Draft
reply to Counter Affidavit
The Applicants of the
O.A. are required to make submissions on the Preliminary Submissions made by
the Respondents, as the Respondents have drawn references to the Preliminary
Submissions at many places. Thus, the remarks
on the Preliminary Submissions are first given and then para-wise remarks are
given.
Remarks on the Preliminary Submissions:
Para 1-2: The Respondents
are attempting to project that Secretariat functioning is more complicated and
requires more skilled personnel and therefore, stenographic assistance at a
higher level was being provided. At
least ten Office memoranda have been issued as detailed below, to provide
benefits in the form of Cadre Restructuring to the Stenographers working in the
Central Secretariat:
|
Sl.
No.
|
O.M. No. and date
|
Subject
|
|
1
|
No.10/3/2004-CS.II(Pt.III)
18/07/2005
|
Cadre Structure of Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service
(CSSS) -
|
|
2
|
No.21/41/2005-CS.I
27/07/2005
|
Lateral entry of Stenographers belonging to CSSS in the Grades of
Section Officer & Under Secretary of CSS.
|
|
3
|
No.10/3/2004-CS.II(Part-IV) 28/07/2005
|
Cadre Structure of Central Secretariat Stenographers Service
|
|
4
|
No.10/3/2004-CS.II(Part-V) 28/07/2005
|
Cadre Structure of Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service
(CSSS) -
|
|
5
|
No.10/3/2004-CS.II(Part-VI) 28/07/2005
|
Cadre Structure of Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service
(CSSS) -
|
|
6
|
No.10/3/2004-CS.II(Part-VII) 28/10/2005
|
Cadre Structure of Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service
(CSSS) - Scale of personal staff of Secretaries/Special Secretaries,
Additional Secretaries, Joint Secretaries etc.
|
|
7
|
No.10/3/2004-CS.II(Pt.-III) 18/11/2005
|
Cadre Structure of Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service
(CSSS) - upgradation of posts of Steno. Grade 'A' & 'B' (Merged) (PS) to
the level of Principal Private Secretary (PPS) of CSSS-reg.
|
|
8
|
10/3/2004-CS-II(pt.i)
25/01/2006
|
Grant of Non-Functional Scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 to Stenographer
Grade A' & 'B' (Merged) (PS) of Central Secretariat Stenographers'
Service (CSSS) w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
|
|
9
|
No.10/3/2004-CS.II(Pt.-I)
25/01/2006
|
Grant of Non-Functional Scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 to Stenographer
Grade A' & 'B' (Merged) (PS) of Central Secretariat Stenographers'
Service (CSSS) w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
|
|
10
|
No.10/3/2004-CS.II(Pt.-I)
31/03/2006
|
Grant of Non-Functional pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 in respect of
Stenographers Grade A&B (merged) of CSSS- Fixation of pay - Clarification
reg.
|
No such cadre restructuring efforts were taken for the
non-secretariat stenographers. The
respondents only created great disparity between Secretariat and
Non-Secretariat Stenographers, as both were equal in pay scales prior to cadre
restructuring. After creating the
disparity, the Respondents are trying to say that the functional requirements
in Secretariat and Non-Secretariat are different.
Para 3: The Respondents
are trying to misguide that the level of expertise required at the Secretariat
could be judged from the fact that the Private Secretaries are subjected to
examination by UPSC. A reading of the submission
as well as Clause 10(1) of the Gazette Notification dated 29.11.2010 would
reveal that only 33.33% of the Private Secretaries are subjected to testing by
UPSC and majority of the PSs (viz.) 66.67%, constituting Seniority quota, are
becoming Private Secretaries only after qualifying in the internal selection
procedure, as being followed in non-secretariat offices.
Para 4 to 6: It has been
averred that the pay scale of Sr.PS in the Non-Secretariat on completion of 4
years in the GP 4800, has been fixed as
GP 5400 as per VI CPC report; but, they
have been granted GP 5400 only in PB2, whereas for the same post in the
Secretariat, it is in PB3. The
Respondents have conveniently omitted PB2 and PB3 in their submissions, thereby
trying to misguide the Hon’ble Tribunal that they have implemented the VI CPC
recommendations.
