NEW YEAR WISHES TO ALL

CONFEDERATION WISHES ALL MEMBERS HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS
NEW YEAR AND PROSPEROUS YEAR FOR THE STENOGRAPHERS

FAQs - regarding Income Tax

03 December 2014

FAQs - regarding Income Tax

1.What is considered as salary income?

 S​ection 17(1)​ of the Income-tax Act defines the term ‘salary’. However, not going into the technical definition, generally whatever is received by an employee from an employer in cash, kind or as a facility [perquisite] is considered as salary.

​2.What are allowances? Are all allowances taxable?

Allowances are fixed periodic amounts, apart from salary, which are paid by an employer for the purpose of meeting some particular requirements of the employee.  E.g., Tiffin allowance, transport allowance, uniform allowance, etc.

There are generally three types of allowances for the purpose of Income-tax Act – taxable allowances, fully exempted allowances and partially exempted allowances.​

3.​ My employer reimburses to me all my expenses on grocery and children’s education. Would these be considered as my income?

​Yes, these are in the nature of perquisites and should be valued as per the rules prescribed in this behalf.​​

​4. During the year I had worked with three different employers and none of them deducted any tax from salary paid to me. If all these amounts are clubbed together, my income will exceed the basic exemption limit. Do I have to pay taxes on my own?

​Yes, you will have to pay self-assessment tax and file the return of income.​

​5. Even if no taxes have been deducted from salary, is there any need for my employer to issue Form-16 to me?

​Form-16 is a certificate of TDS. In your case it will not apply. However, your employer must issue a salary statement.​

6. ​Is pension income taxed as salary income?

​Yes. However, pension received from the United Nations Organisation is exempt.​​

7. ​Is Family pension taxed as salary income?

​No, it is taxable as income from other sources.​

​8. If I receive my pension through a bank who will issue Form-16 or pension statement to me- the bank or my former employer?

​​The bank.​

​9. Are retirement benefits like PF and Gratuity taxable?

​​In the hands of a Government employee Gratuity and PF receipts on retirement are exempt from tax. In the hands of non-Government employee, gratuity is exempt subject to the limits prescribed in this regard and PF receipts are exempt from tax, if the same are received from a recognised PF after rendering continuous service of not less than 5 years.​

​10. Are arrears of salary taxable?

​Yes. However, the benefit of spread over of income to the years to which it relates to can be availed for lower incidence of tax. This is called as relief u/s 89 of the Income-tax Act.​​

​11. Can my employer consider relief u/s 89 for the purposes of calculating the TDS from salary?

​​Yes, if you are a Government employee or an employee of a PSU or company or co-operative society or local authority or university or institution or association or body. In such a case you need to furnish Form No. 10E to your employer. ​​

​12. My income from let out house property is negative. Can I ask my employer to consider this loss against my salary income while computing the TDS on my salary?

​Yes, however, losses other than losses under the head ‘Income from house property’ cannot be set-off while determining the TDS from salary.​​

13. ​Is leave encashment taxable as salary?

​​It is taxable if received while in service. Leave encashment received at the time of retirement is exempt in the hands of the Government employee. In the hands of non-Government employee leave encashment will be exempt subject to the limit prescribed in this behalf under the Income-tax Law.​

14. ​Are receipts from life insurance policies on maturity along with bonus taxable?​

As per  section 10(10D), any amount received under a life insurance policy, including bonus is exempt from tax. However, following receipts would be subject to tax:

1.Any sum received under sub-section (3) of  section 80DD; or
2.Any sum received under Keyman insurance policy; or
3.Any sum received in respect of policies issued on or after April 1st, 2003, in respect of which the amount of premium paid on such policy in any financial year exceeds 20% (10% in respect of policy taken on or after 1st April, 2012) of the actual capital sum assured; or
4.Any sum received for insurance on life of *specified person (issued on or after April 1st 2013) in respect of which the amount of premium exceeds 15% of the actual capital sum assured.

* Any person who is –

i)  A person with disability or severe disability specified under section 80U; or

ii) suffering from disease or ailment  as specified in the rule made under  section 80DDB.

Following points should be noted in this regard:

  Exemption is available only in respect of amount received from life insurance policy.

 Exemption under  section 10(10D) is unconditionally available in respect of sum received for a policy which is issued on or before March 31, 2003.

Amount received on the death of the person will continue to be exempt without any condition.​

Source : Income tax India.gov.in

Non-Functional upgradation for Officers of Organized Group A Services in PB-3 and PB-4

Non-Functional upgradation for Officers of Organized Group A Services in PB-3 and PB-4

Click here to view Department of Personnel and Training  OM No. AB.14017/30/2011-Estt.(RR) dated 25-11-2014.

Central govt employees to file assets details by December 31

Central govt employees to file assets details by December 31

All central government employees have to file the details of their assets and liabilities along with that of their spouses and dependent children as mandated under the Lokpal Act by December 31, the Lok Sabha was informed on Wednesday.

All Group A, B and C employees are supposed to file a declaration under the new rules. There are about 26 lakh employees in these three categories, as per latest government data.

The Personnel Ministry has also issued new forms for filing these returns which have fields for mentioning details of cash in hand, bank deposits, investment in bonds, debentures, shares and units in companies or mutual funds, insurance policies, provident fund, personal loans and advance given to any person or entity, among others.

