Delhi High Court
All India Cpwd Engineers ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 January, 2014
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on January 10, 2014
Judgment Delivered on January 20, 2014
+ W.P.(C) No.430/2013
ALL INDIA CPWD ENGINEERS ASSOCIAITON AND ANR.
..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.Vinay Kr.Garg, Advocate
with Mr.V.Sharma, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Yoginder Sukhija,
Advocate with Mr.Yogesh
Yogi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.
C.M No.16844/2013
This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of
the judgment and order dated October 30, 2013. The same is allowed subject
to just exceptions.
C.M No.16843/2013
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in
filing the review petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Review Petition No.644/2013 in W.P.(C) 430/2013
1. The grounds on which the review of order dated October 30, 2013 has
been sought are as under:
(a) This Court has ignored the recommendations of Pay Commission
in para No.3.4.7 wherein the subordinate engineering cadre carrying
minimum qualification of diploma in engineering for direct
recruitment to be the feeder cadre for a post in P.B-3 of `.15600-
39100 carrying grade pay of `5400.
(b) Group B officers of Ministry of Railways have been placed in Pay
Band-3 with grade pay of `5400 and thus the respondents could not
claim that P.B-3 with grade pay of `5400 could not be extended to the
post of Assistant Engineer because it is in Group B.
(c) There is an anomaly in para No.7.46.12 of the Pay Commission
recommendations inasmuch as the Commission has recommended the
post of Assistant Engineer to be placed in the pay scale of `7450-
11500 corresponding to P.B-2 with grade pay of `4600 on the premise
that the post of Assistant Engineer carries minimum qualification of
degree in Engineering. This is factually incorrect as in CPWD the
recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Engineer does not show it
as a direct recruitment post but 100% promotional post for which no
qualifications have been prescribed.
(d) It escaped the attention of this Court that it is admitted by the
respondents that the post of Assistant Engineer and Assistant
Executive Engineer are functionally similar and it is for this reason
that the Pay Commission in para No.3.4.7 has taken equivalence
between the two posts for recommending that the promotional post
i.e. Assistant Engineer be placed in the pay band and grade pay which
has been recommended for the entry post in Group A viz. Assistant
Executive Engineer.
2. Mr.Vinay Garg has drawn our attention to para No.19 of the
impugned order to contend that the interpretation given by this Court to para
No.3.4.7 is not correct inasmuch as this Court has ignored the first portion of
para No.3.4.7 which clearly prescribe subordinate engineering cadre
carrying minimum qualification of diploma in engineering for direct recruits
to be the feeder cadre for a post in Pay Band-3 with grade pay of `5400. He
would also submit that in CPWD the recruitment rules for the post of
Assistant Engineer would depict the post is not a direct recruitment post but
100% promotional post with no qualification.
3. Having considered the submissions and the grounds raised in the
review petition, we are of the view that the review petition is without any
merit and our conclusion in the impugned order dated October 30, 2013
cannot be faulted.
4. At the outset, we may state that the recommendations of the Pay
Commission in para No.3.4.7 have to be read in totality to understand the
purport of the same and not picking up one sentence from the para. A
reading of para No.3.4.7 would reveal that all posts in subordinate
engineering cadre carrying minimum qualifications of degree in engineering
and having an element of direct recruitment shall be placed in the P.B-2 of
`8700-34800 along with grade pay of `4600 corresponding to the pre-
revised pay scale of `7450-11500, which posts form feeder cadre for
promotion to the posts in the Pay Band of `15600-39100 with grade pay of
`5400, pre-revised being `8000-13500. The thrust of the recommendations
being the posts, would be feeder cadre for promotion to the posts in running
Pay Band of `15600-39100 in grade pay of `5400 but in not equivalent to
the posts in Pay Band of `15600-39100 in grade pay of `5400.
5. Further, comparison with pay scales in Railways is not tenable. Grant
of pay scale has to be seen with regard to the service, cadre,
hierarchy/promotional posts. Moreover the recommendations in para
No.7.46.12 is CPWD specific. Surely interpretation of para No.3.4.7 should
not be such which makes the recommendations in para No.7.46.12 otios.
6. Insofar as the submission of Mr.Garg that there exist an anomaly in
para No.7.46.12, is also untenable. The recommendations in the said para for
grant of running P.B of `8700-34800 with grade pay of `4600 has been
implemented in favour of the petitioners. No challenge has been made by the
petitioners to the recommendations and also to the implementation in their
favour. In any case, the petitioner would not be entitled to a still higher
running P.B of `15600-39100 with grade pay of `5400, the pre-revised
being `8000-13500 which is a scale of entry level post of Central
Engineering Service Rules, which is an organised service.
7. The similarity in the functions of Assistant Engineer and Assistant
Executive Engineer would not better the case of Assistant Engineers. The
Assistant Executive Engineer is part of an organized Group A service.
Historically these two posts had different pay scales. Assistant Executive
Engineers were getting higher salary than Assistant Engineer. This fact has
been noted by us in para No.16 of the impugned order . Surely in the matters
of pay scales, a Court should be circumspect in interfering with a decision
taken by the respondents based on the interpretation of the recommendations
of the Pay Commission. In this case, as noted in the impugned order the
Department of Expenditure has considered the representation of the
petitioners and passed order dated March 12, 2012 which was also noted by
us while dismissing the writ petition.
8. We do not see any merit in the review petition. The same is dismissed
without any order as to costs.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
JANUARY 20, 2014
km
