Krishna Raja P. & Ors vs Uoi & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3485 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                           Judgment delivered on 24.05.2012

+      W.P.(C) 17546-65/2006

KRISHNA RAJA P. & ORS                                        ...     Petitioners

                                        Versus
UOI & ORS                                                    ...     Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners    : Mr A.S.N. Murti & Ms Bimla Devi
For the Respondent     : Mr Ravinder Agarwal (CGSC)

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.02.2006 passed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.

382/2006. It is also directed against the order dated 08.05.2006 passed in RA No.

68/2006. The prayer made by the petitioners in the said original application was to

direct the respondent No.1 to grant benefit of upgraded pay scale of `. 6500-200-

10500 to the applicants on notional basis with effect from 01.01.1996 with actual

payments being made from 19.02.2003.

2. The petitioners are Accountants in the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)

of the Cabinet Secretariat. They had sought the benefit under O.M. dated

28.02.2003 on the subject of pay scales for the staff belonging to the organized

accounts department. Two submissions were made by the petitioners before the

Tribunal. The first submission being that they are part of the organized cadre in the

Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat and secondly that the pay

parity ought to have been maintained with other accounts departments in the

Government of India even after the implementation of the recommendations of the

5th Central Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996. The contention of the

petitioners was that they were in the scale of `. 5500-175-9000. In the case of other

accounts departments this scale has been revised to `. 6500-200-10500. However,

no revision has been taken place insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

3. The petitioners had also impugned the memorandum dated 23.09.2005. The

petitioners had submitted representations regarding extension of the benefit of

revised pay scale of `. 6500-10500 to them on the analogy of pay scales granted to

Section Officers of organised accounts cadres in various Ministries/Departments.

By virtue of the said memorandum the petitioners were informed that the matter

had been referred to the Internal Finance Unit (IFU) and the Ministry of Finance

(Implementation Cell) and the latter had stated that there can be no parity in the pay

scales between "isolated posts" and the posts with similar pay scales in organised

accounts cadres where a clear-cut hierarchy exists. Consequently, the

representations were rejected by virtue of the said memorandum.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that though the plea with

regard to the accounts cadre in the Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet

Secretariat being an organized one had been taken by the petitioners before the

Tribunal, the Tribunal has not returned any findings thereon. It was specifically

pleaded that there was a hierarchy of posts namely, Accountants, Accounts Officer

and Under Secretary (F)/ Senior Accounts Officer, in ascending order. The

Accountants constituted the feeder cadre for the Accounts Officers and the latter

constituted the feeder cadre for Under Secretary (F)/ Senior Accounts Officers.

There were also well defined recruitment rules. Thus, according to the learned

counsel for the petitioners, the accounts cadre in the Research and Analysis Wing

was an organized cadre contrary to the view expressed in the said memorandum

dated 23.09.2005.

5. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not taken note of these facts. It is clear from

the above that since there is a clear cut hierarchy of posts and the promotional

avenues have been provided from one stage to the other, the accounts cadre in the

Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat cannot be regarded as

isolated posts but has to be considered to be an organized cadre.

6. Insofar as the question of pay parity is concerned, we feel that this matter

ought to have been examined by the Tribunal in detail in view of the submissions

made by the petitioners. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has abdicated its function and

has not gone into this issue at all. The petitioners are claiming the benefit of the

OM dated 28.02.2003. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to the same

revision that the other organized accounts departments have been granted. We are

not examining this aspect of the matter here in view of the fact that we propose to

remit the matter, on this aspect, to the Tribunal for a consideration by them.

7. Consequently, while we hold that the accounts cadre in the Research and

Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat is an organized cadre, we remit the matter

to the Tribunal on the aspect as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the pay

scale `. 6500-200-10500 or not upon a consideration of the OM dated 28.02.2003

and other relevant material which is already on record. The Tribunal while

deciding the matter shall also consider its decision in the case of J.R. Chobedar v.

Union of Indian & Ors. in OA No. 208/1997 decided on 24.02. 2004.

8. The impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal shall decide the matter as

expeditiously as possible and preferably within four months. In the first instance

the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 09.07.2012. The Writ petition stands

disposed of.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J MAY 24, 2012/kb