Delhi High Court
Vimal Prasad Semwal & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 July, 2017
$-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 27.07.2017
% W.P.(C.) No. 5536/2017
VIMAL PRASAD SEMWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for
R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 03.12.2016 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the
Tribunal) in O.A. No. 4074/2014, whereby the said Original Application of
the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The petitioners - who are 23 in number, had preferred the Original
Application to seek a direction for grant of pay scale of Rs. 330-480 (pre-
revised) as given to the other optical workers, vide order dated 01.08.2013 in
pursuance of the order passed by the Allahabad Bench of Central
Administrative Tribunal (Allahabad Tribunal) in O.A. No.s 956-960/2008 on
08.02.2011.
3. The petitioners after completion of training of 3½ years as Boy
Artisans, were appointed as Optical Workers (Skilled), during the years
1984-1988, in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 /950-1500. It is the case of the
petitioners that even though they were appointed towards the said post; they
were made to discharge different kinds of duties as per requirement,
including the duty of Photo-Etcher (Graticule).
4. The petitioner claimed that they are similarly placed as the applicants
before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.956-960/2008, and
are, therefore, entitled to be granted the same pay scale of Rs. 330-480 with
all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, as granted to the
applicant before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal, while dismissing the Original Application, has taken
note of the fact that even though the present petitioners, and the applicants
before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal were all appointed as Optical
Workers, the applicants before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal were
actually performing the duties of Photo-Etcher (Graticule), which the
petitioners could not establish to be performing. Hence, the case of the
petitioners stood on a different footing. In the impugned order, the Tribunal
has observed as under:
"5. Admittedly, the applicants in the instant OA and those
before the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal were all appointed
as Optical Workers. The applicants before the Allahabad Bench
were actually performing the duties of Photo-Etcher
(Graticule). The Allahabad Bench accepting their plea and
following the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' granted
them the relief and directed the respondents to place them in
the pay scale of Photo-Etcher (Graticule) and the same has
been implemented. The plea of the applicants in the instant OA
that they are entitled for the same relief that has been granted
by the Allahabad Bench is not tenable. Two cases are entirely
different. The applicants before the Allahabad Bench were in
fact performing the duties of Optical Workers Photo-Etcher
(Graticule). In the light of these stark realities, we are of the
view that there is no merit in the OA and the OA is liable for
dismissal. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed."
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
petitioners were performing the same duties as the applicants before the
Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal and thus, in light of the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work' were entitled to the same financial upgradation as given
to the applicants before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal vide office
order dated 01.08.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to
place reliance upon Purnendu Mukhopadhyay and Ors. vs. V.K. Kapoor
and Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 4862 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
145 of 2003) decided by the Supreme Court on 12.10.2007, wherein it was
held that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently and
orders implemented in relation to one cannot be refused for another.
7. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that employees
discharging the same functions would be entitled to the same pay, at least till
they continue to perform the same functions and shoulder the same
responsibilities.
8. The admitted position, however, is that the applicants before the
Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal, although appointed as Optical Workers,
were actually performing the duties of Photo-Etcher (Graticule) and,
consequently, following the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' were
placed in the pay scale of Photo-Etcher (Graticule). It is also an admitted
fact that the petitioners were appointed as Optical Workers similar to the
applicants before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal. However, in the
present case, the petitioners have not been able to establish that they are
performing the duties and functions of photo etchers, which the applicants
before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal had established. Thus, they
could not claim parity with the applicants before the Allahabad Bench of the
Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal has observed, and rightly so, that the case of the
petitioners is entirely different from the applicants before the Allahabad
Tribunal and the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' could not be
invoked by them. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Purnendu Mukhopadhyay (supra) is of no avail.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
REKHA PALLI, J.
JULY 27, 2017