Para 7: The VI CPC
recommendations regarding parity are to be seen in its totality and not
paragraph wise. The following would
clearly establish that the VI CPC had indeed recommended for parity:
i)
This has been dealt with by VI PC in para
3.1.3 of their report, which is as under:
“3.1.3
Higher pay scales in the Secretariat offices may have been justified in the
past when formulation of proper policies was of paramount importance. The
present position is different. Today, the weakest link in respect of any
Government policy is at the delivery stage. This phenomenon is not endemic to
India. Internationally also, there is an increasing emphasis on strengthening
the delivery lines and decentralization with greater the benefit that the
common citizen is going to derive out of any policy initiative of the
Government. The field offices are at the cutting edge of administration and
may, in most cases, determine whether a particular policy turns out to be a
success or a failure in terms of actual benefit to the consumer. Accordingly,
the time has come to grant parity between similarly placed personnel employed
in field offices and in the Secretariat. This parity will need to be absolute
till the grade of Assistant. Beyond this, it may not be possible or even
justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression
will need to be different taking in view the functional considerations and
relativities across the board.”
There are several
places where the report talks of parity.
In paras 7.8.3, 7.8.5, 7.10.22, 7.14.3, etc. (the relevant paras are
given in the annexure), it repeatedly states that parity in pay scales has been
recommended by them. The following points
are worth mentioning:
EXCERPTS
FROM VI PC REPORT ON PARITY IN PAY SCALES OF STENOGRAPHERS IN SECRETARIAT AND
FIELD OFFICES
7.8
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Official
language staff and stenographers:
7.8.3
Official language staff and stenographers working in the subordinate offices of
this Ministry have desired pay parity with CSOLS and CSSS respectively. The
Commission has considered the issue separately in Chapter 3.1. The
recommendations contained therein will apply in this case as well.
Assistants,
Stenographers and Company Prosecutors
7.8.5
Assistants and stenographers working in MRTP Commission have demanded pay
scales on par with those existing for similarly designated posts in CSS and
CSSS. The issue has already been covered in Chapter 3.1. Recommendations
contained therein will apply in this case as well.
Department
of Defence
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.
7.14 Ministry of External Affairs
Ministerial
posts in the Ministry
7.14.3
Ministry of External Affairs does not participate in the Central Secretariat Services
Scheme. However, parity has always existed between the officials working in
this Ministry and those working in other Ministries that participate in the
Central Secretariat Service Scheme. The Government had upgraded the pay scales
of Assistants in Central Secretariat Service and also introduced the pay scale
of Rs.8000-13500 for Section Officers of that service. The Commission has
separately recommended full parity between Secretariat and Field Offices. This
will naturally entail parity between various Secretariat offices irrespective
of whether they participate in the Central Secretariat Service Scheme or not. To
put the issue beyond any doubt, the Commission recommends that various ministerial posts in Ministry of External
Affairs should be treated on par with similarly placed posts in Central
Secretariat Service and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service with every
benefit being simultaneously extended to the analogous posts in this Ministry
as well.
7.17 Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Stenographers
in CRI
7.17.4
Stenographers working in Central Research Institute, Kasauli have demanded
parity with stenographers in the Central
Secretariat. The Commission has already recommended parity between similarly
placed posts in field offices and headquarters. No specific recommendation
is, therefore, necessary for this post.
7.31
Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
7.31.3
Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs is not a participating office of Central
Secretariat Service. The ministerial
employees have demanded parity with similarly designated posts in Central
Secretariat Service and Central Secretariat Stenographers Service. The
Commission has separately recommended full parity between all such posts,
whether in field offices or in secretariat, or, whether belonging to CSS/CSSS,
or, otherwise. This will meet the instant demand of ministerial staff in this
Ministry. All other posts in this organisation not belonging to common
categories are covered by the pay bands and grade pay discussed by the Commission
in Chapter 2.2 Common category posts, in any case, shall be governed by
recommendations made in Chapter 3.8 of the Report.
7.32
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
CAT –
Cadre restructuring of Registrars/higher scales for Assistants and
Stenographers
7.32.15
Higher pay scales and cadre restructuring has been demanded for posts of
Principal Registrar, Registrar, Joint Registrar, etc. The Commission has
refrained from restructuring of any individual cadre. No recommendation can,
therefore, be made in this case. Assistants and Stenographers in Central
Administrative Tribunal have demanded pay scale on par with Assistants and
Stenographers in CSS and CSSS. The Commission has already recommended parity
between similarly placed posts in field offices and secretariat. This will
address the instant demand. No separate recommendation is, therefore,
necessary in this case.
