original application, the Tribunal had

noted that the petitioners had agitated the matter for up-gradation of

pay before the 5th Central Pay Commission, however, no

recommendation was made by the 5th Central Pay Commission for

up-gradation of pay scales of the petitioners.

3. The Tribunal has also noted the rulings of the Supreme Court

in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Pramod Bhariya & Ors., 1993

(23) ATC 657 and Shri M.V.R. Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,

2002 (2) ATJ 6 holding that if the claim for 'equal pay for equal work'

is to succeed, the burden of proof rests on the applicants to furnish

material regarding qualifications, mode of recruitment, degree of

skill, experience involved in the performance of respective job etc.

4. The Tribunal noted that the petitioners have not provided

adequate proof to establish the equality in work, and consequently,

declined the relief sought by the petitioners.

5. No one is present on behalf of the petitioners. No one had been

present on behalf of the petitioners even on 4th July, 2011, however,

no adverse order was passed against the petitioners in the interest of

justice. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed in

default.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

July 05, 2011.

vk