The employees need to declare motor vehicles, aircraft, yachts or ships, gold and silver jewellery and bullion possessed by them, their spouses and dependent children.

retirement age - 58 by Financial Express

Subject: retirement age - 58 by Financial Express

Sir,

Kindly see the link

http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/jobs/age-before-duty-babus-to-retire-at-58-instead-of-60/

 

Dear Members,

                      I am furnishing the a/c number maintained by our All India Treasurer, Smt.Liji,SR, PS to Commissioner, Central Excise Trivandrum.  Donation/contribution can be credited to this account under email to me:harisuthan@ rediffmail.com

                SBI,Statue Branch,Thiruvananthapuram(IFSC code-SBIN0008680) A/c No. 33249163649( Liji                     S.R,Treasurer CAICGSA)

                 I request  all members to contribute genorously  as we have no fund available to meet the expenses as the final instalment is due to the Advocate.

M.Harisuthan

Secretary General

PARITY UPDATE AT CAT ERNAKULAM

DEAR MEMBERS/FELLOW ASSOCIATIONS

         THE NEXT AND FINAL HEARING OF OUR CASE FOR PARITY  IS LIKELY TO BE HELD DURING DECEMBER 2014 AS FULL BENCH OF CAT IS EXPECTED DURING DECEMBER.  REPLY TO THE REJOINDER ALSO FILED IN CAT.

         THE FUND POSITION OF OUR CONFEDERATION IS VERY BAD.  WE ARE FIGHTING FOR PAY PARITY WITH CSSS  FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STENOGRAPHERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.  I REQUEST  ALL STENOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATIONS/MEMBERS TO SUPPORT OUR ENDEAVOUR AND SUPPORT THE CONFEDERATION FINANCIALLY BY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION IN OUR OFFICIAL ACCOUNT IN FAVOUR OF THE TREASURER.  OUR UNITY ONLY WILL STRENGTHEN.

SECRETARY GENERAL

Copy of Delhi High court order on Parity to DRDO.

We hope that this order will help us in achieving the parity issue to all Central Government Subordinate Stenographer in India.  Let us unite and fight together under the banner of Confederation for the betterment of the entire stenographers in India.


* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 24.09.2014
Pronounced on: 14.10.2014
+ W.P.(C) 4606/2013, C.M. NO. 10601/2014
D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Ritika Gambhir, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Advocate, for Resp.
No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
% C.M. NO. 10601/2014
For the reasons mentioned in the application, C.M.
No.10601/2014 is allowed.
W.P.(C) 4606/2013
1. The petitioner (hereafter called "the Association") is aggrieved
by the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
dated 18.10.2012 in O.A. No.39/2011 and the further order dated
01.04.2013 in R.P. No.43/2011 (hereafter called "the review order).
The Association had sought a direction to quash the order of the
Ordnance Factories Board, Ministry of Defence (hereafter called "the
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 2
OFB") dated 01.09.2009 and the further order of the Central
Government, Ministry of Finance dated 20.04.2010, declining the
request for grant of parity of pay scales to employees in Ordnance
Factories (“OF”) with that of identically ranked employees in the
Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Central Secretariat
Stenographer's Service (CSSS).
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is the association of the
ministerial staff of the Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata, and was
formed to protect the interests and espouse the cause of such OF
employees. The staff’s services are regulated by the OFB of which the
third respondent is the Director General, whose Headquarters are at
Kolkata. The cadre of Assistants in the OFs is governed by the
Directorate General Ordnance Factories Headquarter Civil Service
Rules, 1977 (hereafter called the "OFB Rules, 1977") framed under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The cadre of
Assistants is filled by promotion from the feeder cadre of UDCs with
at least five years of experience on regular basis; UDCs, in turn, are a
promotional post to the cadre of LDCs. The UDCs and LDCs are
governed by the DGOF HQ Clerical Service Rules, 1977 - again
statutory in character. The Ministry of Defence, by an order dated
29.07.1975, had declared extension of civil service rules of the Armed
Forces Headquarters (AFHQ) to the Ordnance Factories Headquarters
Service. The Association states that employees of the OFB have
always enjoyed parity of pay scale with the AFHQ Services scheme. It
is stated that this parity of scales vis-à-vis LDCs, UDCs,
Assistants/PAs, and Stenographers, was maintained even prior to
01.01.1986 under the Third Central Pay Commission
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 3
recommendations (for the period 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1985). This
parity was continued in the Fourth Central Pay Commission
recommendations (with effect from 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995) and the
Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations (for the period
01.01.1996 to 14.09.2006). Thus, it is stated that the pay scales as
recommended by the Third Central Pay Commission, i.e. ₹ 425-800/-
was granted to OF employees as well as all other employees, i.e.
Central Secretariat Service/Central Secretariat Stenographers Service
(“CSS/CSSS”) cadre, Armed Forces Head Quarters (“AFHQs”), as
well as the Ministry of External Affairs, the Railway Board, UPSC
and other departments of the Central Government which are "nonparticipating
Ministries" etc. Likewise, the pay scale recommended as
replacement by the Fourth Central Pay Commission, i.e. ₹ 1640-
2900/-, and by the Fifth Central Pay Commission i.e. ₹ 5500-9000/-
was granted, thereby maintaining the same parity. They thus rely upon
a chart which showed that as far as Assistants are concerned, for the
period 01.01.1973 to 14.09.2006, there was complete identity and
parity in pay scales. It is stated that in all these departments - including
employees of OFB, i.e. members of the Association, there was
complete identity and parity. It is submitted that in this background,
when the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations (hereafter
referred to as the "Sixth CPC") were pending consideration of the
Central Government, an upgradation of the existing pay scale from ₹
5500-9000/- to ₹ 6500-10500/-, for the Assistants/PAs was sought to
be given to employees of the CSS/CSSS, by an order of 15.9.2006.
This upgradation benefit was given by individual orders separately
issued by various other non-participating Ministries and Departments,
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 4
such as the orders of the Ministry of Railways dated 19.10.2006; the
Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs dated 12.02.2007; the Central
Vigilance Commission dated 13.07.2007 etc.
3. The petitioners place reliance upon the decision of the CAT
rendered on 14.05.2007 in the O.A. No.2591/2006., in which denial of
this upgraded pay scale to employees in the AFHQs was challenged
before the CAT. The CAT directed that the benefit of upgradation
should also be given to identically ranked offices of the AFHQs. The
observations of the CAT on that count were that parity had existed all
the while and that denial of the benefit of upgradation was
discriminatory:
"3. This has been admitted by the respondents in their
reply that all these cadres have been enjoying parity with
one and another and the 5th Central Pay Commission
(CPC) also upgraded the pay scales of Assistants and
PAs from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f.
15.9.2006 vide OM dated 19.10.2006. The only reason to
deny the benefits to the applicants that legitimate right in
the wake of principles of 'equal pay for equal work' is
that when the matter was referred to DOPT and Ministry
of Finance, a decision has been taken to include this
anomaly for consideration of 6th CPC and accordingly,
the entire issue right from the genesis and parity with
analogous post with all the possible ramifications of the
upgradation is referred to 6th CPC.
4. As in our Constitution, Article 14 forbids invidious
discrimination, i.e., equals cannot be treated differently
without any intelligible differentia or any reasonable
nexus with the object sought to be achieved, when the
Government itself admitted that there had been parity
between the Assistants and PAs of RBSS, CSS and CSSS
with that of Assistants in AFHQ and with regard to their
mode of recruitment, charter of duties and training
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 5
imparted in the grade and also selection process being
identical, we do not see any good reason to distinguish
between the Assistants of AFHQ and CSS in the matter of
grant of revised pay scales."
4. The Association had, by way of representations to the
respondent dated 15.3.2007 and 10.8.2007, advanced claims for pay
parity, which were rejected on 1.9.2009 stating that the Ministry of
Finance had negatived the request of the third respondent, for
extension of upgraded pay scales. The opinion of the Ministry of
Finance was communicated by the OFB to the Association; that view
is extracted below:
"The Ministerial staff Stenographers cadre in the
Government can be categorized into 3 viz.(i)
CSS/CSSS/non CSS/non CSSS working in Headquarters
of Central Government; and (iii)
Ministerial/stenographers cadre working in
organizations outside the secretariat. OFB is an attached
office and would come under category (iii))above. There
is no lack of clarity regard Pay scales of category (iii)
above. The same have been implemented as
recommended in Para 3.1.14 of 6th CPC report. There is
no justification for further up-gradation of their pay
scales. 6th CPC has granted parity between the pay