7.36
Ministry of Railways
Demands
– Common categories
7.36.95
Demands relating to pay scales and allowances for various common category posts
relating to following cadres in Ministry of Railways have been made:-
• Telephone Operators
& Cipher Operators
• Cashiers, Shroffs and
Finger Print Examiner of Accounts Department
• EDP Staff
• Ministerial Staff
• Teachers
• Typists and
Stenographers
• Rajbhasha Staff
• Canteen Staff
• Para Medical staff
Recommendations
– Common categories
7.36.96
All these common categories have been covered by the Commission elsewhere in
the Report. The recommendations made therein shall apply in respect of the
common category posts in Ministry of Railways as well. No separate
recommendations have, accordingly, been made here for these categories.
7.54
Central Vigilance Commission
Parity
with CSS/CSSS
7.54.4
The Ministerial staff in CVC has demanded parity with similarly placed posts in
Central Secretariat Service and Central
Secretariat Stenographers Service. The Commission has separately recommended
full parity between all such posts whether in field offices or in secretariat
or whether belonging to CSS/CSSS or otherwise. This will meet the instant
demand of ministerial staff in CVC.
11 Summary of main recommendations
Ministerial
posts in Field Offices and Secretariat
11.15
Parity established between Field and Secretariat Offices. The Secretariat and
Stenographers cadres to stand merged in future.
11.16
Introduction of a new grade (designated as Principal Staff Officer) in the
scale of Rs.14300-18300 (revised pay band PB-3 along with grade pay of Rs.7600)
for CSSS / all other analogous Stenographers cadres.”
It is relevant to ponder over
the following points:
i)
The VI CPC need not repeatedly state that parity between Secretariat
service
and
field offices has been recommended by them, if only replacement scales
as
per para 3.1.14 have to be adopted.
ii)
What has been given to Stenographers is mere default minimum
replacement grade pay in VI CPC. No higher replacement scale has been given.
iii)
The respondents have failed to understand that if the parity is not
granted, the recommendations of the VI CPC would remain as mere lip service.
Para
8: The
Respondents are advocating the applicants for approaching the VII Pay
Commission for their just demands; This is a diversionary tactics adopted by
the Respondents. When VI CPC has
recommended parity repeatedly, with adequate justification for the same in para
3.1.3 of its report (reproduced above), nothing has been done even to consider
those recommendations and bring about a semblance of parity. On the other hand, mere minimum default
replacement grades have been awarded, duly maintaining the status quo in the
grades between Secretariat and field offices as in V CPC scales.
i)
Same old recommendations of earlier PCs have been cited for not
extending parity, and the recommendations of VI PC have been conveniently
ignored.
ii)
Hence, the attitude seems to be to quell the claim for parity with
no logical or legal reasons but to hold on the age-old theory with arrogance
and close-mindedness.
It is, therefore, a dilatory tactics to divert the issue and procrastinate,
so that, even if a clear-cut recommendation is given by VII CPC, the same could
be rejected under some pretext.
However, on the other hand, even while VI CPC had been constituted
and its recommendations were due, the Respondents improved the pay scales of
the Stenographers of the Secretariat during 2006 itself, without extending the
benefits to the non-secretariat stenographers.
Para
9: The Respondents have stated that
grade pay of Rs.4200 has been introduced in CSSSS to bring about parity to the
extent the VI PC has recommended. This is once again a misrepresentation of
fact. The GP of Rs.4200 has been
introduced in CSSS on non-functional basis.
In other words, it is an extra layer between their normal channel of
promotion between GP 2400 and 4600.
Whereas in the field offices, the GP of 4200 has to be earned depending
on the vacancy and it is a regular avenue.
So, GP
4200 of CSSS and field offices cannot be compared and they do not bring parity
between them.
Para 10: It is a travesty of
truth to say that VI CPC has not recommended any parity. Many paragraphs have been quoted above to
indicate that the VI CPC had recommended parity.
Para 11: As already
stated, the VI CPC’s recommendations are to be read in totality and not
paragraph wise. When the Respondents say
that the applicants have omitted to mention about Para 3.1.9, the attention of
the Respondents is drawn to various paragraphs quoted (7.8.3, 7.8.5, 7.10.22,
7.14.3, 7.17.4, 7.31.3, 7.32.15, 7.36.95, 7.36.96, 7.54.4 and under “Summary of
recommendations”, Para 11.15 and 11.16) wherein VI CPC has stated that it had
recommended parity.
Now the remarks for the Paragraphs in the counter are given below:
Para-1
: No comments
Para-2: The recruitment and nature of duties of
both the CSSS and Non Secretariat stenographers
(subordinate offices) are same. Nowhere government had notified any difference
of duties of both the services either in the advertisement or through any
administrative orders so far. But, in
reality, the nature of duties only varies from the officer to officer or
department to department not in CSSS and Non-Secretariat as claimed in the
counter affidavit. This is felt to be a
general observation and a clever attempt of the DOPT to mislead the Hon’ble
Tribunal. The DOPT could not produce
any valid document in support of their claim.
