Jammu High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs The Above Order Was Passed By The … on 19 August, 2010
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.
LPASW no. 27 of 2006 AND LPASW no. 347 of 2000 AND LPASW no. 348 of 2000
Union of India and ors.
1)Amar Nath and ors.
2)Mohan Lal Baya and ors
3)Aya Singh and ors
4)Ram Dass and ors.
!Mr. Gagan Basotra, Advocate
^M/s. Rakesh Sharma and Anil Mahajan,Advocates
Honble Mr. Justice Dr. Aftab H. Saikia, Chief Justice
Honble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge
:J U D G M E N T :
1)LPASW no. 27 of 2006
2) LPASW no. 347 of 2000
3) LPASW no. 348 of 2000
4) LPASW no. 37 of 2001
Dr. Saikia, CJ:
Heard Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Rakesh Sharma and
Mr. Anil Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
This batch of Letters Patent Appeals being LPA nos. 347/2000, 348/2000, 37/2001 and
27/2006, wherein identical question of law has been raised, based on similar fact situation, has
been taken up for final disposal on being remitted by the Supreme Court by order dated
October 6, 2005 passed in Civil Appeal no. 5825 of 2000 (Union of India & ors. v. Amar Nath
and ors) to this Court for fresh consideration on merits.
The order dated 6.10.2005 of the Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In both these appeals, the basic issue is as to whether the judgment of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 40/91 which based its views on an earlier decision in Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter &
Ors Vs. Union of India & anr. AIR 1989 1215 applies or the one rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.
3999-4023/1998 and connected cases which were disposed of on 31st July, 1991. In Civil
Appeal No. 5825 of 2000, learned Single Judge had relied on a decision in SSR of Examiners
Muradnagar Ordinance Factory case (supra). In appeal, the Division Bench observed that first
the directions as contained in the learned Single Judges order were to be complied with before
the issue could be decided, in the background of the subsequent judgment of this Court and its
applicability to the facts of the present case. The course adopted by the Division Bench
certainly is not proper. On that ground alone, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside
and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. In the
connected Civil Appeal no. 7512 of 2004, the High Court relied upon the decision in Bhagwan
Sahais case (supra) and the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court which is the subject
matter of the connected civil appeal. Above being the position, we remit the matter back to the
High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court will consider which of these judgments
applies to the facts of the case and take decision in accordance with law. The appeals are
accordingly disposed of. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the concerned
High Court to dispose of the matters as early as practicable preferably within four months from
the date of receipt of the order.
The above order was passed by the Apex Court while disposing of an appeal preferred by the
Union of India challenging the judgment and order dated 12.3.1999 passed by Division Bench
of this Court in LPA No. IA-1/97 affirming the judgment and order dated 12.3.1997 rendered
by the Writ Court in Writ Petition no. 1393/1994 preferred by one Amar Nath along with 34
others, respondent nos. 1 to 35, in LPASW no. 27/2006.
Initially Writ Petition being no. 1393/1994 was preferred by Amar Nath and 34 others being,
the semi-skilled grade employees of Military Engineering Service Department(for short MES),
and serving in the capacity of Valveman at different Stations of MES in the State of Jammu
and Kashmir since 1973, claiming that although they are placed on the category of semi-skilled
workers, since they are performing duties as are assigned to the skilled workers as Valveman,
they are entitled to get the benefit of grade of Rs. 260-400 payable to skilled category with
effect from October 16, 1981 instead of Rs. 210-290 in which grade presently they are made to
work. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of mandamus was sought commanding the respondents
to decorate the petitioners therein, now the respondents in LPASW no. 27/2006 with the grade
of Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16, 1981 by treating them under the category of
skilled workers instead of semi-skilled one.
6. The Writ Court by its judgment and order dated March 12, 1997, after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and relying upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered on July 31,
1991 in Writ Petition no. 40 of 1991, wherein the ratio of the decision in Bhagwan Sahai
Carpenter & ors v. Union of India & ors reported in AIR 1989 SC 1215 was applied to, granted
relief to all the 35 writ petitioners/respondents herein in LPASW no. 27/2006, directing the
respondents-Union of India & ors/appellants in LPA no. 27/2006 to place the said writ
petitioners in the grade of Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16, 1981 within a period of
two months from the date of passing the judgment.
