Shri T.M.Sampath vs The Director General, National ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2929 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Judgment reserved on: 27.04.2012
                                           Judgment pronounced on: 03.05.2012

+      W.P.(C) 8052/2009

       Sri. T.M.Sampath                                             ..... Petitioner

                            versus

       The Director General,
       National Water Development Agency & Ors.                   ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   : Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent   : Mr. R.V.Sinha and Mr. A.S.Singh

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.3.2008 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred

to as the Tribunal), whereby TA No. 163/2007 filed by the petitioner was

dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined National Water Development Agency (NWDA) as

Stenographer Grade II in the pay scale of Rs.425-800 (pre-revised) on 10.5.1984.

This was also the pay scale applicable to Steno Grade „C‟ in Central Secretariat

Stenographers‟ Service (CSSS). In its meeting held on 21.3.1984, the Governing

Body of NWDA decided to adopt the pay scales of Central Water Commission

(CWC) for its employees. On acceptance of the report of the 4th Central Pay

Commission, the pay scale of the petitioner was revised to Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f.

1.1.1986. Pursuant to an order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 1538/1987 filed

by the Stenographers/Assistants working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers

Services (CSSS)/Central Secretariat Services (CSS), a new revised pay scale of

Rs.1640-2900 was granted as the revised pay scale in lieu of the old pay scale of

Rs.425-800. An OM dated 31.7.1990 was issued by DoP&T in this regard. It was

brought to the notice of Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) that some

autonomous organizations like Indian Council for Agriculture Research had

adopted the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 in respect of their Assistants/Stenographers,

who were drawing salary in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.425-800, based upon

the revision effected in the case of Assistants/Stenographers in CSS/CSSS. An

OM dated 11.12.1990 was issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of

Expenditure stating therein that revision in the pay scales of

Assistants/Stenographers in CSSS/CSS had been made with a view to set right an

anomaly in the scales of pay as recommended by the 4th Central Pay Commission

and that since the anomaly which was found in respect of the pay-scales of

Assistants/Stenographers in CSS/CSSS was not there in the pay scales of

Assistants/Stenographers in the autonomous bodies, the instructions contained in

DoP&T‟s OM dated 31.7.1990 were not applicable to the autonomous bodies. All

Ministries/Departments of the Government were requested to ensure that the

instructions contained in OM dated 31.7.1990 issued by DoP&T were not extended

to the autonomous organizations under their administrative control. Consequent to

the issuance of OM dated 11.12.1990 pay fixation of the petitioner in the pay scale

of Rs.1640-2900 was cancelled.

3. Writ Petition No. 14046/1993 was then filed by the petitioner in the High

Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad seeking quashing of the order

whereby his pay fixation in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 was cancelled. The

High Court observed that extension of the application of pay scale of Rs.1640-2900

to the employees of NWDA was not automatic, since the pay scales of NWDA

were equated only to those prevailing in CWC and unless the corresponding scale

in CWC was enhanced, it was not permissible to unilaterally enhance the pay

scales in the NWDA. The High Court was of the view that so long as the pay

scales in CWC were at Rs.1400-2600 for Stenographers Grade II, there was no way

that the petitioner could have been extended any higher scale of pay. The writ

petition was accordingly disposed of upholding the order impugned in the writ

petition to the extent of refusing the pay scale of the petitioner to one at Rs.1400-

2600 to the petitioner. However, that part of the order which provided for recovery

of differential amount was set aside. A review petition was then filed by the

petitioner before Andhra Pradesh High Court. The review petition was disposed of

on 9.8.2004, with a direction to the respondents to verify whether the benefit of the

order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 1538/1987 was extended to Stenographer

Grade II working in CWC and whether the Governing Council of NWDA had

passed any resolution extending such benefit to the employees of the same cadre in

the NWDA working at the Headquarters of the Director General and Chief

Engineers. It was further directed that in case such resolution existed, the case of

the petitioner would be considered by extension of the same benefit. Vide order

dated 20.10.2005 the respondents passed an order rejecting the claim of the

petitioner for extension of pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 to him. Writ Petition No.

