Uoi & Ors. vs R.P.S.Jaggi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4 Del

$~R-2

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                         Date of Decision: January 02, 2013

+                            WP(C) 7830/2000

        UOI & ORS.                                         ..... Petitioners
             Represented by:      None.


                    versus


        R.P.S.JAGGI & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
              Represented by: Mr.R.C.Nangia, Advocate.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The respondents succeeded before the Tribunal when OA No.2279/1999 filed by them succeeded with a direction that they be placed in the pay-scale `1640-2900/- with effect from 01.01.1986 with replacement pay-scale when recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission were implemented with effect from 01.01.1996.

2. Order dated January 03, 2001 passed in the instant writ petition while issuing notice to show-cause records that according to learned counsel for the petitioner identical issue was raised in WP(C) No.3091/1999.

3. We have called for the file of WP(C) No.3091/1999 and find that the said writ petition filed by Union of India was allowed on November 26, 2008.

4. The short order dated November 26, 2008 makes a reference to an order dismissing W.P.(C) No.102/2001 Mohinder Pal Singh & Ors.v Union of India & Ors.

5. The issue pertains to pay parity within Stenographers working in the Central Secretariat and those working in subordinate offices of the Union.

6. In Mohinder Pal Singh‟s case (supra) the Division Bench noted that the aspect in question had been considered by the 5 th Central Pay Commission, and had justified a differential pay scale.

7. Today itself, dismissing W.P.(C) 2029/2001, All India Radio & Doordarshan Employees Association v. UOI we had noted the view taken by the 5th Central Pay Commission in paragraph paragraph 46.31 to paragraph 46.34 of its report where the Central Pay Commission had noted as under:-

"46.31 The pay scale of Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Stenographers in the CSSS was revised by the Government on 31.7.1990, effective from 1.1.1986. Some of the Assistants/Crime Assistants and Stenographers Grade II working in the CBI, Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Directorate of Field Publicity filed a number of petitions before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking benefit of the orders dated 31.7.90. Rejecting the contention of the Union of India that Stenographers Grade II and Assistants in the non-Secretariat offices could not be compared with Stenographers Grade „C‟ of CSSS and Assistants of CSS because of the different classification, method of recruitment, nature of duties and responsibilities and eligibility for promotion to higher grade, the CAT directed the UOI to place the petitioners in the pay scale of `1640-2900. The judgment of the CAT has been implemented.

46.32 The comparative position of Stenographers in the Secretariat and offices outside the Secretariat as it existed at the time of constitution of the Fifty CPC is as

under:-

                   Secretariat                Non-Secretariat
           a) Stenographer Grade D       a) Stenographer Gr.III
           (`1200-2040)                  (`1200 - 2040)

           b) Stenographer Grade C       b) Stenographer Gr.II
           (`1640-2900)                  (`1400-2300)
                                         (`1400-2600)
                                         (`1640-2900)

           c) Stenographers Grades       c) Stenographer Gr.I
           „A‟ & „B‟ (Merged)            (`1640-2900)
           (`2000-3500)

           d)    Principal    Private    d)    Senior      Personal
           Secretary                     Assistant
           (`3000-4500)                  (`2000-3200)

                                         e) Private Secretary
                                         (`2000-3500)

                                         f)   Principal     Private
                                         Secretary
                                         (`3000-4500)


           46.33     Associations representing stenographers have

urged before us that there should be complete parity between stenographers in non-secretariat offices and in the Secretariat in matters relating to (a) pay scales, (b) designations, (c) cadre structure, (d) promotion avenues,

(e) level of stenographic assistance to officers in technical, scientific and research organizations, etc. Suggestions have also been made for a higher pay scale for stenographers in the entry grade, treating advance increments granted for acquiring proficiency in stenography at higher speed as pay, allowing stenographers in non-Secretariat offices to compete in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), and grant of Special Pay for operating computers, fax machines, etc.

46.34 We have given our careful consideration to the suggestions made by Associations representing stenographers in offices outside the Secretariat in the light of observations made by the Third CPC. The Commission had observed that as a general statement, it was correct to say that the basic nature of a stenographer‟s work remained by and large the same whether he was working with an officer in Secretariat or with an officer in a subordinate office. The Commission was of the considered view that the size of the stenographer‟s job was very much dependent upon the nature of work entrusted to that officer and that it would not be correct, therefore, to go merely by the status in disregard of the functional requirement. By the very nature of work in the Secretariat, the volume of dictation and typing work was expected to be heavier than in a subordinate office, the requirement of secrecy even in civil offices of the secretariat could be very stringent. Considering the differences in the hierarchical structures and in the type of work transacted in the Secretariat and in the subordinate offices, the Commission was not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern in respect of matters listed in the preceding paragraph. To our mind, the observations of the Third CPC are as relevant today as they were at that point of time and we are not inclined to overlook them totally. In view of the above mentioned distinguishable features, we do not concede the demand for absolute parity in regard to pay scales between stenographers in offices outside the Secretariat and in the secretariat notwithstanding the fact that some petitioner stenographers Grade II have got the benefit of parity in pay scale through Courts. However, pursuing the policy enunciated by the Second CPC that disparity in the pay scale prescribed for stenographers in the secretariat and the non-secretariat organizations should be reduced as far as possible, we are of the view that Stenographers Grade II should be placed in the existing pay scale of `1600-2600 instead of `1400-2300/`1400- 2600. The next available grade of stenographers in non- Secretariat offices is `1640-2900 (Grade I). We do not recommend any change in the existing pay scale of Stenographers Grade I. Senior Personal Assistants and

Private Secretaries are at present in the pay scale of `2000-3000 and `2000-3500 respectively. Giving the Senior PAs the benefit of rationalization of pay scales, we recommend that both Sr.PAs and Private Secretaries should be placed in the pay scale of `2000-3500 and known as Private Secretaries. Stenographers in the newly recommended grade of `2500-4000 should be known as Senior Private Secretaries and those in the pay scale of `3000-4500 shall continue to be known as Principal Private Secretaries."

8. Since the issue raised in the instant writ petition stands squarely covered by the decision of a Division Bench in Mohender Pal Singh's case which was consistently followed firstly in W.P.(C) 3091/1999 UOI v. P.K.Sehgal & Co. and secondly in W.P.(C) 915/2001 UOI & Ors. v. Manjeet Singh & Ors. we would be bound to pass similar orders.

9. The respondents were working as Stenographers in Subordinate Offices of the Central Government and succeeded before the Tribunal by having their pay scale revised to `1640-2900/- w.e.f. January 01, 1986 as against `1400-2600/- in which the Department had placed them. Needless to state as per the decision of the Tribunal the respondents were entitled to the replacement pay scale upon implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay commission.

10. Allowing the writ petition we quash the order dated September 13, 2000 allowing O.A.No.2279/1999.

11. O.A.No.2279/1999 is dismissed.

12. However, we notice that while issuing notice in the writ petition the Division Bench did not stay the operation of the impugned order and as a result we are informed that the respondents were given the benefit of the decision passed by the Tribunal.

13. Reversing a similar direction passed by the Tribunal when W.P.(C) 915/2001 UOI & Ors.v.Manjit Singh & Ors. was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court it was directed that no recoveries would be made from

the respondents and accordingly we pass directions that notwithstanding the writ petition being allowed no recoveries would be effected from the respondents.

14. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 02, 2013//skb//