7. Being aggrieved by the above judgment and direction, the Union of India preferred a
Letters Patent Appeal before this Court being LPASW no. IA-1/1997. However, the Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and order dated March 3, 1997 passed by
the learned Single Judge was made in Writ Petition no. 1393/1994.
8. Immediately after the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the Union of India, as
mentioned above, a series of writ petitions have been filed before this Court by the employees
similarly situated seeking their upgradation from semi-skilled category of grade of Rs. 210-290
to the skilled category workers in the grade of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 16.10.1981.
Writ Petition being SWP no. 2758/1999 was preferred by one Mohan Lal Baya along with 10
others and the Writ Court by its order dated February 21, 2000, allowed the writ petition with a
direction that the writ petitioners therein were entitled to get the same relief as was granted by
this Court in writ petition, SWP no. 1393/1994 disposed of on March 12, 1997.
Order dated February 21, 2000 may be re-produced as under:-
On 27th of Dec1999, this petition was admitted for 8th of Feb 2000.
Respondents have not filed any counter.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief
as was granted by this Court in writ petition no. 1393/94. This was decided on 12th of
March 1997. It is further stated that this decision has since been upheld by a Division Bench of
In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the
respondents would take notice of the observations made by this Court in SWP no.
1393/1994 and shall take appropriate steps. A decision would be taken and communicated to
the petitioners within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order alongwith a
copy of order passed in the writ petition no. 1393/1994 is made available to the respondents.
Disposed of accordingly.
The above order passed by learned Single Judge in SWP no. 2758/1999 has been assailed in
LPASW no. 347/2000.
The other two writ petitions being SWP nos. 1351/1999 and 2272/1999 were preferred by Ram
Dass and 94 others and Aya Singh with 31 others respectively.
Both the writ petitions were disposed of by the Writ Court by its judgments and orders dated
23.7.1999 and 15.10.1999 respectively, granting the same relief as directed in SWP no.
1393/1994 disposed of on March 12, 1997.
Union of India and others, as appellant, have preferred Letters Patent Appeals before this
Court, against both the above judgments and orders through LPASW no. 37/2001 and LPASW
no. 348/2000 respectively.
All these Letters Patent Appeals raising exactly the same question of law, have been heard
analogously in terms of direction issued by the Supreme Court by its order dated October 6,
2005 and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.
The short question involved in this bunch of Letters Patent Appeals is as to whether the
respondents in these appeals, being the semi-skilled employees under the MES, are entitled to
upgradation to the category of skilled employees of grade of Rs. 260-400 with effect from
October 16, 1981. Be it mention that in deciding the issue at hand, this Court requires to
consider, as per direction of the Supreme Court by its order dated 6.10.2005, as to which of the
judgments, i.e., Bhagwan Sahais Case (supra) or the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ
Petition no. 40 of 1991 disposed of on July 31, 1991, along with other connected cases, as
referred to in the order itself, would apply to the facts of the instant case.
17. A brief narration of the factual matrix of the case is necessary for adequate adjudication
of the issue raised in these appeals.
18. Under MES, initially, as has been stated, there were two grades of employees, namely,
skilled grade and unskilled grade and all the respondents in these appeals, being in unskilled
grade, along with other employees working in different trades under MES within the skilled
grade used to get the same scale of pay in the skilled grade continuously for years together
since the recommendation of 1st Pay Commission in 1949. Even, as per the recommendations of
Second and Third Pay Commission in 1973, the pay of both skilled and unskilled grade was
19. In order to remove the anomalies, an Expert Classification Committed was constituted
by the Government of India in terms of the report of Third Pay Commission and the following
five scales of pay were set out vide communication dated May 11, 1983 sent under the
signatures of Deputy Secretary to Government of India to the Chief of the Army Staff, New
Delhi, giving effect of the same from October 16, 1981. The relevant portion of the
communication dated May 11, 1983 may be quoted hereunder:-
No. 1 (2)/80/D/ IC
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi, the 11th May, 83
The Chief of the Army Staff,
Subject : FITMENT OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF MES IN PAY SCALE
RECOMMEDED BY THE THIRD PAY COMMISSION.