This point may kindly be taken into account.
Para-3: Few percentage of promotion to PS post
in CSSS is given through a Limited Departmental examination and
remaining percentage is through Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and only
few stenographers are benefitted through the promotion test. The DOPT tried to hide these facts before the
Hon’ble tribunal. No departmental
examination scheme exists/introduced in Non-Secretariat
offices by the DOPT and merely citing this as the reason for non-granting
of eligible parity is felt to be
injustice.. The argument of the DOPT is
confusing and misguiding the Hon’ble Tribunal. The secretariat service has large number of stenographers
and this factor facilitates having different modes of recruitment in an
intermediary grade. Therefore, this
cannot be a reason for disparity.
Para-4: No comments
Para-5:
No comments
Para-6: As per VI CPC recommendation vide Para
2.2.19, these scales have been merged to bring parity between Field offices and
CSSS. But DOPT has floated these
recommendations by upgrading the pay scale of PA/Assistants in CSSS only
unilaterally without considering the demands of the field stenographers. So the argument is felt to be
unrealistic. As per para 2.2.19 of CPC
recommendation “ It is also noted that a
large number of anomalies were created due to placement
of Inspector/equivalent posts in CBDT/CBEC and
Assistants/Personal Assistant of
CSS/CSSS in the scale of Rs.6500-200-10500.
The scales of Rs.5500-175-9000
and Rs.6500-200-10500 in any case had to be merged to resolve these
anomalies”. But the respondent cleverly
ignored this point of 6th CPC in the counter reply and trying to
cover up the important point.
Para 3.1.1.
of VI CPC reads as “The various Secretariats of the
Ministries and Departments of Government of
India together constitute the headquarters
organization. The Secretariats are
chiefly involved in matters relating to formulations 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”.
This point may kindly be noted.
Para-7
(i&ii): Parity existed in entry grade only both in CSSS and Non-Secretariat right from the beginning. However, the DOPT suddenly, through an executive order, vide O.M. No.
20/49/2009-CS-II(B) dated 22.6.2011 introduced a new scheme of NFSG only to CSSS entry grade stenographers immediately after 5 years of service that too in the GP of
Rs.4200/-. The
Non-Secretariat stenographers are having this GP as an additional layer
(promotional post), which has to be earned subject to availability of
vacancy. Whereas the Non-Secretariat Stenographers of the grades of Grade-II
and Grade-I (in some departments like passports etc. Grade-I is a Gazetted cadre) get after
15 to 20 years the next
promotion in the grade pay of Rs.4200/-
only. It is clear from this that the DOPT is treating CSSS and Non-Secretariat Stenographers in two levels and clearly a step motherly treatment is meted
towards non-Secretariat stenographers.
Para
7 ii: The VI CPC has actually
recommended GP of Rs.4200/- for Stenographers in scale Rs.6500-10500 which
has subsequently
been upgraded to Rs.4600/- as stated in para 2.2.19 of VI CPC
recommendation. Further, the upgradation
has been done to bring parity with the pay scale of Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC
which is clear in their recommendation.
In fact the pay of PA/Assistants in CSSS brought at par with the pay
merged scale of Rs.5000-9000 to eliminate the disparity existed between the PA/Assistant in CSSS and Stenographer grade-I in field offices.
Thus the parity which existed between
these cadres has been broken by denying the same to field offices.
Further it is stated that the posts of
Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC are in Group-C cadre whereas the PAs/Assistants and Grade-I Stenographers in field are in Group-B (Annexure attached). So the argument of
DOPT is felt to be totally misguiding and just to deny the legitimate claim of
the Non-Secretariat Stenographers.
iii)
No
comments.
iv) Matching scale should be given
8. The argument of the respondent that the
scale of pay in the CSSS was revised from Rs.5000 to 9000/- to Rs.6500-10500/- in the year 2006 itself is
correct. But what they did is that, they
upgraded the pay scales, through an executive order only in respect of CSSS
stenographers, immediately after the constitution of the VI CPC without considering
the interests of the non-Secretariat Stenographers. When a constitutional
body like VI CPC has been constituted, even if they had felt the need to
upgrade the scale of pay of CSSS stenographers only, they should have referred
the matter to the VI CPC, instead of upgrading the pay scale of only one cadre
irrationally and also thereby misrepresenting to the VI CPC that both the
cadres get different scales of pay. When
non-Secretariat stenographers are demanding improved pay scales, the
Respondents say that as the VII CPC has been constituted, the stenographers
could approach the new Pay Commission and so on.