scales of CSS/CSSS and Ministerial/Stenographers' cadre
in offices outside the Secretariat only up to Assistant level
and the same has been implemented."
5. The Association thereafter addressed an elaborate
representation dated 04.11.2009 which was forwarded to the Ministry
of Defence. On 20.04.2010, the Ministry of Defence communicated
the views of the Union Finance Ministry which had reiterated its
earlier opinion that upgradation benefits should not be extended to
members of the Association.
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 6
6. The Association, in support of its original application O.A.
39/2011, had relied upon various orders of the Central Government,
extending the benefit of upgradation and the replacement scales given
by the Sixth CPC, by virtue of the Rules framed under proviso to
Article 309 in 2008. The CAT took note of the recommendations of
the Sixth CPC, especially para 3.1.14 and held, by the impugned order
dated 18.10.2012, that OF employees had the status of those of
attached offices of the Ministry of Defence with its own separate
structure of governance, and could not claim equation with the
Secretariat Services or the Ministry of Defence or any other Union
Ministry. In this regard, it was observed in para 40 of the impugned
order, that the cadre strength of CSS and CSSS and the method of
recruitment and deployment in various departments of the Ministry
was inter alia based upon different terms and a claim for parity by
those working in the OFB Factories could not be made on a superficial
comparison. The CAT thereafter held that upon a close analysis of
para 3.1.14 of the Sixth CPC recommendations, the Association's
application had to fail. The CAT also rejected the argument with
regard to the historical parity being disturbed and concluded that the
executive government could frame appropriate policies having regard
to the exigencies of the hour.
7. The petitioners’ senior counsel, Ms. Kiran Suri, argued that the
CAT’s reasoning is based upon wrong assumptions. It is contended
that the cadre structure of CSS and CSSS is identical to that of the
OFBs. In both the organizations, the cadre of UDCs is filled by the
feeder cadre of LDCs, and likewise, the post of Assistant inter alia is
filled by promotion from the cadre of UDCs. It is argued that the
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 7
ability of an employee to participate in recruitment in other
departments and the inability to do so under the OFB Rules is an
irrelevant factor. Stressing upon the circumstance that right from 1968
till 2006, for almost 40 years, parity of pay scales had been extended
to Assistants/PAs in organizations such as CSS/CSSS, Railway Board,
other "non-participating Ministry and Departments", the employees of
the AFHQs and the employees of the OFBs, it was urged that this
parity was not sought to be disturbed by the Sixth CPC
recommendations. It was submitted that the CAT fell into error in
completely overlooking that the Sixth CPC recommendations with
regard to the merger and upgradation of ministerial posts in non-
Secretariat offices was in effect given a go-by and not accepted, as is
evident from CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 which do not anywhere
mention the revised pay scale of ₹ 5500-9000/- for Assistants and
PAs. It was submitted that the pay scale hierarchy itself was ₹ 5000-
8000/- and ₹7500-12000/- whereas the pay scale hierarchy in the
OFBs earlier was ₹ 4000-6000/- and ₹ 5500-9000/-.
8. Learned senior counsel next urged that the CAT overlooked and
fell into error in not giving any importance to Paras 3.1.9 and Para
7.10.22 of the Sixth CPC recommendations. In this regard, it was
submitted that both these conclusively pointed to pay scales in the
AFHQs and other organizations involved with the Defence Ministry,
such as Defence Production. It was submitted that the need for parity
of OF employees with the members of the CSS and CSSS was
emphasized and underlined by the Sixth CPC. It was further argued
that upgradation of pay scales of Assistants in the CSS/CSSS made
effective from 25.09.2006 was just before acceptance of the Sixth
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 8
CPC recommendations. However, the recommendations themselvesin
para 3.1.14 were that the existing pay scale of ₹ 5500-9000/- ought
to be increased to ₹ 6500-10500/-. At the time when the
recommendations were accepted, the upgradation had already been
done. This resulted in the Assistants in the CSS and non-participating
Ministries securing the benefit of replacement in a yet higher scale of
₹ 7500-12000/-. Clearly this was not envisioned in the Sixth CPC
which had merely, in para 3.1.14 sought to merge different pay scales
into one replacement scale of ₹ 6500-10500/-. By misconstruing these
events and particularly overlooking that the statutory rules constituted
the terms accepted by the Central Government - which nowhere
reflected the pre-existing scale of ₹ 5500-9000/-, the CAT fell into
error of law.
9. Learned senior counsel argued that while the executive primacy
in policy formulation is well recognized and cannot be undermined,
yet that imperative has to yield to the dictates of the right to equality.
In the present case, not only was the parity between employees of
various organizations maintained and established; it was evenly
conceded up to 25.09.2006. The denial of this parity to only members
of OFB was inexplicable given that the CSS pattern upgrading the
existing pay scale of ₹ 5500-9000/- to ₹ 6500-10500/- was extended to
other non-participating organizations and departments such as
employees of Railway Board, CVC, Ministry of Parliamentary
Affairs, the employees of CAT etc. The Finance Ministry nowhere
objected to the extension of this upgradation and the consequent
placement in an even higher scale after the recommendations of the
Sixth CPC even though the structure of these organizations differed
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 9
from that of CSS/CSSS. That parity was denied to members of
AFHQs who, however successfully challenged the denial before the
CAT. Besides citing executive primacy, no rationale had been given
by the respondents to justify resultant discrimination.
10. The respondents urged that this Court should not interfere with
the well-reasoned order of CAT. They argued that the Ministerial staff
and cadre in the Central Government are categorized into three:
(1) CSS/CSSS;
(2) Non-CSS/Non-CSSS working in Central Government;
(3) Ministerial and stenographic cadres working in organizations
outside the Secretariat;
11. It was submitted that OFB is a non-attached office falling in the
third category and being employed in a non-attached office which is a
non-secretariat organization, there cannot be parity of pay scales. It
was submitted in the respondent's counter affidavit that "petitioners
are employed in an attached office which is a non-Secretariat
organization and there cannot be any parity of pay scales amongst
dissimilar lot and across different organizations…………the statutory
rules relating to eligibility/appointment/recruitments conditions of
posts with which comparison is being attempted to be made and parity
of pay scale being sought, are very different from the posts which the
applicants hold".
12. The respondents rely upon various decisions of the Supreme
Court such as State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj AIR 2003 SC 2658; State
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 10
of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association
AIR 2002 SC 2589; Federation of All India Customs and Central
Excise Stenographers v. UOI AIR 1988 SC 1291; State of M.P. v.
Pramod Bhartiya AIR 1993 SC 286 and SBI v. K.B. Subbaih AIR