After careful consideration of the recommendations of the Expert Classification
Committee appointed in terms of para 19 of Chapter 19 of the report of the Third Pay
Commission and of the Committee on Common Category Jobs, I am directed to convey the
sanction of the President to the following:
Fitment of Industrial Workers in MES in the following five scales of pay as per details set out
Unskilled Rs. 196-3-220-EB-3-232
Highly Skilled Grade II 330-8-370-10-400-EB-480
Highly Skilled Grade 1 380-12-500-EB-15-560
Upgradation of posts from the Skilled grade/highly Skilled grade II to Highly Skilled Grade
II/I respectively in case of jobs enumerated in Annexure-II, in accordance with the following
Strength of Workers No. of Posts to be in Highly Skilled grade II/I
And so on, i.e., one additional post in Highly Skilled Grade II or Grade I for every 10 posts in
the Skilled Grade or Highly Skilled Grade II, as the case may be.
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
6.This supersedes the Government orders issued under Ministry of Defence letter of even
number dated 16th October, 1981, as amended from time to time. This order will take effect
from 16th Oct 81.
7. . . . . . .
8. . . . . . . . .
DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA
It may be noticed from the above communication that the semi-skilled category and skilled
category of Industrial Workers of MES were given the scale of Rs. 210-290 and Rs. 260-400
respectively with effect from October 16, 1981.
21. The respondents, admittedly, being semi-skilled employees, are getting the grade of 210-
290 from 1973. Now they are claiming that though they are the semi-skilled employees, they
are basically working skilled job and hence they are entitled to get the skilled grade with pay
scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16, 1981, the date on which the order, as quoted
above, was given effect to.
22. The grievance of the respondents were vindicated initially by the Writ Court by its
judgement and order dated March 12, 1997 passed in SWP no. 1393/1994, which was later on
confirmed by the Appellate Court by its judgement and order dated March 12, 1999 in LPA no.
IA-1/1997, which was renumbered as LPASW no. 27/2006 on remand from the Supreme
Court. The respondents in other Letters Patent Appeals have also got the same relief.
23. Meanwhile, Union of India have taken the matter to the Supreme Court, assailing the
judgment and order dated March 12, 1999, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
LPASW no. 1A-1/1997 (Union of India and ors. V. Amar Nath and ors) and the Supreme Court
disposed of the appeal by its order dated October 6, 2005 , as already reproduced hereinabove,
with a direction for fresh consideration of the entire matter on merits.
24. It was also observed by the Apex Court that this Court in deciding this issue relied
upon a decision of Apex Court in Bhagwan Sahais case (supra) and the decision rendered in
Writ Petition no. 40 of 1991 disposed of on July 31, 1991 and in view of the same, it was
directed, while remitting the matter to this Court for fresh consideration, to consider which of
judgments would apply to the facts of the case and take decision in accordance with law.
25. For the sake of convenience, it would be prudent to quote the initial judgement and
order dated March 12, 1997 passed by the Writ Court in SWP no. 1393/1994, being the
bedrock of the entire issue.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Shortly stated the claim of the petitioners is that they are working as Semi-skilled Employees
with the respondents from before October 16, 1981. They claim that they are entitled to
upgradation to the category of skilled employees with grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. October 16,
1981. Except for stating that the matter is delayed the respondents have not stated much on
other points particularly the claim of the petitioners that they are in semi-skilled category
enjoying the grade of Rs. 210-290 from 1973.
It is not necessary to mention other facts contained in the petition and the reply since
the matter stands covered by the Apex Court order date July 31, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 40
of 1991. To understand the matter and give relief to the petitioners it is important to quote in
extense the decision of the Apex Court.
The learned counsel Mr. Hemant Sharma, appears on behalf of the respondents and
waives service of rule. We have heard counsel on both sides and have gone through the relevant
papers, the Anomalies Committee Report and the counter filed on behalf of the respondents.
We find from Chapter VIII of the Anomalies Committees Report that the Committee decided
that the existing incumbents in the semi-skilled category, who were in position as on 16th
October, 1981 in the grade of Rs. 210-290, may be upgraded to the skilled category Rs. 260-
400, commensurate with the point-score given by the Committee. So far as fresh induction to
the skilled category was concerned, the Committee formulated certain propositions which are
to be found in clauses a to c of clause(IV) of the reco-mmendations of the Anomalies
committee in Chapter X of the report. It is, therefore, obvious that those employees who belong
to the semi-skilled category and were in position on 16th October, 1981 in the grade of Rs. 210-
290 were to be upgraded to the skilled category carrying a scale of Rs. 260-400 commensurate
with the point-score given by the Committee.
