Reply to Counter before CAT,Ernakulam

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 6^th 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 6^th 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 6^th 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-à-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-à-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 6^th 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 6^th 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 7^th 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 6^th 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 7^th CPC is constituted  and they consider the demands of Non-Secretariat stenographer is totally baseless as  the duties of 7^th CPC is not to rectify the anomalies/long pending pay parity disputes  right from 5^th 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.