2003 SC 306. It was further contended that judicial review in matters
pertaining to pay scales is extremely limited and barring demonstrable
arbitrariness and palpable discrimination, the Court would desist from
exercising what are undoubtedly executive powers. The respondents
reiterate the submission that the primacy accorded to para 3.1.14
which recommended replacement pay scale was justified. However, it
was stated that Para 3.1.9 does not refer to employees of the OFB nor
does it extend any extra benefits.
Analysis and Findings
13. It can be seen from the above discussion, certain facts are
undisputed:
(1) the successive Central Pay Commission recommendations (i.e. the
third, fourth and fifth) had resulted in parity in pay scales between
members of CSS/CSSS, especially in the cadre of Assistants on the
one hand and other non-Secretariat organizations.
(2) these non-Secretariat organizations included the Departments
within the Central Government (Ministry of Railways, Ministry of
Parliamentary Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs, etc) autonomous
bodies like the Central Vigilance Commission, Central Administrative
Tribunal etc. and civil organizations in the Ministry of Defence
(AFHQ and the OF employees).
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 11
(3) The Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations were
made effective from 01.01.1996 for the cadre of Assistants/PAs in
CSS/CSSS, the pay scale recommended and granted was ₹ 5500-
9000/-. This pay scale existed for more than a decade and that the preexisting
parity between members of CSS/CSSS and other non-
Secretariat services, including organizations falling under the Ministry
of Defence enjoyed identical pay scales.
(4) The 'dissonance', if one were to term it as such, occurred on
25.09.2006 when the existing pay scale (as recommended by the Fifth
Central Pay Commission) within the CSS/CSSS alone was upgraded
to ₹ 6500-10500/-).
(5) The order granting the benefit dated 15.09.2006 spoke about an
anomaly in regard to parity of scale between Assistants/PAs in the
CSS/CSSS vis-à-vis Inspectors/analogous posts in the CBDT and
CBEC which "has been engaging the attention of Government for
some time. It has now been decided that the posts of Assistants and
PAs in CSS and CSSS respectively shall be upgraded and placed in the
scale of ₹6500-10500/- prospectively from the date of issue of orders."
This resulted in a demand in CSS/CSSS and other departments which
had identical pay scales.
14. The upgradation (of pay-scales of Assistants in CSS/CSSS)
which broke the parity (between CSS/CSSS and other departments)
which had existed for nearly four decades resulted in demands for
parity by non-Secretariat service employees, which were quickly
acceded to. The Ministry of Railways Circular of 19.12.2006 granted
the benefit to Assistants expressly citing the upgradation in the CSS.
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 12
Likewise, the upgradation to the employees in the Ministry of
Parliamentary Affairs and CVC (by orders dated 12.02.2007 and
13.07.2007) expressly mentioned the upgradation in CSS/CSSS.
Significantly, the upgradation orders in such non-participating
Ministries and organizations was not based on any determination or
evaluation of its need, but the mere existence of parity in pay scales of
Assistants in CSS/CSSS and those in such other departments.
15. It is thus evident that the up-gradation of pay scales from ₹
5500-9000/- to ₹ 6500-10500/- was not consequent to
recommendations of the Sixth CPC. In fact, this preceded and was
prior to the acceptance/recommendations of the Sixth CPC. The
implementation of the recommendations was in the form of Central
Civil Service (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008. This fact, in the
opinion of the Court, has been lost sight of by the CAT even though it
took note of the events which led up-to the demand for parity. The
significance of the upgradation is that it took place independently of
the Sixth CPC recommendations and pending its acceptance. Thus,
when the recommendations were in fact considered, the stage had
been set for Assistants in the CSS/CSSS and Assistants in other nonparticipating
Ministries (but who were beneficiaries of the upgradation
consequent upon its implementation by their respective
departments) to demand replacement for the upgraded scale, i.e. ₹
6500-10500/-. The two non-participating/non-Secretariat service
employees, i.e. AFHQ employees and employees of OFBs stood
excluded. Employees of the AFHQs approached the CAT
successfully. The CAT's decision is categorically upon the existence
of historical parity - as is evident from extracts of its findings
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 13
reproduced earlier in the judgment. The members of the Association
and other employees of the OFBs, however, were left behind and had
to rest content by grant of pay scale of ₹ 6500-10500/- as against
replacement pay scale enjoyed by all other identically placed
employees, i.e. ₹ 7500-12000/- in the wake of the 2008 Rules.
16. In this background, it would be necessary to extract the relevant
recommendations of the Sixth CPC, i.e. paras 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 which
reads as follows:
"3.1.9 Accordingly, the Commission recommends
upgradation of the entry scale of Section Officers in all
Secretariat Services (including CSS as well as non
participating ministries/departments/organizations) to
Rs.7500-12000 corresponding to the revised pay band
PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of
Rs.4800. Further, on par with the dispensation already
available in CSS, the Section Officers in other
Secretariat Offices, which have always had an
established parity with CSS/CSSS, shall be extended the
scale of Rs.8000-13500 in Group B corresponding to the
revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with
grade pay of Rs.4800 on completion of four years
service in the lower grade. This will ensure full parity
between all Secretariat Offices. It is clarified that the pay
band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of
Rs.4800 is being recommended for the post of Section
Officer in these services solely to maintain the existing
relativities which were disturbed when the scale was
extended only to the Section Officers in CSS. The grade
carrying grade pay of Rs.4800 in pay band PB-2 is,
otherwise, not to be treated as a regular grade and
should not be extended to any other category of
employees. These recommendations shall apply mutatismutandis
to post of Private Secretary/equivalent in these
services as well. The structure of posts in Secretariat
Offices would now be as under:-
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 14
Post Pre revised pay
scale
Corresponding revised
pay band and grade pay
LDC Rs.3050-4590 PB-1 of Rs.4860-20200
along with grade pay of
Rs.1900
UDC Rs.4000-6000 PB-1 of Rs.4860-20200
along with grade pay of
Rs.2400
Assista
nt
Rs.6500-10500 PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800
along with grade pay of
Rs.4200
Section
Officer
Rs.7500-12000
Rs.8000-13500
(on completion of
four years)
PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800
along with grade pay of
Rs.4800
PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800
along with grade pay of
Rs.5400*
(on completion of four
years)
Under
Secreta
ry
Rs.10000-15200 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100
along with grade pay of
Rs.6100
Deputy
Secreta
ry
Rs.12000-16500 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100
along with grade pay of
Rs.6600
Directo
r
Rs.14300-18300 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100
along with grade pay of
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 15
Rs.7600