This writ petition has been filed by the Association of Employees and the names
of the members on whose behalf it is filed have been set out in Annexure-B to the petition.
The total number of the number shown in Annexure B is 60. However, it is not known who
out of them were in position on 16th October 1981. We would, therefore, direct the respondents
to verify the service records of these employees and grant the benefit to those who were in
position on 16th October, 1981 in the grade of Rs. 210-290 by upgrading them to the skilled
category of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. that date on the ratio of this Courts decision in Bhagwan Sahai
vs. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 1215). Vide paragraph 11 of the judgment. Those who were
not in position as on 16th October, 1981 in the semi-skilled grade of Rs. 210-290 will be entitled
to placement in the skilled category or Rs. 260-400 if they satisfy the requirements of Clauses
a b and c of Clause (IV) in Chapter X of the Anomalies Committees report to the extent of
its acceptance, with or without modifications, by the Government of India. This should be
finalised not later than October 31, 1991. The rule is made absolute accordingly with no order
as to costs.
Admittedly, the above decision of the Apex Court applies to the petitioners as
well. Therefore, this Writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to extend the same
relief by placing them under Skilled category in the grade of Rs. 260-400 from October 16,
1981 within two months from today. The Petition is disposed of accordingly in the aforesaid
terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
26. In the backdrop of this fact situation, as quoted hereinabove, Mr. Basotra, learned
counsel appearing for the Union of India has forcibly submitted that the respondents having
been working in the semi-skilled grade with scale of Rs.210-290 are not at all entitled to the
grade of Rs. 260-400 under the skilled category. According to him, Valvemen do not fall under
the category of skilled grade. To substantiate his argument, he relied on the decision of
Bhagwan Sahais case (supra). Our attention has been drawn specifically to paragraph 6 of the
decision wherein the Government of India recognized only twelve categories of jobs for
upgradation from Semi-skilled grade to skilled grade to the exclusion of Valveman. Paragraph 6
of Bhagwan Sahais Case (supra) reads as under:-
6. On October 15, 1984 a letter was sent to the Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi
under the Signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India wherein it has been
mentioned that the President has accorded sanction to the upgradation of the following jobs
from semi-skilled grade (Rs. 210-290) to the skilled grade (Rs. 260-400):-
Sl. No. Job Title
27. That being the clear position, according to the learned counsel for Union of India, there
is no scope for the respondents for the entitlement to the skilled grade in the scale of Rs. 260-
400. Mr. Basotra has also put his strong reliance on the affidavit/objections filed in LPASW no.
27/2006 (Union of India and ors. V. Amar nath and ors.)
28. On the contrary, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents,
supporting the impugned judgments, has strongly argued that the respondents are entitled to
get the skilled grade (Rs. 260-400) in terms of Bhagwan Sahais case (supra) as well as the
decision of the Apex Court passed on July 31, 1991 in Writ Petition no. 40 of 1991, which was
reflected in the initial judgment and order dated March 12, 1997, passed by the Writ Court in
SWP no. 1393/1994, for the simple reason that the services of the respondents have been
exploited in the job meant for skilled category.
29. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments canvassed on behalf of
learned counsel for the parties. Records made available have been thoroughly examined. We
have considered with due regard the decisions of the Supreme Court so referred to in support
of the issue raised herein.
In Bhagwan Sahais case (supra), the petitioners, admittedly, being grouped under the skilled
grade, were praying only for the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16,
1981 instead of October 15, 1984, the date on which a letter was sent to the Chief of the Army
Staff, New Delhi under the signatures of Deputy Secretary to Government of India, as
revealed from paragraph 6 of Bhagwan Sahais case, already quoted hereinabove.
Petitioners claim for granting them the skilled category of grade of Rs. 260-400 with effect
from October 16, 1981 in that case, was based on the report of Anomalies Committee, as noted
in paragraph 8 of Bhagwan Sahais case (supra), wherein it was mentioned as follows:
All the jobs studied by the Anomalies Committee, which are present in semi-skilled grade of
Rs. 210-290, may be upgraded to the skilled grade on Rs. 260-400. This may be given effect
from October 16, 1981.
32. The Apex Court, having considered the said aspect, as observed in paragraph 11 in the
above case, observed that it would per se be discriminated and violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India as well as the fundamental right of equal pay for equal work, if the
employees of different trades in the skilled category were treated differently, i.e., by allowing
the higher scale of pay to the employees of the some of the trades from an earlier date and
giving the same benefit to the members of the other trades from a later date. Accordingly, it
was held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 from
October 16, 1981 instead of October 15, 1984.
