W.P.(C) No.7958/2011. Case: Jagmohan Sharma & Ors. Vs Nipccd & Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C) No.7958/2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Yashish Chandra, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. H. D. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Saajib Qureshi, Advocate, Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for UOI |
| Judges | Pradeep Nandrajog and V. Kameswar Rao, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India |
| Judgement Date | April 25, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
-
The issue pertaining to pay-scale in which Assistants and Stenographers Grade-II working in subordinate and attached offices of the Union of India as also Autonomous Bodies established by the Government vis-à-vis Assistants and Stenographers working in the Central Secretariats and appointed through competitive examination and becoming members of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) became the bone of contention when the 3rd Central Pay Commission placed the two in different pay-scales, giving reason:-
By the very nature of work in the Secretariat, the volume of dictation and typing work was expected to be heavier than in a subordinate office, the requirement of secrecy even in civil offices of the secretariat could be very stringent. Considering the differences in the hierarchical structures and in the type of work transacted in the Secretariat and in the subordinate offices, the Commission was not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern in respect of matters listed in the preceding paragraph.
-
Litigation ensued. Some Assistants and Stenographers working in a few subordinate offices under the Union of India as also a few Assistants and Stenographers working in some Autonomous Bodies obtained orders favourable to them. Some failed. Those who succeeded had their pay re-fixed in the higher pay-scale. When the 4th Central Pay Commission submitted its report, recommendation was to place Assistants and Stenographers working in the Central Secretariat in the pay-scale `1640-2900/- and those in the non-Secretariats in the pay-scale `1400-2600/-. These pay-scales were brought into force in the year 1998 but with retrospective effect from January 01, 1986.
-
Further litigation ensued. The first judgment on the subject after 1986 rendered by the Supreme Court is reported as AIR 1988 SC 1291 Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. Pay parity was denied noting that the process of recruitment was different and nature of duties performed by Assistants and Stenographers in the Central Secretariat was onerous. Indeed, in the decisions reported as (1997) 3 SCC 568 Union of India & Anr. v. P.V.Hariharan & Anr., (1996) 11 SCC 77 State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jasmer Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 408 Alvaro Noronha Ferriera & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 243 State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Madan Mohan Sen & Ors., it has categorically been held that apart from other factors having a bearing on parity for equating posts, the nature of work in relation to volume, evaluation of duties and responsibilities had an important role to play.
-
In spite of the decision of the Supreme Court in Fedaration of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers' case (supra), a number of decisions came to be pronounced by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which were upheld by the Supreme Court, and one of which was the decision dated January 19, 1996 allowing OA No.1448/1993 V.R.Panchal & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. in which Stenographers and Assistants working in subordinate offices obtained favourable verdicts requiring them to be placed in the pay-scale `1640-2900. But some failed.
-
We find that the divergence of opinion in various judicial pronouncements up to the Supreme Court is a result of the fact that some autonomous bodies or the Central Government drew attention of the Supreme Court as also the High Courts to the fact that the 3rd and the 5th Central Pay Commission had specifically addressed themselves on the subject of parity and had found fault with the decisions which had directed that all Assistants and Stenographers be placed in the same pay-scale ignoring that even under the Central Government only Assistants inducted in the Central Secretariat Service and who work in the Central Ministries were placed in a higher pay-scale as against Assistants and Stenographers working in the subordinate offices under the Ministries. In other...
To continue reading
Request your trial