* This scale shall be available only in such of those
organizations/services which have had a historical parity
with CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS
and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in
Ministries/Departments organisations like MEA, Ministry
of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would
therefore be covered."
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
Recommendations for non-Secretariat Organizations
3.1.14 In accordance with the principle established in
the earlier paragraphs, parity between Field and
Secretariat Offices is recommended. This will involve
merger of few grades. In the Stenographers cadre, the
posts of Stenographers Grade II and Grade I in the
existing scales of Rs.4500-7000/Rs, 5000-8000 and
Rs.5500-9000 will, therefore, stand merged and be
placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. In the
case of ministerial post in non- Secretariat Offices, the
posts of Head Clerks, Assistants, Office Superintendent
and Administrative Officers Grade III in the respective
pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-
10500 will stand merged. The existing and revised
structure in Field Organization will, therefore, be as
follows:-
Designation Present
pay
scale
Recommend
ed Pay scale
Corresponding
Pay Band &
Grade Pay
Pay
Band
Grade
Pay
LDC 3050-
4590
3050-
4590
PB-1 1900
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 16
UDC 4000-
6000
4000-
6000
PB-1 2400
Head
Clerk/Assistant
s/Steno Grade
II/equivalent
4500-
7000/
5000-
8000
6500-10500 PB-2 4200
Office
Superintendent
/Steno Grade
I/equivalent
5500-
9000
Superintendent
/Asst. Admn.
Officer/Private
Secretary/equi
valent
6500-
10500
6500-10500 PB-2 4200
Administrative
Officer Grade
II/Sr. Private
Secretary/equ.
7500-
12000
7500-12000
entry grade
for fresh
recruits)
8000-13500
(on
completion
of four
years)
PB-2 4800
5400
(after 4
years)
Administrative
Officer Grade
I
10000-
15200
10000-
15200
PB-2 6100
Note 1 The posts in the intermediate scale of Rs.7450-
11500, wherever existing, will be extended the
corresponding replacement pay band and grade pay."
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 17
Note 2 The existing Administrative Officer Grade II /Sr.
Private Secretary/equivalent in the scale of Rs.7500-
12000 will, however, be placed in the corresponding
replacement pay band and grade pay till the time
they become eligible to be placed in the scale of
Rs.8000-13500 corresponding to the revised pay band
PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of
Rs.5400."
17. The Sixth CPC had this to say about the AFHQ Civil Service,
AFHQ Stenographer's Services and other similarly placed posts in
different Headquarter organizations:
"AFHQ Civil Services and AFHQ Stenographers
Service
7.10.22 AFHQ Civil Services and AFHQ
Stenographers Service have demanded parity with CSSS
and CSS. Since the Commission has recommended parity
between posts in headquarters and field offices, it is only
justified that such parity also exists between similarly
placed posts in different headquarter organisations. The
Commission, accordingly, recommends that parity
should be maintained between the posts at the level of
Assistant and Section Officer in these services."
18. It is evident from the above discussion that the denial of parity
is based upon the Central Governments interpretation of the 6th CPC
recommendations. As observed earlier, there is doubt that parity had
existed as between Assistants working in the OFs falling within the
jurisdiction of the OFB and identically situated Assistants working in
CSS/CSSS. This parity had also existed as between CSS/CSSS
Assistants on the one hand and similar ranking employees in all other
non-Secretariat employees working in different departments in the
Central Government. This parity existed for 10 years even after the
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 18
Fifth CPC recommendations and its implementation. The singular
event which brought about a change was not the result of the Sixth
CPC recommendations; it was the intervening upgradation of the pay
scales that had existed for Assistants in all these organizations pending
the acceptance of those recommendations. The upgradation given to
all others but denied to employees in OFs was the point of departure,
and also the turning point of the discrimination practiced against them.
19. The Central Government’s first explanation for denial is that
this is in terms authorized by Para 3.1.14 of the Sixth CPC
recommendations. That is plainly incorrect, because that portion of the
Sixth CPC merely indicated the replacement scales from the existing
₹5000-8000/- to be ₹ 6500-10,500/-. By the time this recommendation
was accepted, Assistants in the CSS/CSSS were already enjoying the
higher scale of ₹ 6500-10,500/-. Even the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules,
2008 support this inference. Under Rule 3(1) of the said Rules,
"existing basic pay" means “pay drawn in the prescribed existing
scale of pay, including stagnation increment(s), but does not include
any other type of pay like 'special pay', etc. Rule 3 (2) on the other
hand, prescribed "existing scale" in relation to a Government servant
as “the present scale applicable to the post held by the Government
servant…as on the 1st day of January..2006”. Rule 3 (7) defined
"revised pay structure" as one in relation to any post specified in
column 2 of the First Schedule and meaning “the pay band and grade
pay specified against that post or the pay scale specified in column 5
& 6 thereof, unless a different revised pay band and grade pay or pay
scale is notified separately for that post.” Rule 11 prescribed the mode
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 19
of fixation in pay after 01.01.2006. Part B of Section II of the First
Schedule to the Rules specifically stated as follows:
“ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
“Sl.NO
.
(1)
Post
(2)
Presen
t scale
(3)
Revised
scale (4)
Corresponding
Pay & Band
Para
No of
the
Repor
t
(7)
Pay
Ban
d (5)
Grade
Pay
(6)
OFFICE STAFF IN THE SECRETARIAT *
1. Section
Officer/
PS/
equivalen
t
6500-
10500/
-
7500-
12000
8000-
13500
(On
completio
n of 4
years)
PB-2
PB-3
4800/-
5400/-
(On
completio
n of 4
years)
3.1.9
* This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/
services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services
like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in
Ministries/ Departments organisations like MEA, Ministry of
Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would therefore be covered..
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 20
OFFICE STAFF WORKING IN ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE
THE SECRETARIAT
1.
Head
Clerk/Assistants/Ste
no Grade
II/equivalent
4500-
7000/
-
5000-
8000/
-
6500-
10500
8000-
13500
(On
completio
n of 4
years)
PB
-2
4200/-
5400/-
(On
completio
n of 4
years)
3.1.1
4
2.
Administrative
Officer Grade
II/Senior Private
Secretary/equivalent
7500-
1200
0
7500-
12000
(entry
grade for
fresh
recruits)
8000-
13000/-
(On
completio
n of 4
years)
PB
-2
4800/-
5400/-
(On
completio
n of 4
years
3.1.1
4
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”
The interesting part of the above table is that but for the explanation it
affords, the substantive part of the Rules are based on the replacement
scales being in accordance with the ones indicated in Part A of the
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 21
First Schedule – read with definition of “revised pay”. The scales
indicated, under the First schedule are in the form of merger of four
pay scales- ₹ 4500-7000/-; ₹ 5000-8000/-; ₹ 5500-9000/- and ₹ 6500-
10,500/-. All are merged into one pay scale, i.e., ₹ 9300-34800/-. The
Rules, as well as the Sixth CPC recommendations specifically talk of