33. In consideration of the above fact situation in Bhagwan Sahais case, it appears that the
ratio of case apparently is not attributable in the present case which is having slight different
factual position. In the case in hand, the cardinal question is as to whether the respondents,
being under the category of semi-skilled workers, are entitled to get skilled grade in the scale of
Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16, 1981.
34. Now, coming to the Writ Petition no. 40 of 1991 before the Supreme Court, disposed of
on July 31, 1991, which was also quoted in the order dated March 12, 1997 rendered in SWP
no. 1393/1994, as already referred to above in paragraph 25 of this judgment, it is seen that the
question that arose therein was that as to whether the petitioners in the said writ petition, being
from semi-skilled category could be upgraded to the skilled category with grade of Rs. 260-400
with effect from October 16, 1981. Having considered Chapter VIII of the Anomalies
Committees Report to the effect that the existing incumbents in the semi-skilled category,
who were in position as on 16th October, 1981 in the grade of Rs. 210-290, may be upgraded to
the skilled category of Rs. 260-400, commensurate with the point-score given by the
Committee, it was held that the employees situated thus, would be entitled to for upgradation
and, accordingly, the official respondents were directed to verify the service records of these
employees and grant the benefit to those who were in position on 16th October, 1981 in the
grade of Rs. 210-290 by upgrading them to the skilled category of Rs. 260-400 with effect
from that date on the ratio of Bhagwan Sahais case (supra), with a further direction that who
were not in position as on October 16, 1981 in the semi-skilled grade of Rs 210-290 would be
entitled to placement in the skilled category of Rs. 260-400, if they could satisfy the
requirement of Clauses a, b and c of Clause IV of Chapter X of the Anomalies
Committees Report to the extent of any acceptance with or without modification by the
Government of India.
35. Having regard to the above decision, it can be said that keeping in view the fact
situation projected and the provisions of law laid down therein, this authority would support
the case at hand. According to the above decision, the employees, who are in position as on
October 16, 1981 in the semi-skilled grade of Rs. 210-290 will be entitled to placement in the
skilled category of Rs. 260-400 and employees, who are not in position on October 16, 1981 in
the semi-skilled grade of Rs. 210-290, they will be entitled to placement in the skilled category
of Rs. 260-400, if they satisfy the requirement of Clauses a, b & c of Clause IV of Chapter
X of the Anomalies Committees Report. In order to give such benefit, the authority has to
verify the service records of the employees.
36. Significantly, when this Court has pointedly enquired from the learned counsel
appearing for the Union of India about the said Clauses a, b and c of the Anomalies
Committees Report and the position of the respondents on October 16, 1981, he has
expressed his inability and helplessness to furnish any information in this regard. It is
submitted that despite best efforts, his office is yet to get the said report and other relevant
documents containing those clauses, as mentioned in the aforesaid judgement, including any
such related informations.
37. That being the position, this Court is detained from laying its hands on those relevant
informations prescribed in Clauses a, b and c of Clause (IV) of Chapter X of Anomalies
38. Nonetheless, having scrutinized the facts and circumstances of the case in its totality,
we have no hesitation to hold that the ratio of decision in Writ Petition no. 40 of 1991 disposed
of on July 31, 1991, can be applied to in the instant case to grant the relief to the respondents
for their placement in the skilled grade category of Rs. 260-400 with effect from October 16,
39. At this stage, Mr. Sharma, has emphatically submitted that the Government of India has
already accorded sanction for implementation of the judgment in LPA no. IA-I/1997 in respect
of 35 petitioners (Amar Nath and others in Writ Petition no. 1393/1994) and they have currently
been enjoying the said grade. In support of his submissions, he has placed on record, by way of
an affidavit dated 19.8.2010, a communication dated 9.7.1998 sent to him under the
Signatures of Administrative Officer, Headquarters 138 Works Engineers C/o 56 APO.
40. Communication dated 9.7.1998 addressed to Mr. Sharma is reproduced herein below:
Shri Rakesh Sharma Advocate,
Mubarik Mandi, Jammu.
IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDGMENT IN CP NO. COA(SW) 178/97 IN SWP 1393/94
FILED BY SHRI AMAR NATH VALVEMAN AND OTHER V/S UOI.