The revision of pay
scale of PAs of CSSS may have been taken note
by CPC as stated by the
respondent but the CPC in Para 2.2.19 stressed the need for making parity with PAs/ Assistants of CSSS
and field offices with
Stenographer Grade-I in subordinate offices. Further the
contention of the respondents that “Since the above structure flows
directly out of the recommendation of the 6th CPC, it is not
possible to make any changes therein”. If this is the
logic for denying the benefits to the non-Secretariat Stenographers, how
and why they have upgraded the pay of PA
of CSS unilaterally from Rs.5500-175-9000/- to
Rs.6500-200-10500/- on 25-9-2006 immediately after the setting up of the 6th
CPC, even when V CPC had not recommended the same. All the anomaly occurred due to the decision of DOPT
to enhance the scale of pay of CSSS stenographers only without extending the
same to the field offices.
The relevant paragraphs of the VI PC is reproduced below:
Posts
where parity exists and other posts
3.1.4
Parity has long been established between
the posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in Secretariat and field
offices. The position becomes different for posts above UDC level; with the
Assistant in Secretariat offices being placed in higher pay scale vis-Ã -vis
those working in field offices. Earlier, the respective pay scales of
Rs.5500-9000 and 5000-8000 existed for Assistants in Secretariat and in Field
offices. This disparity was aggravated in 2006 when the Government further
upgraded the pay scales of Assistants belonging to Central Secretariat Service
to Rs.6500-10500.
Anomaly
in pay scales of Assistants and SOs
3.1.5
This upgradation, apart from increasing the existing chasm between similarly
designated posts in the Secretariat and
Field offices, has also led to a piquant situation where the feeder posts of
Assistant and the promotion post of Section Officer have come to lie in an
identical pay scale.
Disparity
between CSS and other Secretariat Services after 2006
3.1.6
Further, it has also caused a hiatus between similar placed posts in different
Secretariats because the higher pay scale has been limited to the Assistants
belonging to CSS (Central Secretariat Services) only. Assistants working in
other Secretariat organizations like AFHQ, MEA and various other non
participating ministries/ organisations etc. have been denied this and are
stridently demanding similar higher pay scales from the Government.
Analysis
3.1.7 The Government, however, did not concede this parity and
have referred the issue to this omission for taking a final view thereon. The
Commission has separately recommended the merger of pay scales of Rs.5000-8000,
Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500. This will place Assistants in all Secretariat
offices in an identical pay scale vis-Ã -vis the promotion post of Section
Officer as the entry pay scale for Section Officers is Rs.6500-10500.
From the
above, it is clear that the VI PC has tried to bring about parity, which stood
distorted after the said scale of Rs.6500-10500 has been allotted GP of 4600
universally. The stenographers in field
offices in scale Rs.5000-8000/5500-8000 should have also been granted the GP of
4600 to establish parity in fulfillment of the recommendations of the VI PC. However, this has not been done and the respondent
is misrepresenting the facts.
9. If the intention of the respondents was
to bring parity between field and CSSS, they ought to have created a new post with GP of Rs.4200/- instead of granting NFSG
after 5 years of service only to
Stenographer Grade-D of CSSS which is
felt to be a clever move by the respondent to show that parity is meted
between CSSS and field
offices. It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal
may order for extension of the
NFSG to field stenographers who
are also recruited on the basis of the same
competitive examination and doing the same
nature of duties of a Stenographer.
It is not known as to on what basis NFSG
scheme is granted to a section of employees only. It is felt that the respondent is trying to over enthusiastic by mentioning in their counter in para
9 that “Thus it is obvious that a GP corresponding
to the same in case of Non-Secretariat Offices at the level of Rs.4200/- has been
created in the CSSS and this being so,
there is no basis for equating this GP with the next higher GP of
Rs.4600/-. This itself is clear that the
respondents are trying to misguide the Hon’ble CAT and they don’t have any
valid reason/rule to show that their stand is justified.
