Delhi High Court
R.L.Kala & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 September, 2015
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 941/2002
R.L.KALA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Filza Moonis with Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Singh, Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan with Mr. Rohan
Gupta and Mr. S.S.Rai, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 02.09.2015
1. The petitioners were recruited as drawing staff in the General
Reserve Engineering Force which is a part of the Border Roads
Organisation. They claim higher pay scales and implementation of
the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, contending
that these recommendations have been accepted and implemented
w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by the Central Government with respect to several
Ministries and Departments of the Central Government, but not to the
Border Roads Organisation.
2. The organisational structure of Draughtsmen, with the relative
pay scales - in terms of the 4th CPC's recommendations and the
revised pay scales in terms of what is claimed in these proceedings
W.P.(C)941-02 Page 1
has been set out in the writ petition. This is extracted below in a
tabular form:
Post Old Pay Scale Revised Pay Scale
D/man Gr.II 1400-2300 5000-8000
D/man Gr.I 1600-2660 5500-9000
Sr. D/man 2000-3200 6500-10500
3. It is submitted that the then Ministry of Surface Transport (now
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) on 17.10.1997 issued an
order indicating revised pay scales applicable to Draughtsmen under
its Department and other agencies. The petitioners rely upon the said
order and subsequent orders giving effect to it. They also rely upon an
order pertaining to officers/employees of the CPWD dated 16.10.1997
to similar effect. They further state that the Comptroller General of
Defence Accounts ("CGDA") issued directions to implement the 5 th
CPC's recommendations. It is argued that the petitioners - who were
initially recruited as Draughtsman Gr.III, Draughtsman Grade-II or as
Draughtsman Gr.I in the General Reserve Engineering Force which
was subsequently upon its revamping, absorbed in the BRO ought to
be given the parity with those working in the CPWD and other
organisations.
4. In the counter affidavit as well as in the course of proceedings,
the respondents admit that the hierarchy of posts in the BRO
comprised of the cadres of Chief Draughtsman (at the apex level),
followed by the Senior Draughtsman, Draughtsman Gr.I and
Draughtsman Gr.II. It is stated that consequent to the
W.P.(C)941-02 Page 2
recommendations of the 5th CPC, the pre-existing hierarchy was
maintained so far as the pay structures were concerned. Respondents
rely upon a comparative tabular chart which is extracted below: -
Position/scale in BRO Position in other Govt. Deptt.
Category/post in Existing pay Category/post in Existing pay
BRO scales other Deptt. scales
Chief Draftsman 6500-10500 Chief 6500-10500
Draftsman/Head
Draftsman
Senior 5000-8000 Draftsman 5500-9000
Draftsman Grade-I
Draftsman 5000-8000 Draftsman 5000-8000
Grade-I Grade-II
Draftsman 4500-7000 Draftsman 4000-6000
Grade-II Grade-III
5. It is stated that both Draughtsman Gr.I and Senior Draughtsman
are entitled to a single replacement pay scale of `5000-8000 and that
such of the petitioners who were either holding the post of
Draughtsman Gr.-I or Senior Draughtsman, at the relevant time, were
fitted in that pay scale. It is, at the same time, conceded that some of
the petitioners might have been promoted or at the time of their
superannuation attained the grade of Chief Draughtsman. That post is
entitled to the revision pay scale of `6500-10,500. The BRO concedes
that at some time, a proposal to increase the pay scale of Senior
Draughtsman from `5000-8000 to `5500-9000 was made but was not
accepted by the Central Government.
6. The BRO lastly urges that a similar claim of one Shri Kulwant
Singh was considered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
W.P.(C)11892/2000 - Kulwant Singh v. UOI & Anr. On that
W.P.(C)941-02 Page 3
occasion, the Court directed the Central Government to consider the
question of parity and pass speaking order. A copy of the said
speaking order has been produced. The relevant extract of the
speaking order reads as follows: -
"4. Both the above mentioned issues have been examined by the
Dte. GBR in consultation with the concerned authorities. It
needs to be mentioned that prior to implementation of the pay
scales recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission, the
pay scales of D'Man in Dte. GBR were as under: -
(i) D'Man Grade-I 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300
(ii) Senior D'Man 1600-50-2300-EB-60-2660
5. The 5th Central Pay Commission had considered the
above pay scales and based on their recommendations, the
Govt. have decided the single replacement pay scale of
Rs.5000-150-8000/- vide part A of the 1st Schedule of GSR 569
(E) dated the 30th Sept., 1997 (extracts enclosed) for both the
pay scales of the D'Man above. Since the replacement scale of
Rs.1600-2660/-, in which you were working as Sr. D'Man, is
Rs.5000-150-8000, your pay in the revised scale of pay of
Rs.5000-175-8000/- has, accordingly, been fixed with effect
from 1.1.1996.
6. In so far as the other issue regarding grant of stagnation
increment is concerned, it needs to be clarified that you had
reached the maximum of the pay scale (Rs.2660/-) in the scale
of pay of Rs.1600-50-2300-60-2660 on 1.1.1994. You had
been drawing Rs.2660/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.1994. In
accordance with the Rules, you were due for grant of a
stagnation increment after completion of 2 years of service.
Accordingly, on completion of 2 years, that is on 1/1/1996, you
were granted the stagnation increment @ Rs.60/- per month.
Your pay was raised from Rs.2660/- to Rs.2720/-
w.e.f.1.1.1996. Taking into account this basic pay, your pay,
in the revised scale of pay, was fixed at the maximum of
W.P.(C)941-02 Page 4
Rs.8000/-. You were also granted Rs.206/- per month as
personal pay in accordance with the approved formula in terms
of Para 7 and Note 5 of Ministry of Finance Notification dated
30/7/1997. (Extracts enclosed). The Dte. GBR have also
informed you of this position vide their letter
No.17071-E/DGBR/71/T&C dated 20th march, 2001.
7. Your pay cannot be fixed in the revised pay scale of
Rs.5500-175-9000/- because this is the replacement pay scale
of the erstwhile pay scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900/- and
you were not working in this pay scale prior to 1.1.1996."
7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and also considered
the submissions in the writ petition. Apart from making a bald claim
for parity in the pay scales pursuant to the recommendations of the 5 th
CPC, no attempt has been made by the petitioner to state that all the
elements which go to establish the principle of "equal pay for equal
work" are present in the case. The BRO asserts - a fact not disputed
by the petitioners - that the hierarchy within that organisation in terms
of the cadre structure, Recruitment Rules, eligibility norms, the nature
of pay and allowances and other perks admissible to its employees
were quite different from those admissible and given to members of
other services and civilian organisations.
8. Having regard to these undisputed facts, the Court is of the
opinion that the declaration sought cannot be granted. At the same
time, it is clarified that if any of the petitioners were in fact promoted
or treated as Chief Draughtsman, they would be entitled to the pay
scales of `6,500-10,500 w.e.f. those dates. Such of the petitioners
who attained the age of superannuation immediately or just
W.P.(C)941-02 Page 5
contemporaneously with the grant of such promotion would be
entitled to refixation of their pension and payment of differential
salary/pension etc.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 02, 2015
/vikas/
W.P.(C)941-02 Page 6
