Harjeet Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 2234 Del

       $~16
       * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

       +                  W.P.(C) 5492/2013

       %                           Date of decision: 2nd May, 2014

       HARJEET SHARMA & ORS               ..... Petitioners
                    Through : Mr. S.N. Gupta and
                              Mr. Sahil Dhwan, Advs.
                    versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS                    ..... Respondents
                     Through :        Mr. Prasouk Jain, Adv. for
                                      Mr. B.V. Niren, Adv.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners assail the order dated 24th January, 2013 passed in O.A.No.3201/21011 and O.A.No.3644/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are within extremely narrow compass. The petitioners before us are working in the post of accountants performing the supervisory functions over head clerks. Their grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that despite exercising a supervisory role over head clerks they were receiving pay scale of Rs.4500 - 7000 whereas head clerks had been upgraded to Rs.5000 - 8000.

3. As per the Recruitment Rules notified by the respondents,

WP(C) No.5492/2013 page 1 of 5 head clerks form the feeder cadre for the appointment to the post of accountants. Appointments to the post of Accountant are effected only after they clear the accountancy examination which is conducted by the respondent.

4. In support of their grievance, Mr. S.N. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue pressed by the writ petitioners was not res-integra and in fact the original application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal premised on several orders passed on similar claims made before the Tribunal in other jurisdictions as well as an order of the Division Bench of this court.

5. In this regard, our attention is drawn to the following orders:-

(i) Order dated 2nd December, 2002 passed in O.A.No.997/2001, C.N.G. Pillai v. Union of India & Ors by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam Bench) on an identical claim of Accountants made before the Ernakulam Bench of the tribunal which directed as follows: -

"10. In the light of what is stated above, we set aside the impugned order Annexure A 13 and order referred to therein and direct the respondents to consider the upgradation of pay scale of accountants working in the Government of India Press, Koratty under the Minsitry of Urban Development (Department of Printing, Stationery and Publication) to Rs.5500-9000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and to issue appropriate orders within a period 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

WP(C) No.5492/2013                                        page 2 of 5
 (ii)    The respondents assailed the order dated 2nd December, 2002

by way of WP(C)No.19797/2003 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The writ petition of the respondents was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgement dated 2nd August, 2005.

(iii) The challenge to the aforesaid orders by way of SLP(Civil) No.20820/2006 before the Supreme Court of India came to be rejected by the order dated 13th August, 2007.

(iv) Order dated 24th August, 2009 passed in O.A.No.1905/2008 Om Prakash and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi directing the respondents specifically in para 6 of the order to grant the applicants/accountants the scale of pay of Rs.5500 - 9000 with effect from 1st of January, 1996 with all consequential benefits.

Time bound directions to comply with the orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order were given by the Bench.

(v) The respondents assailed the Tribunal order dated 24th August, 2009 by way of WP(C)No.2824/2010 Union of India & Ors. v. Om Prakash wherein the order of the tribunal were upheld and the writ petition was dismissed by the judgment dated 27 th April, 2010.

This order was not assailed any further and attained finality. We are informed by Mr. S.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the aforenoticed orders have since been

WP(C) No.5492/2013 page 3 of 5 complied by the respondents.

6. In the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has drawn a distinction between accountants recruited under the rules which were in vogue in the year 2002. We have been carefully taken through the applicable rules by Mr. S.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal thereof, it is evident that other than change in the scales of pay, everything else remained same. In fact the distinction which has been drawn has no basis at all in law.

7. It is trite that persons similarly situated are entitled to identity of treatment. The action of the respondents in enhancing the pay scale to some accountants while denying the same benefit to others is discriminatory and cannot be permitted to stand. Even otherwise, the head clerks who are the feeder cadre for appointment to the post of accountant cannot draw higher pay scale then the accountants.

8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24 th January, 2013 is contrary to law and cannot be sustained, the same is hereby set aside and quashed.

9. A direction is issued to the respondents to grant the petitioners the scale of pay of Rs.5500 - 9000 with effect from the date they were appointed as accountant.

This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. The petitioners shall be entitled to costs of the present litigation which are quantified at Rs.15,000/- each.

WP(C) No.5492/2013 page 4 of 5

10. The respondents shall pass orders in view of the above directions within a period of two months from today and shall communicate the same to the petitioners immediately upon its passing. The computation of arrears shall also be communicated along with.

11. Payments shall be made to the petitioners within a further period of two months thereafter.

12. Given the aforenoticed adjudication by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondents ought to have proceeded in the matter suo motu without requiring other persons to approach the court or Tribunal for adjudication on the above claim.

We direct the Secretary (Finance) to examine these matters and ensure that appropriate orders are passed with regard to payment of the proper pay scale to all accountants as directed by us following the several orders noted above so that different persons having to approach the court thereby burdening the court with unwarranted litigation is avoided.

Dasti.

(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE

(DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE MAY 02, 2014/mk

WP(C) No.5492/2013 page 5 of 5