C.W.P. No. 6874 of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 6874 of 2000
Decided on : 08-12-2008
Dharam Pal
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India & others
....Respondents
CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH.
Present:- Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
HEMANT GUPTA, J
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated
23.03.2000 (annexure P-7) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh, whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner
claiming same pay scale as that of Assistants working in the Head Office
was declined. The petitioner is an Assistant working in Census Department
i.e. Field Office. The petitioner is claiming parity with the pay scale of
Assistants working in the Central Secretariat i.e. Head Office w.e.f.
01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996.
It is the case of the petitioner that IIIrd Pay Commission
recommended pay scale of Rs.425-700 to the post of Assistant of the Field
Office, which was revised to Rs.1400-2300 by the IVth Pay Commission.
The Vth Pay Commission recommended pay scale of Rs.5000-8000,
whereas the Assistants working in the Central Secretariat i.e. Head Office
are in the pay scale of Rs.425-800 in terms of the recommendations of the
C.W.P. No. 6874 of 2000 -2-
IIIrd Pay Commission, Rs.1400-2600 in pursuance of the recommendations
of the IVth Pay Commission and Rs.5500-9000 in pursuance of the
recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission. It is the case of the
petitioner that since the Assistants in the Field Office and the Head Office
discharge similar duties and responsibilities as well as appointed on the
basis of similar qualifications, therefore, the difference in the pay scale is
arbitrary and discriminatory.
The learned Tribunal has found that the different pay scale were
provided on the implementation of the recommendations of the IIIrd Pay
Commission. But, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal after the
implementation of the report of the Vth Pay Commission on the ground that
the difference in the pay case has widened. The Tribunal, thus, found that
the petitioners have claimed pay scale after almost 13 years from 1.01.1986
or 9 years of grant of such pay scale and that such claim is highly belated.
The Tribunal further found that the principles to work out separate pay
scales for the Assistants of the Field Office and of the Head Office have
been mentioned in the recommendations and relate not only to the duties
and responsibilities, but even the mode of recruitment and the educational
qualifications. It has been further found that the petitioners deal with
routine matters, whereas Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service are
required to deal with complex questions which involve decision in policy
matters. Such Assistants are required to put up their papers before higher
authorities. The Assistants in Subordinate offices are required to implement
the policy decisions, whereas Assistants in the Head Offices are the part of
decision making process. There is direct recruitment to the Assistants in the
Central Civil Secretariat upto 50% of the posts with minimum educational
C.W.P. No. 6874 of 2000 -3-
qualification as Graduate, whereas for similar posts in Subordinate Offices
the candidates are promoted from the posts of UDCs after 5 years of service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the
educational qualification for filing up the posts of Assistants in the Field
Office and the Head Office is Graduate. Therefore, the distinction in the
pay scale is discriminatory and violates the principle of ‘equal pay for equal
work’ enshrined under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution. Reliance is placed
upon a Supreme Court judgment reported as AIR 1982 Supreme Court
879, Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and other.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any
merit in the present writ petition. The difference in pay scale of the
Assistants of the Field Office with the Assistants working in the Head
Office was created on the acceptance of recommendations of the IIIrd Pay
Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1973. However, the petitioner invoked the
jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1998. By that
time, the report of IVth and Vth Pay Commission also came to be
implemented.
The duties and responsibilities for the post of Assistant in the
Field Office and that of Head Office have been clearly delineated in the
order passed by the Tribunal. The appointment to both set of Assistants is
governed by separate set of Rules. The Tribunal has also discussed the
nature of duties and has not found any parity with the duties and
responsibilities of the Assistants in the Head Offices with the Assistants
working in the Field Offices. There is no material on the basis of which it
can be said that duties and responsibilities of the Assistants in the Field
Office and that of Head Office are similar. It is for the experts to assign
C.W.P. No. 6874 of 2000 -4-
suitable pay scale keeping in view the nature of duties, level of
responsibility, educational qualification and set up of the organisation.
Since the duties and responsibilities are not similar and the
service conditions are governed by separate Rules, therefore we do not find
any justification for grant of similar pay scale to the petitioners. There is
thus, no error in the order passed by Tribunal.
Dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta)
Judge
8th December 2008. (Nawab Singh)
Monika Judge