It is submitted that Honble High Court has decided writ petition in favour of petitioners and
issued judgement on 12 Mar 97 for implementation but deptt decided to file LPA No. 1A-1/97
against the said judgement. Subsequently, Honble High Court also decided LPA in favour of
35 petitioners and passed orders on 12 mar 99.
now, Govt. of India, Min of Def. has accorded sanction for implementation of judgment in
respect of 35 petitioners only and asked to place the petitioners in skilled grade of Rs. 260-400
w.e.f. 16.10./1981. Action towards implementation of judgement has been commenced but out
of 35 petitioners difficulty to establish the identify in respect of following 2 petitioners has
arisen which needs to be authenticated at your level by giving MES No. correct name with
parentage so that their case is also settled and legal complications are avoided.
Sr. No. of WP & Judgements Name of petitioners
Dt. 12 mar 97 & 12 mar 99
25._________________ Sh. Basin Dev
27. _________________ Neelam Singh
This office shall feel obliged for early cooperation in furnishing the detailed information.
Mr. Sharma has also submitted that the cases of similar nature have been filed in different
High Courts and Tribunals across the country and the employees similarly situated with the
respondents herein have been granted the same benefits by the Government by implementing
those orders and judgments passed by different Courts and Tribunals. In this context, he has
relied on a communication dated 28.4.2008 issued by the Director (legal) IHQ, Ministry of
Defence (Army) Government of India, addressed to the Chief Engineer HQ Western
Command, Chandimandir, also being placed on record by the affidavit mentioned above,
wherein it was informed that by way of implementation of Honble Tribunals (PB), New
Delhis order dated 6.1.2006 in OA nos. 2304/2004, 2305/2004 and 2306/2004 filed by Shri
Devi Dutt and others, Shri Sohan Pal and others and Shri Kanwar Bhadur and others v. Union
of India and others, the E-in-C accorded sanction to the grant of pay scales of Rs. 260-400
from October 16, 1981 to the post of Valveman.
Communication dated 28.4.2008 is reproduced herein below:
The Chief Engineer
HQ Western Command
IMPLEMENTATION OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL (PB) NEW DELHI ORDER DATED 06
JAN 2006 IN OA NO. 2304/2004, 2305/2004 AND 2306/2004 FILED BY SHRI DEVI
DUTT AND OTEHRS, SHRI SOHAN PAL AND OTHERS AND SHRI KANWAR
BAHADUR AND OTHERS V/S UOI AND OTHERS.
Under the powers delegated to him vide GOI, MOD letter no MOD/ IC/ 1027/ 32/AS(J)/ 6864
/2006 dated 1st Sep 2006 the E-in-C has accorded sanction to grant the pay scale of Rs. 260-
400/950/1500 (revised) from 16 Oct. 1981 or the date of their initial appointment /promotion to
the post of valveman whichever is later with all consequential benefits in respect of the
individuals as per Appx A in compliance with Tribunal (PB) New Delhi order dated
06.01.2006 in OA No. 2304/2305/2306 of 2004. This will be subject to outcome of SLPs
already filed by UOI in case of Shri Gepa Ram and others and Shri Amar Nath and others.
The financial implication may be worked out and got verified by the audit authorities and the
details thereof furnished to this HQ for floating a separate sanction and noting the charged
expenditure by MOD/Fin (Budget) before payment.
This issues with the concurrence of IFA (Army) vide their U.O. No. 01/FA/ARMY-Q/E-IN-
C/COURT JUDGMENT/51/748 Dated 24 Apr 2008.
IHQ, Min of Def(Army)
Government of India.
Copy to :
CGDA, West Block-V, RK Puram, New Delhi
PCDA Western Command Chandimandir
Since the Government itself has accorded sanction for implementation of judgments and
directions of the various Courts and Tribunals including this Court, as reflected in the above
communications, there shall be no impediment in upgradation of the respondents grade to
skilled category in the scale of Rs. 260-400, as prayed for.
In consideration of the above and having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case
in its entirety, we are of the view that the respondents, who are undisputedly also performing
their duties as are assigned to the skilled workers, are entitled to skilled grade of Rs. 260-400
with effect from October 16, 1981, in the light of the principle of equal pay for equal work,
which itself is a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above discussion and observations, these appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
(Mohammad Yaqoob Mir) (Dr. Aftab H. Saikia)
Judge Chief Justice