JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. These three writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact and arising out of a common judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28th January 2002 in OA Nos. 1649/2001, 1650/2001 and 1651/2001, were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The Original Applicants before the learned Tribunal being the
unofficial respondents in these writ petitions were Data Entry Operators (‘DEOs’
for short) having different grades. A Committee known as Seshagiri Committee
was constituted by the Government of India for the purpose of consideration of
infirmity of pay scales/designations of the Electronic Data Processing (‘EDP’ for
short) personnel in terms of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay
Commission. In its recommendations, the Fourth Central Pay Commission
suggested that the Department of Electronics should examine and suggest review
of existing EDP posts and prescribe uniform pay scales and designations in
consultation with the Department of Personnel. In terms of the recommendations
made by Seshagiri Committee, the Government of India introduced the following
pay structure for the EDP posts:
S.No.
Designation of posts
Pay scale
Data Entry Operators
1.
Data Entry Operator Grade ‘A’
Rs. 1150-1500
This will be entry Grade for Higher Secondary with knowledge of Data Entry Work.
2.
Data Entry Operator Grade ‘B’
Rs. 1350-2200
This will be entry grade for graduates with knowledge of Data Entry work or promotional Grade for Data Entry Operator Grade ‘A’.
3.
Data Entry Operator Grade ‘C’
Rs. 1400-2300
Promotional Grade
4.
Data Entry Operator Grade ‘D’
Rs. 1600-2660
Promotional Grade.
5.
Data Entry Operator Grade ‘E’
Rs.2000-3500
Promotional Grade.
Data Processing / Programming Staff
1.
Data Processing Assistant Grade ‘A’
Rs. 1600-2660
Entry Grade for graduates with Diploma/ Certificate in Computer application
2.
Data Processing Assistant Grade ‘B’
Rs.2000-3200
Promotional Grade
3.
Programmer
Rs.2375-3500
Direct entry for holders of Degree in Engineering or Post graduation in Science / Maths etc. or Post graduation in Computer Application Or By promotion from Data Processing Assistant Grade ‘B’.
4.
Senior Programmer
Rs. 3000-4500
Promotional Grade.
3. The concerned Ministries/Departments were informed about the
said decision of the Central Government. On or about 17th July 1991, upon
holding consultations with the Union Public Service Commission, sanction was
accorded for re-designation and revision of pay scales of Electronic Data
Processing posts and the scales of pay mentioned hereinbefore w.e.f. 11th
September 1989.
4. The petitioners claimed that such benefit of restructured grades be
extended w.e.f. 1st January 1986 and consequently monetary benefits from that
date be extended to them. The afore-mentioned claims of the petitioners were
denied inter alia by a letter dated 7th June 2001 in the following terms:
“With reference to his/her representation
dated 06-9-2000 for grant of restructured EDI’ pay
scales w.e.f. 01-01-1986, Shri/Smt/Kum O.P.
Bansal, Supdt (DP) in the office of Union Public
Service Commission is hereby informed that the
matter has been examined in consultation with the
Ministry of Finance, who have clarified that the
EDP staff of UPSC cannot be granted re-structured
EDP pay scales w.e.f. 01-01-1986 as no general
order has been issued for grant of re-structured EDP
pay scales w.e.f. 01-01-1986.”
5. It is not in dispute that several Original Applications were filed by
the employees working in different Ministries and Departments claiming the said
scale of pay w.e.f. 1st January 1986. The said Original Applications were
allowed. The directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal admittedly had
been implemented by the concerned Ministries. However, some Original
Applications were dismissed. The question was referred to a Full Bench of the
Tribunal.
6. It appears that the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal in OA No. 957/1990 by a judgment dated 10th December 1992, inter alia,
held that re-fixation of pay should be allowed w.e.f. 1st January 1986 instead of
11th September 1989 to EDP/DEP personnel covered by the circular issued by
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure on 11th September 1989. The
Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India
thereagainst which was marked as SLP No. 16533/93 and by an order dated 5th
December 1994 the said SLP was dismissed.
7. It further appears that the matter was considered by this court also
inter alia in CWP No. 7100/2000 filed by the Union of India against Rajender
Kumar Pareek & Ors. and CWP No. 3612/2000 S.K. Dhawan and Ors. v. Union of India, wherein it had categorically been held that the Union of India having implemented the said judgment of the Full Bench by various Departments/Ministries denied thereof to the petitioners therein is discriminatory
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8. Mr. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that in the instant case, by reason of the afore-mentioned OM, new
posts had been created. If new posts are created, the learned counsel would
contend, fixation of scale of pay on a higher grade cannot be made from
retrospective effect. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Union of
India and Ors. v. Secretary, Madras Civil Audit and Accounts Association and Anr., .
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other
hand, would urge that it is not correct to contend that new posts were created but
as would appear from the circular letters issued by the Ministries themselves only
re-designations were made. It has been contended that the number of posts had
remained the same and re-designations in terms of the recommendations made by
the Fourth Central Pay Commission had to be made having regard to the functions
performed by the respondents.
10. Interpretation of the afore-mentioned OM dated 11th September
1989 undisputedly came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, several Ministries and
Departments were represented. It has been held that re-designation had been
made in respect of the existing posts only. Having regard to the fact that
admittedly a decision of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal as
also several other decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal have been
implemented, we are of the opinion that there is no reason as to why the
respondents should be discriminated against. The decision of the Apex Court in
Union of India and Ors. v. Secretary, Madras Civil Audit and Accounts Association and Anr. (supra), is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the same related to posts which were newly created ones. As indicated hereinbefore, in the instant case, no
new posts had been created and merely they had been redesignated.
11. As noticed hereinbefore, even a similar judgment of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench had been upheld by the Apex Court.
Before us also, several office orders implementing the said decision of the
Tribunal have been filed.
12. For the reasons afore-mentioned, we are of the opinion that in the
facts and circumstances of this case, there is absolutely no reason as to why the
respondents herein should be dented the similar benefits.
13. We, therefore, do not intent to exercise our discretionary
jurisdiction in the matter and these writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. But
in the facts and circumstances of these cases,