10. The contention of the respondent is felt to
be misguiding the Hon’ble CAT as the
pay scale of PA of CSSS only was revised immediately after setting up of the VI
CPC instead of referring the revision of pay scales of PA of CSSS had they felt
necessary. This clearly shows that their motive was to protect the interest of
certain section of employees only on a
calculative move. In field and CSSS
earlier the scale of pay starts from Rs.4000/- Rs.5000/- Rs.6500/- etc. which was
suddenly revised to Rs.6500/-
from Rs.5000/- and a wide gap of pay
range occurred in between the entry
grade and next higher promotion. All the anomaly cropped up because of this and if this anomaly is
settled the Non-Secretariat stenos will get
automatic parity in all other grades similar with the CSSS. It is therefore humbly requested to order for
granting parity between CSSS and
non-sectt also.
11. All the disparity arises because of the
unmindful upgradation of different pay scale in CSSS and ignoring the genuine demands of the similarly recruited
stenographers working in non-secretariat
offices.
12. This issues
has been considered by the 6th CPC who
came to the conclusion that pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000/- be
merged with Rs.6500-10500/- in order to bring
at par with CSSS stenographers.
But the respondents are putting an
unnatural claim that this is not a ground for revising the pay scales. This point may kindly be considered by the
Hon’ble Tribunal.
13. This issue has been considered by the CPC
and elaborately explained in para 1.2.18, 2.2.19, 3.1.1, 3.1.2,, 3.1.3 and
recommended the need for granting parity to
persons working in field offices with that of CSSS. The
contention of the respondent that “
nature of function in Secretariat are of a higher content and it is on account
of stenographic assistance at higher level of pay scale” is totally incorrect and irrational as the OM No. GI. Dept.of Pers. and Training OM
No.10/4/99-CS-II dated 1-11-1999 clearly
indicated the duties right from
Sr.Principal Private Secretaries to Stenographer which shows that these OM is for both Secretariat
and Non-Secretariat, as the post of Sr. Principal Private Secretary
exists only in CSSS and not in Non-Secretariat
Offices. In reality the State Head of
the major Departments like, AG, IT, Postal, Customs etc, are almost
equal to the Additional Secretary and
posting stenographer of higher grade with Additional Secretary equal level officer of Secretariat and lower level with the Officer equal to the same rank in Non-Secretariat is not related with any specific order issued
by the Government. As such there is no
difference of work structure of stenographers in both the service. However, the
work of Non-Secretariat Stenographers
are more complicated. The recommendations of the VI CPC vide Para
3.1.1 is clear on that, as Para 3.1.1. of VI CPC
reads as “The various Secretariats
of the Ministries and Departments of Government of
India together constitute the headquarters
organization. The Secretariats are
chiefly involved in matters relating to formulations 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. This point may kindly be noted.
Hence
it is humbly submitted to ignore the irrational argument of the respondent.
14. This is totally wrong. As per MA No.141/2009 in OA No.164/2009 dated 19-2-2009 the Hon’ble Principal Bench’s
order is clear in Para 7&8 hence the contention of the respondent is totally misguiding the Hon’ble
CAT.
15. As
stated earlier if at all CSSS had to given parity they ought to have created another scale with GP of Rs.4200/-
instead of granting new scheme of NFSG
after 5 years of service in Grade-D cadre when the Grade-D Stenographers recruited through same examination are
ignored. This point may kindly be
considered.
16. There is no mention in 6th CPC
that the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 granted to PS in CSSS is to be
considered. There is no need to
recommend parity for each grade and here also the respondent is trying to
misguide to protect their interests.
17. No comments
18. This is not the mistake of the
Non-Secretariat Stenographers. It is
responsibility of the DOPT and concerned ministries to submit proposals for
cadre restructure timely for welfare
of the employees and if not received, the Department of
Expenditure should have obtained it from the concerned. Here also total partiality is felt.
19. It is evident from the statement that the
concerned department received the representation of the Confederation submitted
on behalf of the entire stenographers but ignored the representation. They
never tried to reply and it is not understood
why higher scales are not adjustable and
no material in support of that is
annexed by the respondent.
20. Readers may please reply
21. It is totally a false submission by the
respondent that higher scale had existed in CAT
as on the contrary the Hon’ble CAT vide judgement in Para-39 has declared that
“existence of parity between CSSS and CAT…………………………………..
22. This clearly shows that pay parity is
genuine and already judgment
exists that verdicts should not be
limited to “ applicant only”.
i)
DoPT should be put to strict proof for this statement. If
Stenographers of Central Administrative Tribunals were enjoying parity with
CSSS, equal pay scales should have been awarded to them, without forcing them
to approach the courts to obtain parity.
ii) In fact, In Para
7.32.15 of the VI CPC report, it is mentioned that Stenographers of Central
Administrative Tribunals have demanded parity.
