All India Radio And Doordarshan & ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 6 Del

$~R-6
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                         Date of Decision: January 02, 2013

+                          WP(C) 2029/2001

       ALL INDIA RADIO AND DOORDARSHAN
       & ANR.                                    ..... Petitioners
            Represented by: Dr.M.P.Raju, Advocate.

                versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
           Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate and Mr.A.S.Singh,
           Advocate.

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge in the writ petition is to the decision dated December 15, 2000 dismissing OA No.255/1997.

3. Claim of the writ petitioners before the Tribunal was to be granted the same benefit which was granted by the Tribunal to V.R.Panchal and others in OA No.1448/1993 decided on January 10, 1996 (sometimes the order is being referred to as dated January 19, 1996).

4. V.R.Panchal and others were working as Stenographers in CBI and were aggrieved by the fact that they were being paid salary in the pay- scale `1400-2600; claiming an entitlement to be placed in the pay-scale of `1640-2900. The petitioners also relied upon a decision allowing OA No.548/1994 pertaining to Stenographers working in the Directorate of Field Publicity, a subordinate office of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Union of India.

5. Denying relief to the petitioners who were working as Stenographers in All India Radio and Doordarshan, the Tribunal has noted that after the Original Application was filed the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission had come into being and in paragraph 46.31 to paragraph 46.34 of its report the 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."

6. In a nutshell, the Tribunal has noted that the work performed by Stenographers in the Secretariats of the Union of India is qualitatively and

quantitatively different; much heavier workload as compared to the subordinate offices. The Tribunal has noted that aforesaid has been brought out by the 5th Pay Commission in its report submitted to the Government while justifying different scale of pay in which Stenographers have to be placed in the Secretariat of the various Ministries of the Government of India and the Stenographers in the subordinate offices of the Government of India.

7. The Tribunal has noted the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1989 SC 90 State of U.P. v. J.P.Chaurasia, (1994) 27 ATC 524 State of West Bengal v. Hari Narayan Bhowal and 1997 SCC (L&S) 838 Union of India & Anr. v. P.V.Hariharan & Anr., which decisions hold that opinions of expert bodies like Central Pay Commission, unless shown to be manifestly wrong, should not be interfered with and that it is not the nomenclature of a post but the qualitative and quantitative work performed by the holder of the post which has to be considered on the subject of parity in the pay-scale.

8. The Tribunal has noted that the Central Pay Commission had taken note of the fact that the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal although contrary to law had been implemented and has recommended not to place the Stenographers in the subordinate offices at par with the Stenographers in the Secretariat.

9. We concur with the reasoning of the Central Administrative Tribunal inasmuch as two wrongs do not make a right. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to break the back of the reasoning given by the 5th Central Pay Commission which has been noted with approval by the Central Administrative Tribunal i.e. Stenographers working in the Secretariat performing qualitatively and quantitatively onerous duties as compared to Stenographers in the subordinate offices. If this be so, merely because the Stenographers working in the Directorate of Field Publicity and

Doordarshan have under a judicial order obtained the benefit of placement in a higher pay-scale would by itself not be the justification to extend the same benefit to the writ petitioners.

10. We highlight once again that the 5th Central Pay Commission has delved into the issue and has noted all the relevant facts. We have extracted herein above paragraph 46.31 to 46.34 of the report of the 5 th Central Pay Commission, contents whereof have not been dented.

11. The view we have taken finds support in the decision of this Court dismissing WP(C) No.102/2001 'Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.‟ where similar question of pay scale of Stenographers was involved.

12. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

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