continuation of pay benefits on the basis of “historical parity”. As
observed earlier, this historical parity is not denied; however, the
explanation for denial of the benefit of upgradation – and the
consequent placement in higher pay scales, to employees in Ordnance
Factories is that OFB employees are not specifically mentioned, as
opposed to mention of other non-secretariat employees: “like
AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in
Ministries/ Departments organisations like MEA, Ministry of
Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc.” This argument is both
unpersuasive and specious, because mention of specific department
was meant only by way of illustration; else a contrary intention would
have been clearer. That the mention of some, not all non-secretariat
employees is illustrative and not exhaustive is clear from the
qualifying terms – “like” and “etc.” The allusion to historical parity
with reference to only a few illustrations was to encompass all those
organizations where employees had identical pay scales and not
merely those in enumerated departments or organizations. Any other
interpretation would negate the whole intention of maintaining
historical parity altogether.
20. The other reason why the respondents’ submission has to fail is
because the Sixth CPC recommendations specifically talks again- in
Para 7.10.22 of its report that “Since the Commission has
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 22
recommended parity between posts in headquarters and field offices, it
is only justified that such parity also exists between similarly placed
posts in different headquarter organisations. The Commission,
accordingly, recommends that parity should be maintained between
the posts at the level of Assistant and Section Officer in these
services." This reinforces the construction of this Court, that the Sixth
CPC did not intend to create a disparity for the first time, but rather
wished to continue the existing parity or equality between all the
group of employees regardless of their location in different
organizations- the parity was in respect of what was determined to be
parity in work. If seen from this viewpoint, whether the cadre
structure, especially the hierarchy of posts and promotional chances in
the organization was identical or not, was irrelevant. This certainly
was not the basis for all previous determinations; there is nothing on
the record to indicate that these considerations weighed even with the
Sixth CPC. This Court consequently rejects the respondents’
submissions that the differentia between CSS/CSSS and other nonparticipating
organizations on the one hand, and of OFBs, on the
other, could be based in differential cadre structure. For the record,
there is no denial that the cadre structure in Ordnance Factories both
below and above Assistants corresponds to that in the CSS/CSSS.
21. The other submission of the respondents was that employees in
Ordnance Factories were not working in Headquarters based
organizations. The history of Ordnance Factories, available from the
record is that by the Central Government order dated 27th September,
1975, the President had extended the Armed Forces Headquarters
Service scheme mutatis mutandis to the Directorate General
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 23
Headquarters Staff. Later, by order of 09.01.1979, the Ordnance
Factory Board was set up at the Headquarters office of the DGOF.
These documents point to the untenability of the respondents’
submission that OF services are not Headquarters based services. In
this context, it is worth mentioning that what comprises
“Headquarters” is indicated in the Sixth CPC recommendations
although no such definition exists under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules.
At para 3.1.1 of the Sixth CPC recommendations, it is stated that:
“Office staff in Headquarters and Field Organisations of
Government of India
3.1.1 The various Secretariats of the Ministries and
Departments of Government of India together constitute the
headquarters organization. Tlie Secretariats are chiefly
involved in matters relating to formulation of policy and
ensuring that these policies are executed in a coordinated
and effective manner. Actual execution of these policies,
however, is left to field agencies outside the Secretariat
which may be either attached or subordinate offices or
quasi-Government/autonomous/public sector
undertakings.”
22. If the respondents’ submission is that Headquarters implies the
headquarters being located in New Delhi, there is no warrant – either
express or implied- for such a contention. Headquarters of different
Central Government organizations can and are geographically
dispersed- some, deliberately having regard to functional necessity
and others as a historical reality. These can, without anything more,
not be the basis of discrimination or valid differentiation.
23. The executive “free play in the joints” in devising pay revisions
was explained by the Supreme Court in the following passage in
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 24
Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. v. West Bengal Registration
Service Association & Ors. 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 153 where also the
scope of judicial review in such decisions was spelt out:
"We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law
on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the
appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and
determination of pay scales is the primary function of the
executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily
courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which
is generally left to expert bodies like the pay commissions,
etc. But that is not to say that the court has no jurisdiction
and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are
unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction.
Courts must, however, realize that job evaluation is both a
difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies
having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have
found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want
of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of
different groups of employees. This would call for a
constant study of the external comparisons and internal
relativities on account of the changing nature of job
requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in
view for job evaluation may include (i) the work
programme of his department (ii) the nature of
contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his
responsibility and accountability of the discharge of his
diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of
freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the
discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in
him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the
exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with
other departments, etc. We have also referred to the
history of service and the effort of various bodies to reduce
the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number.
Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be
achieved by resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing
different posts having comparable job charts in a common
scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales
must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 25
were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care
must be taken to ensure that such rationalization of the pay
structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay
structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g.
(i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is
