Main focus in our new OA must be violation of pay parity awarded by Board of Arbitration w.e.f.1996. As per the arbitration scheme Parliament only can reject award of Board of Arbitration. However, this award is rejected by DOPT by issuing subsequent up gradation orders of similar stenographer of CSSS in 2006. The Hon'ble Tribunal could dig that since the up gradation order of September 2006 was not issued without the approval of Parliament, the DOPT treated the similarly placed Stenographer grade I I of Subordinate Offices unequally.Hence the the applicants should enjoy similar pay till the Parliament rejected the award of Board of Arbitration.
2nd comment: Based on award of Board of Arbitration the scale of pay of Stenographer grade I I of Subordinate Offices was placed equally with that of Stenographer C of CSSS w.e.f. 1.1.1986. However, by issuing of up gradation orders of September 2006 the scale of pay of Stenographer C of CSSS was upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and from this date parity of pay awarded by Board of Arbitration is violated. As the DOPT issued the up gradation order without the consent of the Parliament there is hostile discrimination in its action. In other words there was unequal treatment w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In such cases the court has full jurisdiction to interface as per various laws laid dawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court.However if the up gradation order of September 2006 was issued with the consent of the Parliament we may not say much that DOPT has violated Arbitration scheme.
Main focus in our new OA must be violation of pay parity awarded by Board of Arbitration w.e.f.1996. As per the arbitration scheme Parliament only can reject award of Board of Arbitration. However, this award is rejected by DOPT by issuing subsequent up gradation orders of similar stenographer of CSSS in 2006. The Hon'ble Tribunal could dig that since the up gradation order of September 2006 was not issued without the approval of Parliament, the DOPT treated the similarly placed Stenographer grade I I of Subordinate Offices unequally.Hence the the applicants should enjoy similar pay till the Parliament rejected the award of Board of Arbitration.
ReplyDelete2nd comment: Based on award of Board of Arbitration the scale of pay of Stenographer grade I I of Subordinate Offices was placed equally with that of Stenographer C of CSSS w.e.f. 1.1.1986. However, by issuing of up gradation orders of September 2006 the scale of pay of Stenographer C of CSSS was upgraded w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and from this date parity of pay awarded by Board of Arbitration is violated. As the DOPT issued the up gradation order without the consent of the Parliament there is hostile discrimination in its action. In other words there was unequal treatment w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In such cases the court has full jurisdiction to interface as per various laws laid dawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court.However if the up gradation order of September 2006 was issued with the consent of the Parliament we may not say much that DOPT has violated Arbitration scheme.
ReplyDelete