Review Application No. 15 of 1998 and O.A. No. 151 of 1991. Case: Tarit Ranjan Das Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Review Application No. 15 of 1998 and O.A. No. 151 of 1991 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A. Roy and S. Sarma, Advs. and For Respondents: B.C. Pathak, Addl. C.G.S.C. |
| Judges | D.N. Baruah, J. (Vice-Chairman) and G.L. Sanglyine, Member (A) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 |
| Judgement Date | February 25, 2000 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
D.N. Baruah, J. (Vice-Chairman)
-
This Review Application has been filed by the applicant seeking review of the judgment and order dated 10.7.1998 dismissing the Original Application No. 151 of 1991. This Tribunal dismissed the O.A. holding that the nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the two categories of Stenographers to one of which the applicant belonged were not same. This conclusion was arrived at relying on para 46.34 of the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations, the factors like similarity of job contents, status and responsibilities were not similar to that of the applicant. There existed difference between the applicant and the Stenographer Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat with respect to the job responsibilities. Besides, the Tribunal came to such conclusion on the ground that the applicant in his case had not made any claim to the effect that his responsibilities were same or similar to those of the Stenographers Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat.
-
It has been stated in the Review Application that the applicant submitted before this Tribunal that he was entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 31.7.1990 and denial of which was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It has also been submitted that the post held by the applicant vis-a-vis Stenographer Grade 'C' in the Central Secretariat being in comparable grades and the method of recruitment of the applicant was through open competitive examination like that of Stenographer Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat, and therefore, he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. The nature of work, duties and functions were also similar in all respects. The further contention of the applicant is that the Board of Arbitration had decided in favour of parity in pay scales of Stenographers in the subordinate offices and the Central Secretariat. These submissions, according to the review applicant, was not accepted by the Tribunal for equal pay. Accordingly the O.A. was dismissed.
-
The review applicant has now submitted before this Tribunal that the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 had been fixed by the respondents vide O.M. No, 2/1/90-CS-IV dated 31.7.1990 and had extended this revised scale to the Stenographers and Assistants to the organisations other than the Central Secretariat service and the applicant is entitled to the parity in treatment on the basis of the said O.M. dated 31.7.1990. The review applicant has stated that the Tribunal erred in denying the relief referred to in the said O.M. to the applicant, on the grounds, inter alia, that it made no difference even if the pay scale was fixed by the Government of India. The review applicant contended that while coming to that conclusion, the Tribunal did not consider the relevant materials on record in adjudicating the issue. According to the review applicant the Tribunal erroneously held that he did not come within the four corners of the O.M. dated 31.7.1990 and also failed to fulfil the determining factors. He further states that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that "the nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the two categories of Stenographers to one of them the applicant belonged are not same". According to the applicant this observation of the Tribunal was factually incorrect inasmuch as the Pay Commission in para 46.34 observed that "some petitioner stenographers Grade II have got the benefit of parity in pay scale through Courts." The Tribunal, according to the review applicant, also did not notice another important para of Fifth Central Pay Commission, namely, para 46.31, which inter alia mentioned that "........Rejecting the contention of the Union of India that Stenographers, Grade II and Assistants in the non-secretariat offices could not be compared with Stenographers, Grade 'C' of CSSS and Assistants of CSS because of different classification, method of recruitment, nature of duties and responsibilities and eligibility for promotion to higher grade, the CAT directed the Union of India to place the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900......" It has been stated that the judgment of the Principal Bench had since been implemented by the authorities, and therefore, denial of the said benefit to the applicant would lead to a discriminatory treatment. The review applicant has also stated that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that "as far as sameness or similarity of the responsibilities of the applicant with those of the Stenographers Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat is concerned, it is not necessary for us to express our views in this O.A. for it is not the contention of the applicant that his responsibilities are same or similar with those of the Stenographers Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat......", as in doing so, it left out of consideration of the pleadings of the parties. It has been further stated that the benefit of the upgraded scale of pay vide O.M. dated 31.7.1990 was extended in order to bring the Stenographers Grade II working in other organisations at par with their counterparts in the Central Secretariat and this in effect was in the nature of a policy decision which the review applicant claimed. The applicant was denied the same without any valid reason. The applicant has further made an alternative argument that even assuming that the nature of work and responsibilities of the applicant vis-a-vis Stenographers Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat are factors required to be established before the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the upgraded scale of pay, the finding of the Tribunal that there was no claim by the applicant in the O.A. to the effect that his responsibilities are same or similar with those of the Stenographers Grade 'C' of the Central Secretariat was an error apparent on the face of the records, and therefore, the judgment ought to be reviewed. Besides, the applicant claimed that on other grounds also the judgment required to be reviewed as the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was not based on records. The review applicant has further contended that he is similarly situated with the applicants in the case decided by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Brahm Dass and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (O.A. No. 548 of 1994) decided on 19.1.1996. According to the applicant his case is squarely covered by the findings arrived at in the said case.
-
This review application was admitted by the Tribunal to consider whether the judgment requires to be reviewed. An additional statement has been filed by the review applicant in respect of his claim regarding dudes and responsibilities. In the said additional statement the review applicant has stated that the Geological Survey of India is the third oldest and biggest "Geological Survey" in the world serving in the country. It was established in the year 1852 with the aim of locating the natural resources. This organisation has since grown in size and stature to undertake the responsibility of locating and exploring all natural resources, except oil and gas and atomic minerals, in the country. This organisation functions under the Ministry of Mines as a subordinate department with the Director General as its head. The Director General has the overall responsibility of planning and programming. The senior level officers of different streams assist the Director General in discharging his functions. There are six Regions, three Specialised Wings (activity based) and Training Institute.
-
The activities of the Geological Survey of India are guided by the national priorities and policy directions as a sequel to new National Mineral Policy and liberalisation measures. The organisation has moulded its activities to meet the requirements and the focus is mainly on Mineral Surveys of important minerals, Regional Surveys and various...
To continue reading
Request your trial