2644/2007 was then filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.10.2005

whereby his claim for extension of pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 was rejected by the

respondents. The writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered

there as TA No. 163/2007. The TA having been dismissed the petitioner is before

us by way of this writ petition.

4. As per Bye-law 26(a) of the Bye-laws of NWDA, the emolument structure

i.e. pay scales, allowance and revision thereof, for the employees of NWDA, is

required to be adopted with the approval of Government of India in consultation

with Ministry of Finance. The Bye-law further provides that approval of the

Government of India need not be sought in regard to adoption of scales of pay and

allowances identical to those adopted for corresponding posts as per the Central

Government orders issued from time to time. It would thus be seen that the Board

of NWDA was competent to adopt the pay scales attached to the corresponding

posts in the Central Government, in respect of its employees and no prior approval

of the Government was required for such adoption. A perusal of the minutes dated

21.3.1984 of the meeting of the Governing Body of NWDA would show that

NWDA had adopted the pay scales as applicable in Central Water Commission.

There is no dispute with respect to the passing of this resolution. Even the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, while disposing of the writ petition, filed by the

petitioner, on 6.1.2003 had specifically observed that the Governing Body of

NWDA had adopted the pay scales of CWC. The following quotation from the

said judgment is pertinent:

x x x The pay scales of pay of NWDA were equated only to those prevailing in CWC. Unless, the corresponding scale in CWC was enhanced, it was just impermissible to unilaterally enhance the pay scales in the NWDA on the basis of the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1538 of 1987. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the decision of the Governing Council that the employees of NWDA were entitled for the pay scales prevailing in CWC. As long as the pay scales in the CWC were at Rs.1400-2600 for Stenographers Grade II, there is no way that the petitioner could have been extended any higher scale of pay.

Therefore, the only question to be examined in this petition is as to whether

the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 was applicable in CWC in respect of a post

corresponding to the post held by the petitioner in NWDA or not? A perusal of the

information obtained by the petitioner from CWC on 13.8.2009 under the Right to

Information Act would show that prior to implementation of the recommendations

of the 4th Central Pay Commission, the pay scale in respect of the Steno Grade „C‟

was Rs.425-800, whereas the pay scale in respect of Stenographer Grade II was

Rs.425-700. Pursuant to the recommendations of the 4 th Central Pay Commission,

Stenographers Grade II as well as Stenographers Grade „C‟ were placed in the

revised pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. In the year 1990, on implementation of

DoP&T OM dated 31.7.1990 the Stenographers Grade „C‟ were placed in the pay

scale of Rs.1640-2900 which was also the pay scale available to Stenographer

Grade „C‟ in CSSS. No such revision however, was made in the case of

Stenographers Grade II in CWC.

5. The next question which arises for our consideration in this case is as to

whether the petitioner is to be equated with Stenographer Grade II or Stenographer

Grade „C‟ in CWC? If we go by the nomenclature, the petitioner being

Stenographer Grade II in NWDA would not be entitled to be placed in the pay

scale of Rs.1640-2900. The case of the petitioner however is that Stenographers

Grade „C‟ are those stenographers who are directly appointed whereas

Stenographers Grade II are those who are promoted. He has pointed out that

Stenographer Grade II in CWC were in the pay scale of Rs.425-700 before revision

of pay scale pursuant to the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission, whereas

he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.425-800 which was the same scale in which

Stenographers Grade „C‟ in CWC were placed. We do not have enough material

before us to verify whether only promotees in CWC are placed in the pay scale of

Rs.425-700 or even direct appointees are placed in that pay scale. The crucial

aspect in our opinion is that the petitioner on being appointed in NWDA was

placed in the pay scale of Rs.425-800 which was the pay scale available to Grade

„C‟ Stenographers in CWC. Therefore, he is entitled to that pay scale which CWC

has granted to its stenographers placed in the pre-revised scale of Rs.425-800

irrespective of the nomenclature given to the posts in NWDA and CWC. Since

stenographers placed in the pay scale of Rs.425-800 in CWC were placed in the

pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, in the year 1990, as is evident from the information

supplied to the petitioner under Right to Information Act, and the Governing Body

of NWDA has already adopted the pay scales of CWC for its employees, the

petitioner was also entitled to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900.