made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv)
minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v)
avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and
responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities
with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction
level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. We have referred
to these matters in some detail only to emphasize that
several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a
pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities
have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the
hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc.
Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be
ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause
avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably
for this reason that the Judicial secretary who had strongly
recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the subregistrars
to the second (state) pay commission found it
difficult to concede the demand made by the registration
service before him in his capacity as the chairman of the
third (state) pay commission. There can, therefore, be no
doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a
complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless
there is cogent material on record to come to a firm
conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the
pay scale for a given post and court's interference is
absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.”
24. In the CAT’s order, several decisions which have declared that
the principle of equal pay for equal work means parity in pay scales
only when there is “wholesale identity” of the work and nature of the
posts involved, have been relied upon. The principle as stated is
correct. However, that itself does not explain why the almost four
decades old parity – even one decade after the fifth CPC
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 26
recommendations (which too continued the parity) was sought to be
disturbed on the basis of an event entirely outside Pay Commission
recommendations, i.e. upgradation of scale on 25.09.2006, just prior to
the Pay Commission recommendations’ implementation. The
upgradation, initially confined only to CSS/CSSS was given to all
others- save OF employees and AFHQ employees, on the basis of
historical parity itself. However, ironically, because that parity (in
upgradation) was omitted to the OF employees, it became a point of
departure. Save and except that point of departure- which is the
starting point of discrimination, there is no basis at all for disturbing
OF employees who were classified along with non-secretariat
employees in the matter of grant of same pay scales. It is not the
respondent’s case that the Sixth CPC consciously went into the subject
matter and recommended a break from the past - Para 3.1.14 and its
reference to organizations “like” AFHQ, Ministry of External Affairs,
UPSC “etc” specifically are meant to cover OF employees. In the
opinion of the Court, the submissions of the respondents to justify the
discriminatory implementation of the Sixth CPC recommendations are
illogical and artificial; they are not based on any nexus with the
objective of scientific pay revision, based on the need to have separate
pay scales, differing from others who formed part of the same class
(CSS/CSSS, Railway Board employees, Assistants in Railway
Ministry, UPSC, AFHQ etc). The anxiety at somehow striving to
reach to a basis for classification in this case is in effect a hyper or
over-classification, the like of which was warned against by the
Supreme Court in Roop Chand Adlakha v Delhi Development
Authority 1988 Supp (3) SCR 253 :
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 27
“But the process cannot in itself generate or aggravate the
inequality. The process cannot merely blow-up or magnify
in- substantial or microscopic differences on merely
meretricious or plausible differences. The over-emphasis
on the doctrine of classification or any anxious and
sustained attempts to discover some basis for classification
may gradually and imperceptibly deprive the article of its
precious content and end in replacing Doctrine of equality
by the doctrine of classification.”
25. In another decision, i.e. T. Sham Bhat v Union of India 1994
Supp (3) SCC 340, the vires of Regulation 2 of the Indian
Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Second
Amendment Regulations. 1989 - the IAS Second Amendment
Regulations was challenged before the Supreme Court. Holding the
increase in number of years of continuous service of non-State Civil
Service Class-I officers, required in the eligibility condition for
selection to the Indian Administrative service, which deprived non-
State Civil Service Class-I officers of the right to be considered for
selection under the IAS Selection Regulations (which held the field for
over 33 years), as unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to
legitimate expectations and Article 14 of the Constitution, the
regulation was struck down as unconstitutional:
“Further, we are unable to see, any reason as to why the
period of 8 years continuous service of non-State Civil
Service Class-I officers which made them eligible for
selection to the Indian Administrative Service under the
IAS Selection Regulations should have been increased to
12 years of their continuous service by Regulation 2 of the
IAS Second Amendment Regulations. In fact, no plausible
reason has been out forth as to why such increase was
made. Since such increase in number of years of
continuous service of non-State Civil Service Class-I
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 28
officers to make them eligible for selection to the Indian
Administrative service deprived them of the right to be
considered for selection under the IAS Selection
Regulations which held the field for over 33 years, with no
palpable reason, Regulation 2 of the IAS Second
Amendment Regulations which brought about such
deprivation has to be regarded as unjust, arbitrary,
unreasonable and that which arbitrarily affected the
legitimate and normal expectations of non-State Civil
Service Class-I officers and was that inhibited by Article
14 of the Constitution…”
26. The petitioners were treated historically as equals to CSS/CSSS
employees and enjoyed equal pay and all benefits flowing from equal
pay. This was based on the previous four instances of determinations
by successive Pay Commissions that they performed equal work. No
other evidence of “complete identity” of work was necessary in the
circumstances of the case. The materials on the record do show that
the Sixth CPC stated in more than one place specifically that historical
parity in pay scales ought not to be disturbed. Such being the case, this
Court is of the opinion that the CAT fell into error in holding that
differentiation was facially justified, and could not be gone into given
the nature of restricted judicial review. Consequently, a direction is
issued to the respondents to fix the members of the Petitioner
Association and other similarly placed Assistants working in
Ordnance Factories and in OFB in the same pay scale as was given to
Assistants similarly placed in CSS/CSSS, Army Headquarters, UPSC,
CAT, MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, etc. with effect from
the same date as was first given to them. Consequential pay fixation
and fitment orders shall be issued within eight weeks from today. The
W.P.(C) 4606/2013 Page 29
writ petition is allowed in the above terms without any order as to
costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
VIPIN SANGHI
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 14, 2014