ORDER
V.K. Majotra, Vice-Chairman (A)
1. MA No. 365/2006 for joining in a single OA is allowed.
By this OA applicants have challenged Annexure A-1 dated 17.2.2005 and Annexure A-2 date 19.1.2005 whereby applicants have been denied extension of the benefit of revision of pay scales of Draftsman in Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) w.e.f. 22.8.1973 (notionally) and w.e.f. 16.11.1978 (actually) at par with the Draftsman in the Ministry of Transport and Highways and CPWD on the ground that the benefit of ‘the order of CAT/Court is normally restricted to the applicants only and the same benefit cannot be extended to the non-applicants’.
2. Applicants have sought pay scales recommended by Arbitration Board notionally from 22.8.1973 and actually from 16.11.1978 which have been made applicable to Draftsman in various departments of the Government. Applicants have relied upon order dated 31.7.1992 in OA No. 1978/1988 All India P&T Civil Wing Non-Gazetted Employees Union v. Union of India and Ors.; order dated 25.3.1996 in OA No. 2020/1994 Dinkar rao Kawday and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.; and order dated 15.4.2002 in OA No. 2514/2001 K.B. Sehgal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., which are stated to have been implemented by related Ministries/Departments.
3. The learned Counsel of applicants pointed out that applicants have been deprived of the benefit of revised pay scale only for the reason that they were not applicants in the aforesaid OAs by virtue of which the Court had granted applicants therein the benefit of revised pay scales.
4. Respondents have admitted that in 1984 Government revised the pay scales of Draftsmen on account of award of the Board of Arbitration in respect of CPWD in pursuance of the recommendations of the Third Central Pay Commission. The Tribunal had ordered grant of higher pay scale in terms of the recommendations of the Board of Arbitration notionally w.e.f. 22.8.1973 and actually from 16.11.1978 instead of 13.5.1982 notionally and 1.11.1983 actually in respect of the applicants of the related cases. The learned Counsel of respondents further stated that CGWB had recommended the grant of revised pay scales to the Draftsmen in CGWB as claimed by applicants, but the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) did not accept the proposal because ‘the benefit of the order of CAT is normally restricted to the applicants only and the same cannot be extended to all’.
5. We have considered the respective contentions of the parties as also the material available on record.
6. The only ground for rejection of applicants’ claim regarding grant of higher pay scale to the Draftsmen working in CGWB at par with the Draftsmen of CPWD and Surface Transport and Highways, etc., is that certain applicants of those Departments had been granted higher pay scale w.e.f. 22.8.1973 (notionally) and 16.11.1978 (actually) as they were applicants in cases where such relief was allowed by the Court and that it is respondents’ policy that benefit of orders of Courts is normally restricted to applicants of that case and the same is not extended to all. It is surprising that respondents have taken such an unreasonable stand despite being the so called model employers. 1997 SCC (L&S) 267 Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.; and 2000 (1) SLJ 223 Ajay Jadhav v. Government of Goa and Ors., lay down that similarly placed persons cannot be treated differently. Parties who fail to approach the Court cannot be ignored. So all affected persons whether parties or not should be included for grant of relief. Such is the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Cases cited on behalf of applicants have held the applicants therein as entitled to benefit of revised pay scale notionally w.e.f. 22.8.1973 and actually from 16.11.1978 as granted to CPWD counter-parts and Draftsmen of other Ministries/Departments.
7. Resultantly Annexures A-1 dated 17.2.2005 and Annexure A-2 dated 19.1.2005 are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant to applicants the scales granted to Draftsmen in the CPWD notionally w.e.f. 22.8.1973 with actual benefits from 16.11.1978. Applicants shall also be entitled to arrears. These directions shall be complied with by respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of these orders.
8. The OA is accordingly allowed.