6. It is true that Andhra Pradesh High Court had not accepted the claim of the

petitioner for the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. This however was based on the

assumption that the Stenographers in CWC were placed in the pay scale of

Rs.1400-2600. As a proposition of law, the High Court had taken a view that the

pay scale of CWC having been adopted by NWDA, the petitioner was entitled to

the pay scale available in respect of a corresponding post in CWC. Since the

counterparts of the petitioner in CWC i.e. Stenographers who before revision of

pay scales pursuant to the report of 4th Pay Commission were placed in the pay

scale of Rs.425-800, have been granted the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, that pay

scale cannot be denied to the petitioner. Shri R.V.Sinha, the learned Counsel for

the respondent submitted that subsequent to adoption of the pay scales of CWC by

the Governing Body of NWDA, Recruitment Rules for the post of Grade II in

NWDA were framed by the Governing Body and the pay scale prescribed in the

Recruitment Regulations for the post of Stenographers Grade II was Rs.425-700.

In our view, the Recruitment Regulations notified in the year 1985 cannot be

applied to the petitioner, who had been appointed in the year 1984, much prior to

these recruitment regulations having been adopted, particularly when the

recruitment regulations were not framed retrospectively and therefore could not

have been applied to the employees who had already been appointed before these

regulations were notified. There is neither any averment in the reply of the

respondents nor any material on record to indicate that consequent to recruitment

regulations having been adopted in the year 1985, the pay scale of the petitioner

was lowered from Rs.425-800 to 425-700. Therefore, it is quite clear that till

implementation of the report of the 4th Central Pay Commission, the petitioner

continued to draw salary in the pay scale of Rs.425-800. Hence, nothing really

turns on the Recruitment Regulations framed by the respondent for the post of

Stenographer Grade II in CWC as far as the case of the petitioner is concerned.

7. It is an admitted position that the pay scales in CWC are identical to those in

Government of India. Hence, in view of Bye-laws of NWDA, no prior permission

of the Government was required to adopt those pay scales.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Union of India &

Anr. v. P.V.Hariharan & Anr. 1997(3) SCC 568, S.C.Chandra & Ors. v. State of

Jharkhand 2007(8) SCC 279, State of M.P. & Ors v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai

(2009) 13 SCC 635, Union of India & Ors. v. Hiranmoy Sen & Ors. (2008) 1

SCC 630, Steel Authority of India & Ors. v. Dibendu Bhattacharya 2011(11)

SCC 122 and Union of India & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar Dey (2000) 8 SCC 580.

These decisions deal with the concept of "equal pay for equal work" and the

scope of intervention by the Courts in such matter. However, the petitioner before

this Court is not demanding pay parity, on the principles of "equal pay for equal

work". He is only seeking a pay scale, which the respondent has already adopted

in respect of their employees, by allowing them those pay scales which are

available to CWC employees holding identical position. None of these judgments

therefore, helps the respondents, since in the case before us, the pay scales of CWC

were validly adopted by NWDA and therefore the petitioner is entitled in law to the

pay scales which have been granted to his counterparts in CWC. Since the

counterparts of the petitioner would be those Stenographers who, prior to

implementation of recommendations of 4th Central Pay Commission, were placed

in the pay scale of Rs.425-800, he also is entitled to be placed in the pay scale of

Rs.1640-2900 from the date this pay scale was made available to the Stenographer

Grade „C‟ in CWC.

9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 25.3.2008 is

set aside and the order dated 20.10.2005 issued by the respondents denying pay

scale of Rs.1640-2900 to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondents shall

work out and pay the arrears in terms of this order to the petitioner within four

weeks from today.

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to

costs.

V.K.JAIN, J

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MAY 03, 2012 vn