The report states as under:
“Assistants and Stenographers in Central Administrative Tribunal
have demanded pay scale on par with Assistants and Stenographers in CSS and
CSSS. The Commission has already recommended parity between similarly placed
posts in field offices and secretariat. This will address the instant demand. No
separate recommendation is, therefore, necessary in this case.”
ii)
It is strange to note that the Respondents claim that
stenographers of Central Administrative Tribunal enjoy historical parity.
iii)
This is a clear misrepresentation of fact made by the
Respondents, perhaps to alienate stenographers of Central Administrative
Tribunal from the rest, since parity has been granted to them already and the
same is irreversible.
iv)
This is nothing but a tacit acknowledgement of parity between
field offices and CSSS, but without actually conceding it, leaving the
interpretation to be done by courts and 7th PC.
23. No comments.
24. It is respectfully submitted before this
Hon’ble Tribunal that in the order issued by this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No.557
of 2009, this Hon’ble Tribunal had directed the Joint Secretary (CPV) &
Chief Passport Officer to consider the representations of the applicants, who
is also one of the applicants in the present OA, in a fair and objective manner
by constituting a Departmental Anomaly Committee. If for any reason, that is not possible, The
External Affairs Ministry can move the Government to set up another Committee
to consider the representations of the applicants, for which this Hon’ble
Tribunal itself had laid down following points.
i) The parity between the Stenographer
Grade-I and the Superintendent in the office of CPO to be maintained;
ii) The Superintendent and the Stenographer
Grade-I are discharging the same duties and responsibilities in the CPO;
iii) The Sr. Hindi Translators in the CPO have
been granted the Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-;
iv) Making the Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-
applicable to both Steno Grade-II and Steno Grade-I nullifies the effect of
promotion to Steno Grade-I;
v) The discrimination between the Field and
Central Secretariat Stenographers.
Accordingly, meeting of the
Departmental Anomaly Committee of MEA was held on 27-03-2012. The committee has proposed and recommended
that the Grade Pay of Grade-I Stenographers in Central Passport Organization of
the Ministry of External Affairs be revised upwards to Rs.4,600/- to bring full
parity between Superintendents and Grade-I Stenographers of Central Passport
Organization, after considering this Hon’ble Tribunal’s above guidelines. However, this was not accepted by the
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance and this was communicated by the
MEA on 12-06-2012.
In this connection, it is humbly
submitted that two different departments under Union of India are interpreting
this Hon’ble Tribunal’s judgments in two ways which is totally against the
natural justice. The Administrative
Ministry of the applications in OA No.557/2009 took a decision in a fair and
objective manner as directed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. However, the Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance sabotaged this Hon’ble Tribunal’s judgment and the
recommendation of the MEA by not accepting the proposal and recommendation of
the Departmental Anomaly Committee of MEA, without going to the merits of the
applicants. The arguments of the
Ministry of Finance, in the communication dated 12-06-2012 of MEA, had already
rejected by this Hon’ble Tribunal while hearing the detailed arguments by this
Hon’ble Tribunal and delivered judgement with above guidelines.
Moreover, it is also humbly submitted that the Secretary, Department of
Expenditure, Ministry of Finance is one of the respondents in OA No.557 and
hence the direction given by this Hon’ble Tribunal is very much applicable to
the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance also while considering the
recommendations of the Departmental Anomaly Committee to upgrade the Grade Pay
of Grade-I Stenographers in CPO. This
has not been done by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance and
simply turned down the recommendations without going to its merits found by the
Administrative Ministry of the petitioners in OA No.557/2009.
While giving hierarchy of
Stenographers cadre in Central Passport Organization, the respondent cleverly
avoided mentioning that in Central Passport Organization, Grade-I Stenographer
is a Group ‘B’ Gazetted post.
It is further humbly submitted that,
subsequently, a Contempt Petition (C) No.120/2012 has been filed before this
Hon’ble Tribunal. While dismissing CP,
this Hon’ble Tribunal only held that “in terms of the direction given by this
Tribunal, the respondents have complied with the order dated 29-09-2011 in OA
No.557 of 2009 and granted the liberty
to the applicants to challenge the decision of the anomaly committee, if he
desires so”, which is now challenged by filing this common OA.
It is further humbly submitted that it
is not true that the Government always respect the judicial verdict delivered
by Hon’ble CAT, Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If so, the Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance should have been endorsed the proposal of the Departmental
Anomaly Committee to upgrade the Grade Pay to Rs.4,600 to the Grade-I
Stenographers in CPO, MEA, which was held in a fair and objective manner under
the direction of this Hon’ble Tribunal.
