Association Of Radio & Television ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3215 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C)No.3787/2000

%                                         Date of Decision:   08.07.2011

ASSOCIATION OF RADIO & TELEVISION ENGG. EMPLOYEES
                                             ... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. M.M. Sudan, Advocate.

                                 Versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                  ... Defendants
                   Through:           Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate for
                                      the respondent/UOI.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.MEHTA


1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
   may be allowed to see the judgment?            No

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?             No

3. Whether the judgment should be                 No
   reported in the Digest?



A.K. SIKRI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners No. 2 to 4 were working as Technicians, at the

relevant time, with All India Radio and Doordarshan. Petitioner No. 1 is

the Association of Employees of this category which is formed for the

benefit of these Technicians. These Technicians were granted Pay

Scale of `330-480/- on the recommendation of 3rd Pay Commission

which came into effect on 01.01.1973. The Lighting Assistants working

in All India Radio and Doordarshan were also given the same pay scale.

In contrast, the Assistant Cameramen working in Film Division, which

came under the administrative control of Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting, were given pay scale of `425-700/-.

2. On the implementation of 4th Pay Commission with effect from

01.01.1986, pay scale of these Technicians was revised to `1200-

1800/- and that of Cameramen in Film Division upward to `1400-2300/.

The Lighting Assistants in All India Radio and Doordarshan who were

given pay scale of `1200-1800/- wanted parity with the Cameramen in

Film Division on the principle of equal pay for equal work. They

accordingly approached the Supreme Court by way of a Writ Petition

filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with the relief that

they be also given the same pay scale of `1400-2300/-. This Writ

Petition was allowed by the Supreme Court in the case title as Y.K.

Mehta Vs. UOI, 1989 (1) Service Law Journal 97 (SC). The Supreme

Court directed the Union of India to accord the same pay scale of

`1400-2300/- to the Lighting Assistants as well working in All India

Radio and Doordarshan with effect from 01.01.1986.

3. This judgment was implemented by the Government giving pay

scale of `1400-2300/- to the Lighting Assistants.

4. Predicating their claim on the basis of the same judgment, the

Technicians i.e. the petitioners also demanded pay scale of `1400-

2300/-. As initially this request was not acceded to by the

Government, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing an OA.

While this OA was still pending, the Government of India issued orders

granting the same pay scale which were admissible to the Lighting

Assistants in Film Division. It so happened that in the meantime the

pay scales were further revised with effect from 01.01.1996 on the

basis of recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission. At the time when

the orders were passed, since this revision had taken place, the

Government in its administrative OM dated 05.12.1997 granted parity

in pay scale with the Lighting Assistants, but with effect from

01.01.1996.

5. When the matter came up before the Tribunal for final hearing,

taking note of the aforesaid aspect, the Tribunal took the view that the

petitioners were given relief administratively by putting them at par

with the Technicians of All India Radio/Doordarshan and therefore, no

further grievance survived. The argument of the petitioners, however,

was that they were granted the revised pay scale only with effect from

01.01.1996 whereas Lighting Assistants had got benefit with effect

from 01.01.1986. This limited grievance was thus pressed before the

Tribunal claiming the same pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986. The

Tribunal further did not accede to this prayer of the petitioners

observing as under:

"In view of the above, the relief sought by the applicants is to be moulded in terms of the time frame in which they have approached this Tribunal. Further we also find from the aforesaid quoted preamble of the order that the said order has been issued in agreement with the applicants. We are also of the view that the matter lies within the domain of the executive as regards the date of revision of

pay scale. The applicants having approached this Tribunal in 1996, having consented to the agreement by which the orders have been made effective from 01.01.1996, we are not inclined to consider the argument that the applicants' revision of pay should be with retrospective effect from 01.07.1983."

6. Challenging this part of the order of the Tribunal, present Writ

Petition is filed by the petitioners invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. The grievance discussed above would clearly demonstrate that

the petitioners when they were given the lesser pay scale of `1200-

1800/- as well on the implementation of the 4th Pay Commission, never

made any grievance about the same rather they accepted this

position. It is the Lighting Assistants, working in their organization who

were also given the pay scale of `1200-1800/-, felt aggrieved by the

grant of this pay scale which was lesser than the pay scale granted to

the Cameramen in the Film Division and thus they were the Lighting

Assistants who approached the Supreme Court claiming the pay scale

of `1400-2300/-. Even at the time when the said Writ Petition was filed

by the Lighting Assistants in the Supreme Court, the petitioners did not

approach any forum. It was only after the judgment was rendered by

the Supreme Court on 26.08.1998, that the petitioners woke up and

tried to take advantage of this. In such circumstances, when it was

found that they could claim parity with the Lighting Assistants, no

doubt the same pay scale could be given to them as given to the

Lighting Assistants, but, for approaching the Court belatedly it was up

to the Government to give them the said parity with effect from

01.01.1996 when the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission

were implemented in the mean time. The Tribunal, in these

circumstances, exercised its discretion of not interfering with the

benefit given vide OM dated 05.12.1997 giving the revised pay scale to

the petitioners, at par with Lighting Assistants with effect from

01.01.1996.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, in exercise of extra-ordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we would not like to

interfere with such a discretion which is exercised on the basis of

reasoned consideration.

9. We, thus, do not find any merits in this writ petition which is

accordingly dismissed.

A.K.SIKRI (JUDGE)

M.L.MEHTA (JUDGE)

JULY 08, 2010 awanish