25. The respondents are correct but it is not understood why the concerned ministries are ignoring the demands of a large volume of
stenographers when they are competent to issue/consider the demands. As such it is submitted that they may be directed to implement total
parity.
26. Citing such unreasonable points by the
respondents may kindly be ignored as there already exists many orders of the
Hon’ble tribunals.
The orders
of the Principal Bench of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New
Delhi in OA No. 164/2009, in respect of Stenographers of Central Administrative
Tribunal is squarely applicable in our cases as well. The application filed by Shri Sivagurunathan
& Others, Southern Railway in OA No. 658/2010 (decided on 5.6.2012) before
the Hon’ble Tribunal, Chennai, based on the above judgement of the Principal
Bench of CAT, has been appealed against by way of WP in Chennai High Court in
WP No. 5393/2013 (decided on 8.3.2013) SLP No. 19892/2013 and Review Petition
(SLP) No.3202/2013 (decided on 28.1.2014).
The Apex court has given its order on the Review Petition as under:
“Application
for oral hearing is rejected.
Delay
condoned.
We have carefully gone through the review petition
and the connected papers. We do not find
any ground, whatsoever, to entertain the same. The review petition is
accordingly dismissed.”
Thus,
it has been clearly established that the applicants in this OA are entitled to
parity and relief as sought for and the contentions of the respondents are
misrepresentation and disguising of the facts.
Ground for
Relief
Hence, it is highly submitted that the
job content is not at all different as per the OM dated 1-11-1999 (Annexed) and it clear from their
submission that the respondent are
trying to deny the legitimate claim of parity to Non-Secretariat
Stenos which is focused/stressed in each
para of reply by putting
irrelevant statements and misguiding information. Moreover the 6th CPC
recommendation vide para 3.1.1 is clear on that As per 3.1.1.
of VI CPC reads as “ The various Secretariats of the
Ministries and Departments of Government of India
together constitute the headquarters
organization. The Secretariats are
chiefly involved in matters relating to formulations 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. This point may kindly be
noted.
Moreover the contention of the
respondent that already 7th CPC is
constituted and they consider the
demands of Non-Secretariat stenographer is
totally baseless as the duties of 7th
CPC is not to rectify the anomalies/long pending pay parity disputes right from 5th CPC. Hence by citing this, the respondents are
trying to deviate the main points.
Hence, the Hon’ble CAT may issue favourable orders for the Non-Secretariat Stenographers working
under Government of India.
Finally,
two points are worth mentioning:
i)
The Respondents have now contended that
Stenographers of Central Administrative Tribunals were enjoying parity with
CSSS; if this is true, there was
absolutely no necessity for the Stenographers of Central Administrative
Tribunals to plead before the VI CPC for
parity; the VI CPC need not have discussed at length on grant of parity to the
Stenographers of Central Administrative Tribunals and there was no need for the
Stenographers to approach judicial forum for parity. Therefore,
it is a misrepresentation of fact on the part of the Respondents and the Respondents should be put to strict
proof for their statement.
ii)
In the Railway stenographers case
(Sivagurunathan & others), after ordering for parity by the Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Union of India filed Writ Petition in
the High Court of Madras and it was dismissed.
Then UOI filed an SLP – it was also dismissed; then UOI filed a Review Petition before the
Apex Court – This has also been dismissed.
Thus, with the ruling of the Apex Court, the parity issue has reached a
finality. Still, the Government is adamant
of not extending the benefits to similarly placed Stenographers.
iii)
Even after dismissal of the Review
Petition by Union of India in the Supreme Court, the Respondents have been
contending that the Railway Administration ‘is contemplating to file a Review
Petition’; This statement has been made
perhaps to mislead this Hon’ble Tribunal that a finality is yet to be reached,
whereas on 28.1.2014 itself, the Apex Court had dismissed the Review Petition.
iv)
Creating a Non-Functional Selection Grade
of Grade Pay Rs.4200 for the CSSS cannot be equaled to the functional grade, as
in the latter case, the promotion has to be earned depending upon vacancy
position, whereas, in CSSS it is automatic on completion of 5 years of service
in Grade-D. The Respondents are trying
to depict a wrong picture before this Hon’ble Tribunal.
v)
Instead of implementing the
recommendations of the VI CPC to grant parity, the Respondents are advocating
for approaching VII CPC, conveniently forgetting that VI CPC had recommended
parity for field offices with CSSS at not less than ten places.
